B&W Is Expressive

Regarding the intended-to-be humorous re-post yesterday, obviously I was simulating the various "looks" through the years, and of course I was over-exaggerating most of the "looks" so each would be a little more evident 'n' obvious in little JPEGs. The original digital shot of the crows over the field was taken with a Panasonic GF1 and Panasonic 20mm lens. Here's another shot that shows the raptor more clearly, whatever he was—the crows would appear to get after him and then he would get after them. Seemed like sparring, with neither side clearly the aggressor.

Here's the other photo as an Instagram (thanks to blork).

In the wake of the original post in 2012, I invited readers to make their own interpretation of the file. Here's the post that shows some of their efforts. It's rather embarrassing that it's labeled "Part I"—I had enough submissions for a Part II, but apparently I never got around to putting them up. Mea culpa.

When you look at it, try exercising your delectation—decide which one suits your taste. (I notice a number of people did that with the first post.)

The takeaway here? "Black and white" doesn't mean just one thing. There are many, many different interpretations that you can make of any given file, just like there were many different styles you could (and still can) apply to FDP (film, development, print). B&W is actually very expressive and individual, if you develop your own taste in the way you like your prints to look and learn to apply it consistently.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Thanks to all our Patreon contributors!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rory O'Toole: "Lovely to see this post again. Can't believe it was back in 2012!"

Brian Stewart: "You may have meant that 'B&W Styles Through the Years' post as satire, but it's actually quite useful. I'm currently editing a largish set of landscape images in B&W, and many of them as shot start out fairly flat. I have to decide in which direction to take them to make them tonally interesting. What is my artistic intent? And when have I taken it too far in that direction? A catalogue of radically different interpretations of an image, even exaggerated ones, is useful as a reference point and reality check, perhaps because they are exaggerated. More please."

Comments

[louis mccullagh]

I would appreciate feedback on the best software for B/W conversion. I do not mean Lightroom nor Pshop but the methods/tools used.

[Dragan Novakovic]

A B&W lover and shooter myself, I far prefer the color image to any of the monochrome versions of the scene because, for me, none of the latter comes as close to evoking the nostalgia, tranquility and warmth of a late sunny afternoon as the original does.

While I enjoyed the monochromes as very interesting and instructive exercises in B&W conversion, I feel that some subjects are 'made' and beg to be shot in color and that this quiet pastoral scene is a case in point. I am also put in mind of many of your other beautiful color images made before and about that time (e.g. http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/07102005.html).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Yep, B&W is one large section of the photographic landscape, not one narrow thing.

But so is "color"; ask any professional color printer (or, even more, film colorist, I think the title is, the people who do color grading for professional video / motion picture work).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

And...the corner of my eye keeps reading the title of this post in the left column nav area as "B&W is expensive". Which is not even particularly true, but still amusing to me.

[Richard Tugwell]

Crows? Raptor? Couldn't figure it out until I tried to clean my laptop screen and realised that those weren't dirt marks..

(There's a gentle hint include in that comment)