Why bother with B/W photography?

[anthoang]

I'm a newbie here so forgive me. But I have always wondered why anyone would take black and white photographs over color photographs. Color photographs just look so much better.
Remember the days when all TVs were only in black and white? but once color televisions became available, everybody went out and bought those color TVs. Black-n-white televisions don't exist in store anymore.
So i guess my question is, when would taking pictures in Black and White look better than in Color?

[freemanfan]

There are many examples where the black and white rendering simply looks better. Whether your looking for a classic look to portraits including wedding pics also have a look at fine art photography there is a place for bw.

Often an image may have too much going on in term of colour and becomes distracting to the focal point within the image in this case bw often works well.

My favorite is the work of Ansel Adams his incredible landscapes were in part instrumental for the preservation and development of America National Parks check it out enjoy, cheers

[krb]

I'm a newbie here so forgive me. But I have always wondered why anyone would take black and white photographs over color photographs. Color photographs just look so much better.
Remember the days when all TVs were only in black and white? but once color televisions became available, everybody went out and bought those color TVs. Black-n-white televisions don't exist in store anymore.
So i guess my question is, when would taking pictures in Black and White look better than in Color?
Sometimes color can be a distraction. And sometimes the contrast of light and dark is more important than the actual colors.

[Allan.L]

^^ yupp

[DiegoV]

I'm a newbie here so forgive me. But I have always wondered why anyone would take black and white photographs over color photographs. Color photographs just look so much better.
Remember the days when all TVs were only in black and white? but once color televisions became available, everybody went out and bought those color TVs. Black-n-white televisions don't exist in store anymore.
So i guess my question is, when would taking pictures in Black and White look better than in Color?

Take a look at this photographer's photos: http://photo.net/photos/nanasousadias. Especially the portraits and the "Dunes" gallery.

At least in my opinion, these look great in B&W and they wouldn't look as good in color.

There are way more examples, though.

[7D_Sniper]

It's a nostalgic thing as well, why do people still shoot film? It's a sense of not loosing the form that started it all. Plus it just cool.

[DiegoV]

It's a nostalgic thing as well, why do people still shoot film? It's a sense of not loosing the form that started it all. Plus it just cool.

I hadn't thought of that, but yeah...that makes perfect sense. Besides being an aesthetic/artistic choice it can be also for a nostalgic reason. :)

[it`s me]

look through some threads of the simply amazing black and white pics at this site, should help you see the light...so to speak.

[Hotsauce]

I'm currently going to school for photography and my first two semesters, nothing I submit is in colour. I think the reasoning behind it is the simplicity of dealing with just 256 tones as opposed to the millions of colours that colour images bring. Also to get colour management right is a really involved process to do right so I guess is just a case of keeping it simple. TBH though at this point I am getting a little tired of B&W

[airfrogusmc]

I'm a newbie here so forgive me. But I have always wondered why anyone would take black and white photographs over color photographs. Color photographs just look so much better.
Remember the days when all TVs were only in black and white? but once color televisions became available, everybody went out and bought those color TVs. Black-n-white televisions don't exist in store anymore.
So i guess my question is, when would taking pictures in Black and White look better than in Color?
Almost every great movie director has done a film in B&W. Scorsese said (like someone else mentioned in this thread) you pay attention to other things besides the color in a B&W film.

I personally think that portraits are much stronger in B&W. You tend to really look at the person instead of the color.

Take a look through this portfolio.
http://photography-now.net/ansel_adams/

[Klaus Meister]

I think photographers today are way to fixated on color photography. The roots of modern day photography lie with black and white.
Black and white is able to convey mood, emotion and texture better than color in many photographs. i think B&W brings out the true essence of the subject.

[Todd Lambert]

Well, there are very little true black and white photographs taken anymore. It used to be prevalent because there were no other options due to lack of technology.

Since then, we have color and everything has moved to that. Black and White is now a creative choice made by the photographer based on their needs/wants and the image they are trying to portray.

So in essence, what you're asking is why do some make the creative decision to use black and white?

[airfrogusmc]

In the film days many of the greats like Adams chose to shoot B&W because of the control it gave them that they didn't have with color. I knew some that would call color a barbaric process. Most of these guys were zone system photographers and one way you control contrast in the zone system or control zones is through developing times of your negs.

