OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

I have been shooting in color almost exclusively since 1975 when I took the course "Chromatic Photojournalism" and was advised that I had probably maxed my time working with chemicals (there are more pleasant ways to kill your liver). The whole point of b&w for me was the print. While I am neither Brett Weston nor Ansel, I was doing pretty well printwise once I figured out that excessive exposure indexes were for situations where it was necessary and that #2 paper was my friend.

Anyway, I shot mostly chromes since that time until I got a D60--well I was doing some work with my PS610. A while back I realized that storage was killing the chromes and laid out some cash for a Plustek 8200i and the Silverfast software. So this month I have been converting and thinking I might go full manual with Provia, having a stable of "real" silver based cameras and lenses and a scanner.

I also discovered that a lot of my chromes look a lot better in the 0-saturation mode which is essentially black and white. Has anyone out there experienced anything similar in terms of looking at a color scene and seeing the gray-scale subconsciously--or am I a victim of nostalgia.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Earl, welcome to the Hog.
For sure, seeing in B&W is to see in extremes of contrasts, while seeing in color is mostly the domaine of mid-tones.
The biggest mistakes I see here in converting to B&W is folks are trying to convert mid-tones and the result is what's called MUD.
I'm on my phone, so can't really look for you, but Google "Mark Wallace, zone system". That should bring up Mark Wallace from Adorama TV. He did an episode on using a simple zone system to get and see as much contrast as possible for converting digital color to B&W. Good luck. ;-)
SS

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

Earl,
Welcome aboard! Here is the link that Sharpshooter referred to. You are definitely on the right track in your thinking if you are automaticly "seeing" the gray-scale when out shooting. I do this quite often. As I'm sure you are well aware, some scenes just don't lend themselves to B&W conversion, and being able to see that is key to good results with regards to B&W images.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Erik, thanks for the help.
I'm not near smart enough to do a link! :lol:
Somebody usually comes to my resue.
When I'm at home and on the verge of death from starvation, I'm usually saved by my wife that has dinner ready just in the nick of time!!! :lol: :lol:
SS

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

I went over the video. It is good as far as it goes. If you look carefully at Adams or Weston or Fred Picker--the tonal range is as important as the contrast. The reason I looked at converting those immages I did was the muddy appearance in the shadow areas. I had one image I shot on Kodachrome (which looks a lot in monochrome like Plus X) that worked both ways, but in color there was a string of light purple flowers that just worked.

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

SS,
You're welcome. I would definitely hang on to the wife, this place wouldn't be the same if you were to die of starvation. :lol: And Canon stock would plummet! :shock:

anotherview Loc: California

Interesting. Did a Google search on "Chromatic Photojournalism" and found this interesting discussion from 1987 of the tension between black-and-white film and color film in doing photojournalism: http://www.csmonitor.com/1987/0227/dbcolor.html

The discussion has a quaintness to it given the advance of photography to the digital age where now black-and-white photography receives its due as another expression of photography.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

This topic comes up from time to time.
A related UHH post.....
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-265706-1.html

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I've been trying to regain the ability of "seeing" a composition in shades of gray after taking a year-long b&w course a couple of decades ago.

There were some great articles in August issue of "Outdoor Photographer" magazine about how to do it. I took notes :) If anyone wants, please PM me.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

Earl,
It sounds like you have a good handle on exposure levels on capturing an image. It is true that B&W is consisting of contrasting levels and the ability to capture the various levels of contrast to provide detail and shading. Chroma is capturing the mid-levels of exposure contrast and capturing the various levels of light frequencies on a photosensitive element.

With that in mind continue photographing in Chroma, and copying your older film images in Chroma. With good image editing software convert your Chroma images into “B&W Film” and apply the equivalent colored filters during the Post Processing (PP) tasks.

Keep your camera in Chroma (don’t set it to B&W or Grayscale), you can perform much better image control in PP software. In your image editing software, look for a monochrome type filtration, set the filters to B&W Film, from there you can select the colored filters the old B&W Masters used on their 8 x 10 box cameras. The advantage we have with this system is twofold; if the image looks good in color, we can keep it in color, if the image looks better in B&W we can keep both. Second; we get instant feedback in PP, we don’t have to wait several weeks for chemical processing, smell the stinky chemicals in a darkroom, and worry about how to dispose of the used chemicals. Not to mention the health risks of handling the chemicals and wet paper.

With a DSLR in your hands, you have a much more powerful image capturing tool than any of the old masters had available. You can surpass Ansell Adams in the Zone System of exposure captures because your DSL has the ability to record a much wider range of exposures than the best film. In addition to a much wider exposure range with a single shot, you can make multiple exposures of the same scene, each with a different exposure value, and merge all into one single image with a very wide range of exposure. This can be done in minutes instead of weeks in a darkroom.

Good shooting,

Michael G

Doktor Loc: New Jersey

Back in the early 70's while in high school, I worked for the local photographer. I shot a lot of Kodak CPL then and eventually was taught B&W darkroom procedure. To date I have over a quarter million B&W 35mm negatives that I eventually scanned using a Plustek 7200. To save disk space, I scan at normal resolution for a thumbnail catalog, then scan again selected negatives at the highest. For the most part, my negatives (consisting of Kodak Tri-X, Plus-X, Pan-X, and Ilford) were well metered and developed, so not much print manipulation is needed. Being somewhat new to Digital photography, the lack of a real darkroom kind of misses the point. But none the less, I've posted some of my shots here at UHH, and I find film noir much more expressive.

anotherview Loc: California

Well said.

Happy New Year!

DickC Loc: NE Washington state

Yes to B&W!!! :D

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

Unfortunately my b&w negatives went in the 1993 flood--I was able to rescue my cameras and I had my slides in a high cabinet. I still have some of the prints but the negatives are gone. I discovered that the tonal range in Kodachrome and some Ektachrome is similar to the range in Plus X.

While digital photography lacks the darkroom, it also lacks the chemicals. When I was a senior in college I was in a poorly ventilated lab until two in the morning and I smelled like fixer. I would have loved to transmit my sports pictures to any and all the papers before I got back to the party rather than in the wee hours where the security guards asked me for my ID.