Without doubt monochrome images of wildlife can have a stunning impact that can be greater than a clour version. I look at some of the african images made by Andy Biggs for example and the word "stunning" barely does them justice. So it clearly is a tool or mechanism that can be used to a powerful and dramatic effect and is something I would dearly love to incorporate into my own work.
For me, when I think about monochrome I'm thinking of what information is that image going to convey to the eye. Obviously when we go to monochrome we are removing all the colour information from the image so what does that leave us to work with? It leaves us with texture and detail. At least that's how I think about it anyway. So whilst I can easily see the creative possibilities in a elephant, or rhino for example, which are very obviously rich in textural possibilities, I absolutely fail when it comes to applying that to birds. For those subjects, in my eyes, the images power is contained largely within the colour information and putting abstracts aside I cannot "see" the monochrome potential. That's my failing and something I'd very much like to work on.
Now I know we have a large number of extremely gifted photographers on this forum and I would love to hear your approach.
"Not seeing the lack of monochrome potential" is not just your failing, we probably all struggle with it due to the way we are encouraged to think when learning to make pictures. Wildlife photography purists may argue there is no place for it at all.
As much as Photoshop processing is the bane of our life’s, the process does provide a wonderful chance to quickly trying ideas out - I routinely convert images to B&W to see if they work or not. This, in turn, informs how I 'see' images in the field.
I've found that 'straight' images are not as successful as abstracts unless the subject has strong, graphic qualities. Slow shutter-speed images also work well. Rather than hijacking your thread with an example of what I mean, I'll post an image shortly - I'd be interested to know what you think.
Chris hits the nail on the head, successfull B&W requires a more graphical eye, high range of contrast or strong shapes to be really successfull, a simple B&W conversion of many subjects will fail because the image is just too fussy or bitty.
I agree - I love b/w images and frequently convert many of my family photos to bw as I love the effect and the 'timeless' nature it imparts. I find it extremely difficult to work out what makes a good B+W picture and like Chris says at times it seems that it is often the photos that don't work in colour - I recently posted an image that illustrates this:
It was originally a quite contrasty image but took on a different feel when I desaturated it - I guess the trick is training your eyes to see 'graphically' - I come from a graphic design background and an artistic family and yet I've never managed it!
I've never analysed how I decide what to shoot B&W and what to shoot colour. I made the switch to digital relatively recently (~1 year ago), I find I make the decision before I shoot, switching image parameters to mono before taking the shot, as I would choose what film to use. I shoot RAW though, so have the option to revert to colour later, but that's just the benefit of digital and find I rarely do this. I guess I usually make the decision based on what the range of tones and colours are in the scene - asking if colour is an important element (or is it the contrast/tonal range that draws me to the image), but this is subconcius I think. But I shoot relatively little wildlife black and white, though a fair amount of landscape. I don't think you can generalise with wildlife - monochrome birds, such as ravens, often work well in monochrome because colour in the background doesn't detract from the bird (as your eye will be drawn to colour, especially bright primary colours as the brain associates it with food). Sometimes the scene makes the decision for you - scenes with little colour often make good monchrome images.
Some of us were reared on monochrome as we couldn't afford colour.
The old ones I still hold dearly and often sit quietly browsing through them
Look at some of the old masterpieces by people like Gilpin, Wagstaff, Brooks etc etc,
But times change.
JohnR
Discussion
5 repliesFor me, when I think about monochrome I'm thinking of what information is that image going to convey to the eye. Obviously when we go to monochrome we are removing all the colour information from the image so what does that leave us to work with? It leaves us with texture and detail. At least that's how I think about it anyway. So whilst I can easily see the creative possibilities in a elephant, or rhino for example, which are very obviously rich in textural possibilities, I absolutely fail when it comes to applying that to birds. For those subjects, in my eyes, the images power is contained largely within the colour information and putting abstracts aside I cannot "see" the monochrome potential. That's my failing and something I'd very much like to work on.
Now I know we have a large number of extremely gifted photographers on this forum and I would love to hear your approach.
Many Regards
JohnS
"Not seeing the lack of monochrome potential" is not just your failing, we probably all struggle with it due to the way we are encouraged to think when learning to make pictures. Wildlife photography purists may argue there is no place for it at all.
As much as Photoshop processing is the bane of our life’s, the process does provide a wonderful chance to quickly trying ideas out - I routinely convert images to B&W to see if they work or not. This, in turn, informs how I 'see' images in the field.
I've found that 'straight' images are not as successful as abstracts unless the subject has strong, graphic qualities. Slow shutter-speed images also work well. Rather than hijacking your thread with an example of what I mean, I'll post an image shortly - I'd be interested to know what you think.
Cheers,
Chris
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=42745&CGISESSID=a66acbba5e80beda560903bc045dd62b&u=30511
It was originally a quite contrasty image but took on a different feel when I desaturated it - I guess the trick is training your eyes to see 'graphically' - I come from a graphic design background and an artistic family and yet I've never managed it!
Interesting thread...
I've never analysed how I decide what to shoot B&W and what to shoot colour. I made the switch to digital relatively recently (~1 year ago), I find I make the decision before I shoot, switching image parameters to mono before taking the shot, as I would choose what film to use. I shoot RAW though, so have the option to revert to colour later, but that's just the benefit of digital and find I rarely do this. I guess I usually make the decision based on what the range of tones and colours are in the scene - asking if colour is an important element (or is it the contrast/tonal range that draws me to the image), but this is subconcius I think. But I shoot relatively little wildlife black and white, though a fair amount of landscape. I don't think you can generalise with wildlife - monochrome birds, such as ravens, often work well in monochrome because colour in the background doesn't detract from the bird (as your eye will be drawn to colour, especially bright primary colours as the brain associates it with food). Sometimes the scene makes the decision for you - scenes with little colour often make good monchrome images.
And though Andy Biggs is good, Nick Brandt is in a class above http://www.nickbrandt.com/
The old ones I still hold dearly and often sit quietly browsing through them
Look at some of the old masterpieces by people like Gilpin, Wagstaff, Brooks etc etc,
But times change.
JohnR