Hues or gradients?

Candace Nirvana - 121711

Awhile back blog friend Carla suggested in a comment I write about why I choose to create photos in black and white or color.  I've been thinking about it now for a few weeks and it comes down to one question, "Which works best for what I need?" I know that sounds so simple to be almost trite, but the answer is the basis of all my art and the subjective power of the medium.

When I shoot digital, I always shoot in color*.  Most of my photos instantly lend themselves to color, black and white, or some subdued middle ground instantly.  This may be due to elements being too distracting or ruining the image if not changed over.  Since the answer is usually pretty obvious, the BW vs color choice is pretty easy.

For some of my photos, it is much harder to choose the final output.  The image works very well in either format.  At this point I have to ask

1. What the intent of the photo is?  
2. Is it part of a series that is in one treatment or the other?  Does it matter if it is different than the rest?
3. Am I concerned about texture, pattern, line, shadows and graphic details?  Yes, go desaturated or BW. 
4. Is the color a or the component to the image? Yes, go color.  I may even have to emphasize certain colors and play with saturation and color channels to get it just right.

Think of a sunset photo.  I bet it is a color photo.  Now think of a photo of woman carrying an umbrella on a cold rainy day in Dublin.  You probably can better imagine that in black and white.

Sometimes I choose one over the other because of the feel it gives off.  For me, BW can "feel" more factual while color can "feel" more abstract and multidimensional.   This is not a golden rule for me, but for a recent series, I wanted the feel that black and white gave as a sense of documentary of the emotions of the people in the photos even though the whole series is conceptual and highly interpretive.  I wanted people to really focus on the emotions on the faces.  The photo of Valya in the bed works in black and white so much better for me because of the emotional feel conveys so much better desaturated than in color.

Valya - 121711

Valya - 121711

Jacqui - 121711

Jacqui - 121711

The photo of Jacqui in the truck only works in color for me.  I saw how her dress, my truck, and the rich blue California sky worked so well together.  The photo has strong directional lines that would lend well to a black and white photo, but obviously color is the best choice.  Compare this to the photos of her wearing just a white dress while sitting in the same truck.  For those, black and white was my only choice.

Jacqui - 121711

Jacqui - 121711

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding which is best.  I ask other photographers for their thoughts, but this usually has mixed results.  Some like color, others like the black and white better.  The photo of Jacqui below has had about equal votes for both treatments.  In the end, I will have to decide which works better for what I need it for.  I have to answer the four questions above to help me divine the answer.

Jacqui - 121711

Jacqui - 121711

 






















Do I have a predelection for one treatment over the other.  It depends on my mood, my life experiences at the time, and if I am excited or bored with the treatment.  I learned to photograph using black and white film, developing it, and making wet prints from it.  I feel that may give me a bit more of a push toward black and white, but I still like both.  By learning to shoot in black and white, I learned key components of line, shape, pattern, contrast, and other BW elements that translate well to color photography and make those images better.

Below are pairs of photos with both treatments.  Feel free to share comments if one works better than the other for you and why that is so.

*The basic reason to photograph digitally in color RAW and then convert to black and white instead of just using the camera's black and white settings comes down to shades of grey.  When you use your camera's internal BW setting, it limits the captured image to 256 shades of grey, but if you shoot in color the sensor captures 256 shades of blue, red and green each.  If you multiplied 256X256X256, you get the total number of different colors captured - 16.8 million different colors.  When you convert the photo from color to BW on your computer, each one of those captured colors will have slightly different shades of grey from each other.  Your BW image will have much greater tonal range and look richer.

Candace - 121711

Candace - 121711

Jacqui - 121711

Jacqui - 121711

Courtney - 121711

Courtney - 121711

Palm Springs - 121711

Palm Springs - 121711

Candace - 121711

Candace - 121711

Future focus... or not

Rain (via lensbaby) - 062711

I first heard about it from a photographer friend on Facebook.  Another friend asked me about it over the weekend.  Today I read an article about it at Slate.com.  It is being touted as the biggest evolutionary jump in photography since... the beginning of photography.  It is called Lytro and soon you wont have to focus on whatever you photograph.

Looking about isn't a techie-gadget blog, but some things catch my eye and Lytro is one of them.  In current digital and film cameras, the photographer composes the shot, focuses, and shoots.  The depth of field is regulated by the aperture and determines how deep the focus goes into the scene.  Inside the camera, the image is captured on a single plane of film or sensor.  Lytro is a completely different way of doing that.  The photographer composes the shot and pushes the button.  No focus or depth-of-field to worry about.

Lytro does its magic by taking multiple images at the same instant.  When you download the photo package to your computer, the software lets you decide what is in focus and what isn't.  This works really well when your image has details in multiple layers of depth.  This technology can also work for 3D images as well.  You can watch the silly video below or play with some Lytro photos at this site.  It is fun.



Some professional photographers feel threatened by this.  All those years of study and thousands of pictures learning how to master depth of field, special focus, and technique are useless because this camera takes care of that.  Now everyone can take a photo and have the power to adjust the focus after it is shot.  Amateurs are going to think they are pros because of these new powers.  As a professional photographer, I am not worried.  I believe this is good for the art.

First, my digital camera is a 13mp full frame camera that creates large RAW files of a single image that I focused to the way I want it.  The Lytro will create a photo that has the same focus, but its resolution will not be as high.  This makes the Lytro more of an amateur camera with users not expecting to make large prints of fine detail.

Second, my choice of focus and depth is important, but regardless of whether it is film or digital, most of the work occurs in post processing.  I touch up the photo (But not overly so.  I hate waxy-skinned perfection), dodge and burn, adjust saturation, crop, and perform other bits of my magic on the image.  The focus was only the beginning to making it a finished image.  I enjoy having that control over the process.  I doubt amateurs will do much more than select focus, maybe de-saturate it and call it good.  It will not be a refined and finished image.

Third, the old adage, "The tide raises all boats." is true for photography.  By improving the quality of amateur photographers shots, it will force the pros to improve as well.  I know I always have room to improve my craft and art.  I welcome the challenge.

Finally, I have to add that most amateurs don't consider composition of the image.  They don't often think of how a certain shadow, texture, color, or expression will work with the overall photo.  They take snaps of their friends at parties and put them up on Facebook.  I know this sounds elitist on my part, but I've earned a right to differentiate my work from the masses.  That is what separates it from amateur stuff.  Lytro is going to change how we photograph things, but it want necessarily make every photo art.  It is the artist that does that.


Video Note - This video is from a memorial concert for George Harrison.  It is great to see the Clapton, Starr, and other great musicians having fun singing this song.  George's son Dhani looks like a young version of his dad.

The 10 foot pole.

P.O.V.

"Choose your battles."
"I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole."
"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."
"Some days you get the bear.  Some days the bear gets you."

My understanding for these over-used sayings grows as I age,.  I am starting to learn what is worth jumping in to, what is better to watch from the sideline, and what is better avoided all together. 

I don't suggest we ignore the problems of the world.  I believe it is important though to look at things and truly decide if the moment, comment, position, or debate is worth my scalp.  I still lose it too often, but I am getting a little wiser on when it is worth it.

Here is a bit of advice I've learned along the way.  If the issue is for the other person like a bone is to a dog, go into the melee with all your best weapons that will completely vanquish your opponent or just walk away.  It is near impossible to change a deeply decided mind with logic,  compassion and debate.  When I say "weapons", they can be as deadly as a gun or as powerful as a hunger strike, non-violent demonstration, or a piece of art.  If you are going to engage, go all the way, otherwise,  just pass it by.