So if you need more contrast you increase your development time of the negs need less you decrease the dev time. Its actually a bit more complicated than that but if you start changing the times with color you get color shifts that may or may not be correctable. And when you look at a color image, the color, if its to far off causes the entire image to be unusable. So these zone system photographers shot B&W to control the image.

To be able to capture what they saw in their minds eye which may or may not have been the way it actually was. It gave then the control to know before hand where to place the tones or zones in the image by exposure and then the correct predetermined development time could control the shadows and highlights to match what they preconceived or envisioned the way they wanted the scene to be. They couldn't do that with color.

[jetcode]

Not to mention the cost of reproducing color is high compared to B/W.

[airfrogusmc]

Not to mention the cost of reproducing color is high compared to B/W.

Yeah. THe entire reason to shoot the zone system is to process all of your negs yourself. I used to save up till I had between 12-14 negs (large format sheets) say that needed an N+1 development times (that was the # that gave me the right agitation time and I'd just flip from bottom to top for whatever the N+1 time was that I had determined through a series of test. Do the same for the Normal dev time negs and any others like N-1, N-2 etc.

[Tony-S]

It's a nostalgic thing as well, why do people still shoot film? It's a sense of not loosing the form that started it all.

It's more than that. With B&W film you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. With digital, you expose for the highlights and pray that you can recover the shadows.

[Jannie]

Because black and white can be so perfect, so beautiful. I probably still finish about 10% of my portrait sessions with black and white images.

[digirebelva]

A majority of my sold images have been B&W....just something to keep in mind...;)

[airfrogusmc]

It's more than that. With B&W film you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. With digital, you expose for the highlights and pray that you can recover the shadows.

There are many great landscape photographers that still shoot large format film for the control that Tony just described. Heres one of my favs.
http://www.michaeljohnsonphotography.com/
Check out the midwest section. I did a zone system work shop with Michael many years ago.

[enrigonz]

I think photographers today are way to fixated on color photography. The roots of modern day photography lie with black and white.
Black and white is able to convey mood, emotion and texture better than color in many photographs. i think B&W brings out the true essence of the subject.

+++1^^^

[Tony-S]

yuck yuck yuck I'm not smiling! Of course exposing for the shadows doesn't guarantee more noise free detail if in fact the negative is scanned for print! It really only works with photosensitive print materials.

With film, because of the shoulder and toe, if you properly expose and develop the image you will have all that information in the negative and it will scan. With digital, if the sensor can't record it, there's no way to get it. This is one (of the few) areas where film still rules.

[airfrogusmc]

With film, because of the shoulder and toe, if you properly expose and develop the image you will have all that information in the negative and it will scan. With digital, if the sensor can't record it, there's no way to get it. This is one (of the few) areas where film still rules.

And different films with different developers and dilution could extend the toe and the shoulder. Adams used a special dilution of HC110 with tri-x professional sheet film 320 that had an incredible toe thus gave him shadow detail that he couldn't get with other dev/film/dilution combos.

I always liked t-max 400 with rodinal 1:50.

[Tony-S]

My fav film is Acros, but just bought a box HP5+ in 4x5. I also just picked up a Fujinon 90mm f/8. I need to make a lens board for it. Hopefully I can get started on it tomorrow if my honeydo list isn't too long. I'm getting ready to mix my first batch of XTOL as I've heard really good things about it.

[airfrogusmc]

My fav film is Acros, but just bought a box HP5+ in 4x5. I also just picked up a Fujinon 80mm f/8. I need to make a lens board for it. Hopefully I can get started on it tomorrow if my honeydo list isn't too long. I'm getting ready to mix my first batch of XTOL as I've heard really good things about it.

I've never tried it. Good luck and I can't wait to see some results.

GO BEARS!!!!

[Andy R]

cause you get more feeling out a bw image then you might with the colors there to distract from the contrast...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs972.snc4/76591_10150098864855390_637885389_7906194_7602428_ n.jpg

[Klaus Meister]

And different films with different developers and dilution could extend the toe and the shoulder. Adams used a special dilution of HC110 with tri-x professional sheet film 320 that had an incredible toe thus gave him shadow detail that he couldn't get with other dev/film/dilution combos.

I always liked t-max 400 with rodinal 1:50.

