Couple of Black & Whites

[BruceS]

Digital ones anyway. Thought I'd post some pics most of you probably haven't seen, so I'll start with these I kinda liked.

This one was shot in Annapolis, MD


This one was in St. Michaels, MD


I love b&w, and would really like to shoot some b&w film again. It's just tough without a darkroom, but I guess I could just scan the film and tweak 'em in PS.
Cheers,
Bruce

[Rockrolex]

Very nice, Bruce. I agree about B&W. I think you get much more tonality than with color.

[BruceS]

Thanks Ed! I honestly have a hell of a time converting digital colour to b&w. Don't know why, but it's hard for me to see the correct tones. At least with film, you just get them. Just such an expensive proposition anymore. The film is expensive, and the only labs that'll do b&w anymore are pro labs. Heaven forbid you want a high res scan made!

Cheers,
Bruce

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

Very nice, Bruce. I agree about B&W. I think you get much more tonality than with color.

Yes Ed must agree when I was in to photography in old fashion 35mm film.Working in the darkroom burning in photos,brought some tremendous ranges of different tones to pictures, plenty of live still in monochrome.

Very nice Bruce, on both. Beyond the tonality of B/W, the graininess that comes from emulsion film just cannot be duplicated through digital B/W.

I usually shoot Ilford PanX (get it, 'pan' lol) which if memory serves has an ASA of 50, which while doesn't show a whole lot of grain, there's just enough. Obviously the higher ASA the more grain, but even on slow film, it's still there.

Back when I shot professionally, I trained my brain to see in black and white, which I think I've lost. Now all I see is grey

[BruceS]

I agree John. You just can't get the same effect with digital, but the good digital shooters can come close. I've seen some great stuff, but it's usually by the photographers who were great b&w film photogs.

Way back when, a LONG time ago, when I shot b&w film and developed it myself, I saw in b&w too. I have such a hard time now and I really have trouble seeing the tones in PS.

I've been meaning to try out the Canon EOS 3 film camera my FIL got last year. It's mine to use, but I've just not done it. Do you think it's worth shooting and having to send off to a lab? I miss being able to do it myself.
Cheers,
Bruce

Originally Posted by BruceS

I agree John. You just can't get the same effect with digital, but the good digital shooters can come close. I've seen some great stuff, but it's usually by the photographers who were great b&w film photogs.

Way back when, a LONG time ago, when I shot b&w film and developed it myself, I saw in b&w too. I have such a hard time now and I really have trouble seeing the tones in PS.

I've been meaning to try out the Canon EOS 3 film camera my FIL got last year. It's mine to use, but I've just not done it. Do you think it's worth shooting and having to send off to a lab? I miss being able to do it myself.
Cheers,
Bruce

I used to do all my own processing as well. But since I left the biz, I've always taken my stuff to labs. Once you find a good one, keep them! Last year I shot a roll of B/W that I posted some pix from here. When they processed it, for an extra $20 they made a CD of all the pix on it (how, i have no idea), but the reproduction quality was fab!

[SLRdude]

Originally Posted by BruceS

Thanks Ed! I honestly have a hell of a time converting digital colour to b&w.

Cheers,
Bruce

I might be able to help with that.

[SLRdude]

Bruce

Tell me if you like this.

This is your original image, The Hedge



This is a B&W version of it that I made using nothing but tools available in Photoshop. No third party money costing stuff.
It has about four layers though, not including the frame and the watermark.
Let me know what you think.

[Rockrolex]

Not quite, Chip. Looks a little too sharp and artificial. The greys need softening.

[SLRdude]

It was a bit sharp upfront. I forgot to fade that out some. My bad.

As far as the artificial look, I really think that it is a matter of taste. I'm sure you noticed that most of my pics are pretty dark and high contrast. I guess that's just my style. Not saying that it is a good way to do it. Just my way.

Here is a much softer one.

[Rockrolex]

Better, but there's still something about an orignal that hasn't been messed with. But that's just MHO.

[JJ Irani]

Excellent pics, guys!!

[SLRdude]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

Better, but there's still something about an orignal that hasn't been messed with. But that's just MHO.

Well... I was just trying to help.
Bruce said that he was having a hard time converting his color pictures to black and white, so all I did was convert one to black and white.
I was in no way shape of form trying to make his picture better in any way, and I apologize if I came across that way.

I really am a helpful guy, but lately some of my tips and ideas have been taken the wrong way for some reason.
So no worries. I will stay out of it going forward.

[Otis]

Don't do that Chip, we all very much appreciate your expertise and ideas, and in a creative environment it really does help to have a few different views, so please, keep it up!

Anyway, here's a couple of older black & whites of mine, shot on stock standard kodak b&w, and not developed true b&w. Just as a comparison to show what it looks like. Please, bear in mind.....it was a party, and I was....well....

group 1.jpg

tarah & girl whos name i forgot.jpg

vicki.jpg

[BruceS]

See Chip. What you've demonstrated is just my problem with the conversion. I know HOW to do it, but what one person thinks looks good may be too flat or too contrasty and dark to someone else. I guess you just have to make them look good to you.
Cheers,
Bruce

Originally Posted by BruceS

See Chip. What you've demonstrated is just my problem with the conversion. I know HOW to do it, but what one person thinks looks good may be too flat or too contrasty and dark to someone else. I guess you just have to make them look good to you.
Cheers,
Bruce

I think a lot of this is just perception. If you didn't know it was colour to begin with, I think many people would be hard pressed to know it was converted - certainly subject to argument which I exopect will be coming any time now.......

I personally like Chip's style a great deal, especially with his watch shots. His fist rendering of the hedge shot above is the best of all of them in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Otis

Don't do that Chip, we all very much appreciate your expertise and ideas, and in a creative environment it really does help to have a few different views, so please, keep it up!

Anyway, here's a couple of older black & whites of mine, shot on stock standard kodak b&w, and not developed true b&w. Just as a comparison to show what it looks like. Please, bear in mind.....it was a party, and I was....well....

Attachment 1978

Attachment 1979

Attachment 1980

I agree Otis - Chip has a certain style and as noted I like it a lot. I don't think people's tastes are "right or wrong" and it would be a shame if Chip stopped giving us his tips. I hope someday to be 1/2 the photographer he is.

I like your pics very much too Otis!

[BruceS]

You're absolutely right Al. If you didn't know it was shot in colour, I doubt you could tell. Where I always have a problem is deciding how far to take the contrast, and which tone looks best. I'm tending toward Chips style now, although maybe not quite so sharp, but learning that I need to bring more contrast into my pictures. Learning to use curves is helping a lot. I always did everything in levels, but could never get the tones I was after. Still a rank amateur in PS, but getting there

[JJ Irani]

Some beauties there, Otis....you've made my day, pal!!

[BruceS]

Just had a look see myself Otis. Some real beauties indeed! Nice pics too mate