Digital Mono... Does it ever look nice?

TheKrikkitWars

TheKrikkitWars

Messages
375
Name
Joshua Kelly
Edit My Images
Yes
I've seen a lot of mono images, PP from digital raw, and they never look flat and contrasty as one expects of mono, in short they look like greyscale versions of colour photos (which i suppose they are).

Opinions Please?
 
I think I see what you're getting at - good mono shots are NOT simply colour shots without colour, they need processing differently to make a proper mono (i.e. striking usually, BW effect); often this means more work in levels, curves or simply boosting contrast a fair bit more than their colour counterpart

In many cases adjusting the 'colour' balance is also needed - obviously I'm thinking skin tones, but landscapes too need 'colour' adjustment in a B&W shot

Is this what you're getting at?

DD
 
Well you kinda answered your own question there as DSLRs always record the image in colour regardless of the settings you make on the camera (except when shooting in RAW).

B&W photos never look good if the only thing you do to them is desaturate or convert to B&W in Photoshop, they always need a bit more editing.

For B&W photos I always increase the contrast and adjust the levels (or use the shadow & highlight adjustment) in Photoshop.

Without editing photos in this way, they do indeed look like grescale versions of colour photos and in my opinion look crap.

Post-processing is essential for every photo - none of the photos on my website, Flickr or in my portfolio are direct-imports from my camera.
 
I'm getting at what DD was saying... people neglect to "think B&W" when making mono shots.

I'd all so argue about the essentialness of PP too, but thats a whole other can of worms.
 
personaly i can.t see the point in taking a colour shot and then making a b+w shot from it, just take the shot in b+w in the first place, quite a few people have asked me if they can see the colour version of a shot and they will always get the same answer (there is no colour version)
 
B&W images always seem to look better from film, even with all the smoke and mirrors available for digital-image tweaking the result never seems to be quite as good, imho
 
Harrymac said:
personaly i can.t see the point in taking a colour shot and then making a b+w shot from it, just take the shot in b+w in the first place, quite a few people have asked me if they can see the colour version of a shot and they will always get the same answer (there is no colour version)
Click to expand...

I think there's always a point to taking shots in colour and then converting them later. At least you then have a choice, you never know, it might come out better in colour.

I never shoot in black & white, what's the point, you can just Photoshop it.
 
You answered your own question with your second post I think. You have to think B&W when you're taking the shot. This way you'll always end up with a better shot than if you just go through all your shots and flicking between mono and colour to see which you prefer.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting you should shoot B&W digi, but just with it in mind that the shot is destined for a mono conversion.
 
For a BW digital conversion, ALWAYS take the original pic in RAW - in-camera BW conversion is pants...

Although I have several rolls of Ilford PanF 50 to go do some comparisons with, as soon as my 2nd OM-10 body arrives;)
 
Hmmm, I shall have to wait until I've earned enough money to buy a D-SLR, to test this. But I get the feeling that I'll stick to film.
 
The most important things about mono conversions is the concept of "true black". This is equally important in the darkroom. Also important is thinking in black and white.

A good B&W conversion should have the darkest shadow as 100% black and the brightest highlight as 100% white, just like a well exposed B&W film shot.

The other thing to watch out for is that with a B&W photo, it tends to be the brightest spot which attracts attention. You could have sharp focus on a deep red rose that would look beautiful in colour, but in B&W the out of focus orchid in the background would compete for attention and detract from the image. Obviously the opposite is true in colour photograph, where the aim would be to have a lovely saturated colour on the point of interest to attract attention.
 
For an example of the results possible when converting to B&W after shooting, check out The Ian Curtis biopic Control

This was shot on colour film, and digitally graded to B&W. The resulting film looks fantastic. (Apparently the director wasn't happy with the excessively grainy results he was getting by shooting on B&W film.)

The real test would be a film shot on a digital format in the first place and converted to B&W, but it gives you an idea of what's possible when creating B&W by digital means.

One very important consideration is that you need to choose and shoot your subject with B&W in mind. To use Blapto's example, a stunning picture of a rose in a garden wouldn't look as good in B&W, however you processed it, as it relies in colour for impact. Go for something with texture and contrast, where colour isn't important, and you'll be on to a winner. B&W requires a different mindset and sensibilities to colour.

On the technical side, for anyone who's interested in recreating a classic contrasty B&W film look in Photoshop, try using Red Paw Media's bleach bypass filter, and then converting to greyscale.

A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top