+1 on this. I used a lot of Rodinal and Diafine with my 4x5 sheet film.
Had great results with Acufine for push process TX

[airfrogusmc]

cause you get more feeling out a bw image then you might with the colors there to distract from the contrast...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs972.snc4/76591_10150098864855390_637885389_7906194_7602428_ n.jpg

Theres really no detail in either the shadow or the highlights and I think more in both areas would really help this image. Sorry but I'm not sure this is a great example. :D

[airfrogusmc]

+1 on this. I used a lot of Rodinal and Diafine with my 4x5 sheet film.
Had great results with Acufine for push process TX

Yes on 35mm tri x acufine (a fine grain developer) would help with the grain on a pushed neg and for 4X5 rodinal like HC100 are both more acutance developer (opposite of fine grain) thus really sharp negs (doesn't soften the silver halide crystals) where fine grain softens the silver halide crystals (softer images) so both are a great pairing with large format negs.

[TekHouse]

Move this to the discussion forum for B&W

[Jannie]

I used to shoot Tri-X in my Hasseblad at ASA 400 instead I'd 1200 and develop in Diafine for another photographer who wanted me to do it that way and the shadows never for lost. Personally I liked Tri-x over all others and processed in dektol in the normal way, I jus loved the. Grain it produced.

I developed my own kind of zone system based somewhat on Ansel Adams and Minor white when shooting motion picture film. I would light the scene, take an initial meter reading with an incident meter and then use my spot meter to adjust for the most important parts like shadows or skin or highlights. I wouldn't stop there as I would the adjust the lighting to make the image work in the way I wanted to fit that metering scale. Kind of doing it backwards I suppose but it worked. I didn't have the option of asking the lab to vary the processing other than to push it which I avoided, so ther was no water bath process for negatives or workprint with motion film.

[airfrogusmc]

Pushing film really goes against the very principles of the zone system. What happens when you push film is you under expose the film which pushed the shadows farther down in the toe in other words loose them and you have to over expose to bring the highlights back to a more normal level thus increasing the contrast at the expense of mid tones. One of the reason to use the zone system is to be able to control those details in shadows and mid tones through correct exposure (have to test to find the proper ASA/ISO for the lens camera used threshold of exposure over film base + fog) development times to control detail in the highlights.

Photojournalists used it to be able to get shots in low light they normally wouldn't be able to get but it was always at the expense of shadow and mid tone detail.

[Krzysztof]

I've discovered that a color photograph can often be about the color in it. A B/W photo tends bring out the shapes in it and the essence of emotion. I love B/W and I recommend you see this movie for it's visual aspect: The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

[anthoang]

Well, there are very little true black and white photographs taken anymore. It used to be prevalent because there were no other options due to lack of technology.

Since then, we have color and everything has moved to that. Black and White is now a creative choice made by the photographer based on their needs/wants and the image they are trying to portray.

So in essence, what you're asking is why do some make the creative decision to use black and white?

I started this thread because I wanted to do some B/W photography. I guess my real question is, when is it a good time to shoot in B/W instead of Color? What subjects would look better in B/W instead of color.

My first guess would be a bride and groom, where the groom is wearing a black tuxedo and the bride is wearing a white dress. any other ideas?


A majority of my sold images have been B&W....just something to keep in mind...;)

digirebelva, what kind of B/W photographs have your customers been buying?



.

[Todd Lambert]

I think you may need to try processing in BW more, and I'll bet you'll see where and how it can be used to benefit.

It's hard to give more guidance for this, as I said, it's a creative choice that the photographer makes to get the image to tell the story the way the photographer saw it or wants it to be seen.

After using BW more, you'll become accustomed to seeing things in BW(sorry no pun intended) and you'll know better where it can be used and where it can't.

To start, I'd say that processing your color shots into BW versions would be a good step, as it will help to teach you what works and what doesn't in this medium. I am still doing this myself, as I am admittedly, not a primary BW shooter. There is a difference between planning and executing a shot with the initial intention of using BW and merely converting colors pieces to BW after the fact. However, the only real way to do the latter, is to shoot shots or convert shots to BW and see how it affects images and their subject matter.

