Any insights ...

[jazzmatazz]

... into when it's best to leave a photo in color or to change it to sepia or b&w? I know that processing it in b&w or sepia gives it more of an emotional appeal, but is there any "rules", guidance about what subjects are better processed as b&w/ sepia? For example, is it better for b&w photos to be close-up shots or is b&w also good for group photos with lots of detail?

I hope I'm making sense. For LOs, I know some of the choice in processing depends on the feel or mood you want to convey in the LO, but I was just wondering if there was some general consensus among photographers about which type of photos looked best in b&w. And, yes, I am a real neophyte!

Thanks!

[dugarner]

I don't have any professional opinions, but sometimes I think something looks good in sepia/b&w, then I process it, and it doesn't. I think it's up to your eye. If you have a group shot with a lot of detail, it depends on what kind of detail---certain things get can get lost in the midtones of b&w, so if you process it and it looks lost, then change it back! (Oh, the joys of digital!) Midtones can pop a lot more in b&w, and tend to change the mood, like you said.

If you have a landscape, for instance, where the grass is very detailed, you can process it b&w to make the grass stark, and give it a thoughtful, broody look. (Think about a lot of Ansel Adams' works.) If you have a dramatic skyline, it can look even more menacing and stormy in black and white. I shot the son of a boy from the back, walking down a pier at our local wildlife refuge a while back. Compositionally it was a good shot, but there wasn't much detail to it, or color, or a point of interest. To draw the eye away from the fact that it was a very busy picture (lots of sawgrass, swamp, the repetitive pattern of the wood) and he was almost lost in it, I converted it to sepia and distressed it, and all of a sudden, it was a pretty good shot. The effect drew your eye away from all the business and focused on Mark. You just never know.

Katrina and the other pros probably have a rule of thumb, but I would say because you are the artist, then you should process it to convey what you had in mind. I find myself playing around a lot with shots, selective coloring, etc., and sometimes I'm surprised with what I see.

Sarah

[Heidi2008]

Good question...I have no idea but I'm going to check this thread later to see if there are any good rules!

[katrinak]

My rule of thumb is...when it feels right I know that isn't much help! I do tend to go with black and white or sepia when there are a lot of competing colors with my focal point. I think black and white works well too when there is a good mix of contrast in your photo.

The beauty of LR is that you can just click through presets to get an idea of what would look good.

For this photo I knew I wanted a conversion because the original was boring so I just clicked from the top of the presets and the 2nd one "Antique Greyscale" did it for me with just a little adjustment of exposure and blacks



Not very helpful...but it is my rule of thumb!

[bluelemur01]

hi Tracy,
I don't know if there are any unwritten "rules" that everyone knows about. But here are MY internal rules of thumb for b/w:

1. If there is an odd color cast in the finished photo, I will often convert to b/w instead of playing around too long in Photoshop. Example: Heavy fluorescent lighting overhead bouncing off green/yellow walls (like at my daughter's Gymboree!) is really ugly. This is SO hard to correct in PS, and sometimes the photos aren't *that* great to be worth 20 minutes of tinkering each (esp. if I have many photos), and in those cases b/w is a total savior.

2. Sometimes a photo does not have a weird color cast, but there are so many competing colors that the main subject doesn't stand out as much as I'd like. Other times the background color -- although well exposed -- is just pretty ugly. In these cases I may try b/w to see if I like it better.

3. Photos of old people always look cool in b/w.

4. Newborn shots often look GREAT in b/w too. Just- born babies can be kind of ferociously red/mottled/yellow at times. B/w sometimes looks better and really highlights their tiny size or delicate features. (But of course I always provide a color shot too, b/c what parent doesn't love to see their baby in technicolor, mottles and all?)

One thing that does NOT work is trying to get rid of "pet white eye" by converting to b/w. You can still see it there in the blown-out white area!

To look good in b/w, though, ANY photo (regardless of the category) needs to have a good range of lights & darks. The eye is drawn to CONTRAST of light and dark side by side. A palette of muddy grays just doesn't pull in the viewer.

A photo has to be well-exposed to start; then you may need to play with the b/w settings and also add a curves or levels layer to punch up your whites & blacks. I don't use Lightroom (don't have it.) Instead, I use the b/w conversion in Photoshop. I often start with the "red filter" and back off on the red and adjust the yellow & other colors, then add a levels or curves layer to punch up my blacks. Then I sharpen a little more than I do for the color photo. I've written a few actions to simplify this for me and can adjust each photo as necessary.

I think b/w looks good if there are crisp details in a picture. Ansel Adam's pictures look so good in b/w because the detail is magnificent. If there is no sharp detail to focus on, the b/w is just bland and boring. If you lose the color, you NEED to have something else there to look at, and it has to be a good subject and details.

I think some group shots look very good in b/w. If everyone is dressed in different colors, or if you really want to focus on the faces/eyes, losing the color can make the people stand out. However, if the color is an important piece of the story (for example, a wedding party in which everyone is dressed in a lovely red dress and there are matching red flowers behind) you may actually LOSE some emotion in a b/w conversion.

Some close-ups look AWESOME in b/w because you can focus on the shadows and highlights and not worry about color at all. Other times the color itself really makes close-up pop. An example is a child with brilliant blue clear marble eyes, lit from the side. You'd definitely lose your "wow" factor if you converted that to b/w, I think.

I think your question is REALLY interesting and it's making me think a lot about my own photography and why I convert to b/w, and when I like other people's b/w photos. If I have more thoughts, I'll post them later!

Jennifer

[bluelemur01]

Here is a site I found where a photographer talks about b/w conversions and when they are most successful:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/a...and_white.html

I found it pretty interesting!

Jennifer

[jazzmatazz]

WOW! Thank you all so much!

Sarah, I do the same thing. I do play around a lot with b&w and sepia, but had no inkling of whether it was a "good" thing to do or not. You give me too much credit as an "artist", however. ((giggle))

Katrina and Jennifer, thank you for the insights and the link. I 'm going to copy this to my desktop for ready reference. I am having fun trying new things on my camera, and really appreciate the wisdom of those who are far more experienced than I. Thank you so much for sharing!

[LauraBean]

Great tips, Jennifer! Thanks very much.