[anthoang]

I've discovered that a color photograph can often be about the color in it. A B/W photo tends bring out the shapes in it and the essence of emotion. I love B/W and I recommend you see this movie for it's visual aspect: The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)


I believe the attached photo is a good example of what you're talking about. The blacks in this photo are the shapes of the rocks and the beach goer. The whites are just empty space (sand).

http://inlinethumb25.webshots.com/22872/2322256890054322134S425x425Q85.jpg


perhaps B/W are great for 'silhouette' type photos as well.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2161/2176818330_9af74fbc96.jpg

[anthoang]

My first B/W. obviously very photoshopped

.

[Saxi]

I'm a newbie here so forgive me. But I have always wondered why anyone would take black and white photographs over color photographs. Color photographs just look so much better.
Remember the days when all TVs were only in black and white? but once color televisions became available, everybody went out and bought those color TVs. Black-n-white televisions don't exist in store anymore.
So i guess my question is, when would taking pictures in Black and White look better than in Color?

You have a collection of images; say a few hundred? Do you have a good tool like Lightroom or something that can mass convert / view images?

If so, convert your entire collection to B&W and look them over. I think the answer will jump out at you.

Some images just look good.

Here is an image I took the other day, and later decided to try B&W and found I liked it a lot better that way.

I am the last person here to be using B&W, I rarely do it and I don't have a lot of experience as many who use B&W a lot. I still use it when an image really comes across as one that it would work well, in many cases better.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2qtctmr.jpg

http://i56.tinypic.com/ngf32f.jpg

[krb]

Here is an image I took the other day, and later decided to try B&W and found I liked it a lot better that way.
This is a good example of how color can be a distraction. In the color version the red of the shirt and the reddish brown of the wooden chair compete for the viewers attention but in the B&W version they face into the background more.

[Saxi]

This is a good example of how color can be a distraction. In the color version the red of the shirt and the reddish brown of the wooden chair compete for the viewers attention but in the B&W version they face into the background more.

I thought so too, the only problem I had is the cat hair is more noticeable in b&w.

[CallumPhoto]

I'm a newbie here so forgive me. But I have always wondered why anyone would take black and white photographs over color photographs. Color photographs just look so much better.
...
So i guess my question is, when would taking pictures in Black and White look better than in Color?

Both are those things are subjective and it's all about vision and aesthetics. There's lots of times but plenty of people have mentioned some before me.

[Saxi]

Both are those things are subjective and it's all about vision and aesthetics. There's lots of times but plenty of people have mentioned some before me.

Almost everything in photography is subjective.

[CallumPhoto]

Almost everything in photography is subjective.

Almost everything in life is subjective, the point is each of us have to decide when black and white and colour is the better choice. Which is just our personal vision.

[nodal]

Here is quick history on BW for anyone interested. Scroll to the bottom of the page for profiles and galleries of some of the masters.

http://photomentors.com/2009/11/18/history-of-photography/masters-of-photography-alfred-eisenstaedt-profile-quotes/

[Clean Gene]

I started this thread because I wanted to do some B/W photography. I guess my real question is, when is it a good time to shoot in B/W instead of Color? What subjects would look better in B/W instead of color.

My first guess would be a bride and groom, where the groom is wearing a black tuxedo and the bride is wearing a white dress. any other ideas?


.

Here's my thought on that...you obviously have seen black and white pictures that you like, otherwise I doubt that you'd want to do black and white yourself.

So...start there. Identify which black and white pictures you like, then identify WHY you like them. Once you've identified WHY black and white helped those to be succesful images, once you've identified the specific ASPECTS which made those black and white images work, then you can try to replicate them.

But aside from that, I don't know what to tell you. When is a good time to do black and white instead of color? Whenever black and white results in a better image than in color. What subjects would look better in black and white? I dunno...that depends on what you want out of your pictures.

There's no formula for that. Do black and white when black and white works better, but you're the photographer and you're the one creating intent. So it';s sort of YOUR job to decide what works better. That's where the artistry becomes at least as important as the craftsmanship.

Bottom line is that you should do what works better. But what's going to work better depends largely on your intentions and your ability to communicate those ideas. And that's something that can't really be answered within the parameters of your question. You ask when black and white works better, but I don't even know what you WANT out of your pictures. Best thing you can do is to simply find a buttload of black and white pictures that you think are awesome, and then identify WHY you think they are awesome.

But if you don't want to be bothered with all of that, then you could notice that many black and white pictures are either landscapes, architectural pictures, or portraits. So you can just assume that black and white is good for landscapes, architecture, and portraits. I'm not gonna guarantee that the pictures will be better than color if you follow that line of reasoning, but you absolutely CAN follow that line of reasoning if you just want a formula for what to do.

And one last thing...,I hope I didn't come off as sort of a jerk. I know that one can think that that was my intent, since one of my solutions was basically "figure it out for yourself" and the other "solution" was basically "just do landscapes, since that seems to work well for other people who do black and white". Yes, I absolutely realize that I didn't answer your question. But let me also state that I am not TRYING top be a jerk by deliberately avoiding giving you any helpful answers. The point is this...to a large extent you really DO sort of have to figure out much of this for yourself. And at the very least, I can't even begin to tell you when black and white works better than color without even having an idea of what you want your pictures to SAY.

[Repo Man]

To add to the above ( and any other info already provided in this thread ) i would suggest that if you wish to have a go at black & white photography, i would recommend setting your camera to shoot black & white ( If you shoot in RAW, you'll naturally still get all the color info should you decide that color works better ). This can help you get in the b&w mindset and focus on that, then simply head out and start shooting.

When i first got into photography i was only interested in shooting in color but then one day i decided to try a b&w convertion for giggles and much to my surprise it worked a lot better that way and the way i could push the contrast a bit further and manipulate the tones in Camera RAW was fascinating to me. I then began looking more at b&w images and noticed how things like light, shadows, textures and shapes were sort of more pronounced without color stealing attention from them. I was hooked!

I would say that shooting in b&w has helped me train my eye a bit more to spot things like texture and shapes. Sometimes its good to go back to the roots and put yourself in the position where the pioneers once were. :)

[Clean Gene]

My first B/W. obviously very photoshopped

.

Nice composition, but there's a problem with the conversion.

See, there really aren't any "blacks" there. It's a silhouette shot, the tree for example hardly has any detail in it. And human experience sort of says that when something is silhouetted like that with no detail, that it ought to be rendered as black (or very close to black).

The picture would actually be fine with the tree not being black, but only if there's a corresponding increase in DETAIL. There don't have to necessarily be any blacks there, but the lack of blacks sort of implies that there should have been enough light to capture the detail in the tree. Having the tree being simultaneously silhouetted AND sort of a lower-middle gray just makes the picture look weird. It ends up LOOKING like the tree was underexposed to the point where no detail was recorded, but then you simply tried to compensate by brightening the tree. But that doesn't work. That just turns a black silhouette into a strange-looking gray silhouette, but it doesn't actually bring back detail. It just turns featureless black values into featureless gray values.

Anyway, the composition is good, it seems like it could make for a good picture. But the conversion into black and white could use some work. This could work as a silhouette, but in that case there ought to be a lot more black in the picture. Alternatively, the picture could work as being all grays, but I believe that you'd really have to bring out some detail in those grays or else it just looks weird and unnatural.

Anyway, nice first attempt. I'd personally recommend going pretty easy on the Photoshopping when you first start out, though. Keep it simple when starting out.

[Spacemunkie]

I guess my real question is, when is it a good time to shoot in B/W instead of Color?

The answer to that is simple: never shoot in b&w with digital. You take colour images in RAW and do the b&w conversion later on. Colour is extremely important for b&w imaging ;)

[Spacemunkie]

Theres really no detail in either the shadow or the highlights and I think more in both areas would really help this image. Sorry but I'm not sure this is a great example. :D

I tend to disagree with this and would personally have gone further by actually removing most (or all) of the detail in the landscape. I like the sooty coaliness - suits the smog and ****e coming out of the chimneys...

[Boutte]

Two completely different pictures from the same image.
http://boutte.smugmug.com/Other/Black-and-white/IMG9925aBW-final/1198290343_DzuXg-L.jpg (http://boutte.smugmug.com/Other/Black-and-white/14914245_bUoUP#1198290343_DzuXg-A-LB)
http://boutte.smugmug.com/Other/New-orleans/IMG9925/1194416175_9VbZJ-L.jpg (http://boutte.smugmug.com/Other/New-orleans/11727629_UJhup#1194416175_9VbZJ-A-LB)

[anthoang]

Here's my 2nd B/W. Maybe sometimes it does make sense to have an image in black and white.


.

[RDKirk]

Pushing film really goes against the very principles of the zone system. What happens when you push film is you under expose the film which pushed the shadows farther down in the toe in other words loose them and you have to over expose to bring the highlights back to a more normal level thus increasing the contrast at the expense of mid tones.

Wait, pushing film (underexposing and overdeveloping) was absolutely a valid part of the Zone System--it was how you handled situations of extremely low contrast, such as haze. It wasn't a frequently required technique, but it's right there in the books (both Adams' and Picker's).

[RDKirk]

Black and white works fantastically for dramatic lighting and mood, not only in still photography but also in cinema. Black and white is most often poorly done these days--people tend merely to desaturate a color image, which usually results in insipid black and white. You have to be thinking in black and white--in terms of the forms created by light and shadow--when you take the image.

In photojournalism, black and white is often, ironically, conveys a better sense of reality than color, simply because color injects emotional responses that often have nothing to do with the real situation. For instance, many impoverished areas also happen to be quite warmly colored--rusted shanty roofs can look quite festive in color.

[sjones]

...Maybe sometimes it does make sense to have an image in black and white...

And for some folks, maybe all the time. It's all subjective.

[Clean Gene]

Wait, pushing film (underexposing and overdeveloping) was absolutely a valid part of the Zone System--it was how you handled situations of extremely low contrast, such as haze. It wasn't a frequently required technique, but it's right there in the books (both Adams' and Picker's).


I understand the "overdeveloping" part, but why would you underexpose in the first place?

And that's not a rhetorical smart-ass question, I really don't know.

But like, if it was a hazy day or something, why wouldn't I simply PROPERLY expose for the important shadows and then overdevelop the **** out of the film in order to get the highlights back and increase contrast?

Why would I want to start out by underEXPOSING? If I'm just trying to increase contrast or something, then why does it help to underEXPOSE? I mean, in either case, aren't we talking about a metered difference of only a few stops between important zones? If it's a low contrast scene with shadows at zone 3 and highlights at zone 6, then why underexpose? Sure...more of the highlights will come back with overdevelopment. But why don't I lose more simply by underexposing in the first place? I mean...shadows at zone 3 and highlights at zone 6 (just as an example) might be unacceptable. Instead of a 3-zone differnce, I might want a 5-zone difference. But wouldn't underexposing in that particular case simply require me to do MORE overdeveloping just to get the contrast where I want it and the highlights where I want them to be?

Again...that's not a rhetorical question. I don't know much about this stuff, and I'm genuinely curious about the WHY.

I understand the WHY of overdeveloping (at least...I think I do). But the part about UNDEREXPOSING is the part that I don't get. If the problem is low contrast, then cant that be addressed without unederexposing? And if the shadows get underexposed by two stops (two stops just being an example...pick any number), then WHY don't the highlights ALSO get underexposed by two stops. And WHY doesn't that simply make it harder to bring back both the shadows AND the highlights?

[RDKirk]

But like, if it was a hazy day or something, why wouldn't I simply PROPERLY expose for the important shadows and then overdevelop the **** out of the film in order to get the highlights back and increase contrast?

I spoke too glibly, perhaps, about "underexposing." Exposure for black and white film is inseparable from the concepts of how you measured exposure in the first place as well as how you intend to develop it.

If, based on your exposure methodology and your development, you end up with the negative that prints the way you want it, your exposure was proper.

In this case, "underexposure" means "compared to the film manufacturer's recommendation."

I will measure my important shadows with my spotmeter and place them on the tone I want them to be. In a low-contrast situation (not necessarily hazy--it could be just low contrast lighting), that might very well be a Zone lower than they actually are visually.

[Clean Gene]

I spoke too glibly, perhaps, about "underexposing." Exposure for black and white film is inseparable from the concepts of how you measured exposure in the first place as well as how you intend to develop it.

If, based on your exposure methodology and your development, you end up with the negative that prints the way you want it, your exposure was proper.

In this case, "underexposure" means "compared to the film manufacturer's recommendation."

I will measure my important shadows with my spotmeter and place them on the tone I want them to be. In a low-contrast situation (not necessarily hazy--it could be just low contrast lighting), that might very well be a Zone lower than they actually are visually.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear either. When I mentioned "PROPERLY exposing for the shadows", I meant, "exposing in order to place the important shadow areas where you want them to be". And as you said, that really isn't "underexposing". That's more "properly exposing for the shadows, and being aware of where the highlights and mid-tones are so that they can be brought back during printing and film processing".

And don't get me wrong...I understand that completely (well...obviously not COMPLETELY or even ADEQUATELY or else I wouldn't even be asking this question; but I think you get my point).

What I don't understand is why during normal usage one would kill shadow detail just to increase contrast in a low contrast scene. That's the part I don't get. I mean, if that's the REASON for killing the shadows, then WHY? I fully understand killing the shadow detail if the photographer just plain doesn't want detail to be there. I understand killing shadow detail in order to articificially increase the film's "speed" in order to get shots that he otherwise couldn't get. But aren't those going to be cases in which "increasing contrast" is a SECONDARY goal? As in, not "the reason" why the shadow detail had to die?

If the primary GOAL is to increase contrast in a low-contrast scene, if that's the REASON why someone is "underexposing and overdeveloping", then can't that be done without losing all of the detail in the shadows?

Don't get me wrong...I can certainly imagine OTHER reasons why someone would choose to kill important shadow areas for the sake of the picture. But why do that when the GOAL is merely to increase contrast in a scene that was already-low contrast to begin with?

I mean, high-density areas can often have detail recovered from them, whereas areas of too-low density are just dead because no information was recorded. Am I correct there? If so, and if I'm shooting a LOW-CONTRAST scene and I want more contrast, then doesn't it benefit me to PROPERLY expose for the shadows and then control the mid-tones and highlights through developing and printing? Why would I want to do the reverse...killing the shadows and requiring longer development times just to bring the highlights back? Again...I understand doing that for certain situations. Like when someone is using a film that isn't otherwise fast enough to get the shots they want. Or if someone just WANTS the shadow areas to be dead and featureless for some kind of artistic effect. Or if it's a very HIGH-contrast scene, and some of the shadow and highlight detail just needs to die. But for a LOW-contrast scene, and for the specific purpose of increasing contrast...what is the purpose of doing THAT instead of just properly exposing to get the needed amount of shadow detail, and then controlling mid-values and highlights with processing and printing?

[Neelix]

Take a look at this photographer's photos: http://photo.net/photos/nanasousadias. Especially the portraits and the "Dunes" gallery.

At least in my opinion, these look great in B&W and they wouldn't look as good in color.

There are way more examples, though.
colour has its place yeah,but there is something about B&W that shows off what ever picture you take.My only complaint is why do men look so hard/rugged in b/w yet women seem to look elegant.

[RDKirk]

What I don't understand is why during normal usage one would kill shadow detail just to increase contrast in a low contrast scene. That's the part I don't get. I mean, if that's the REASON for killing the shadows, then WHY? I fully understand killing the shadow detail if the photographer just plain doesn't want detail to be there. I understand killing shadow detail in order to articificially increase the film's "speed" in order to get shots that he otherwise couldn't get. But aren't those going to be cases in which "increasing contrast" is a SECONDARY goal? As in, not "the reason" why the shadow detail had to die?

If the primary GOAL is to increase contrast in a low-contrast scene, if that's the REASON why someone is "underexposing and overdeveloping", then can't that be done without losing all of the detail in the shadows?

Don't get me wrong...I can certainly imagine OTHER reasons why someone would choose to kill important shadow areas for the sake of the picture. But why do that when the GOAL is merely to increase contrast in a scene that was already-low contrast to begin with?


Because some shadow detail must die in order for a full-range image to live. It might be only the very darkest crevices, but there usually needs to be some truly black shadows as a complement to some purely white highlights to give sparkle to the print.

[RDKirk]

colour has its place yeah,but there is something about B&W that shows off what ever picture you take.My only complaint is why do men look so hard/rugged in b/w yet women seem to look elegant.

That's when properly illuminated for the subject.

[-MountainDog-]

Sometimes background colors can be a distraction from the intended subject. One Easter I was taking shots of my great grandmother around the dinner table. There were people and objects in the background that were bright colored. A change to sepia and a little vignetting really helped to put the focus back on grandma.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2161/4509555319_7acf2d3fbb_z.jpg

[anscochrome]

This man has been inspiring me since 1977 when I was going to college for my photography degree, and I had the pleasure of meeting and dining with him and his wife last year in June.

One look at his work, and you have the answer as to "why bother shooting in black and white":

http://johnsexton.com/