B&W Forum - Yes or No

[JAS_Photo]

I was thinking it might not be a bad idea for B&W and selective coloring to have its own section? It seems some of the sections fill up pretty fast and photos get dropped to page 2 pretty fast currently.

[kat]

Bw/sepia..all that. I would agree!

[Mad Aussie]

A Mono and Duetone section you reckon?

Some boards do have separate forums for it. It separates the photos from their categories in terms of lanscape, portrait etc, but many feel it's a category on it's own.

I'm fence sitting this one. I don't mind either way.

I have a bunch of B&W conversions I've been playing with lately and was going to to put them into a single thread when I got a chance. Maybe I'll wait longer and see what happens :)

Marko is still away I think, only popping in briefly when he can, so it might be another week or more before he can seriously look at this one.

[Bambi]

I like the idea!

[ericmark]

I think it can too easy get to a stage where there are just too many sections. I do understand the people who want to stick to wet process and there is a skill in that not used in digital age.
However not all wet process is black and white and not all black and white is wet.
Selective desaturation would be sitting on the fence.

However a question. I remember as a child as my parents first moved from a half plate camera to a box Browne how the film was a lot cheaper but still limited to 12 exposures then my dad bought a 35mm camera that could take colour photos. Why? What was the difference in cameras that allowed colour?

Was the plastic letting in colour light? Was the glass wrong in lenses can't see that as used old half plate camera lens on D-SLR and worked OK with colour. Maybe seal on film?

Speeds on half plate were limited 1 to 1/125 of second plus T and B and aperture 6.5 to 38 but odd as 9, 12.5 18 and 25 were intermediate stops. What happened to T? Press once shutter open press again shutter closes.

May be colour was just not fast enough? Odd the very old half plate I still have Dad bought it for 6D just after war on black market in Germany but all the in between cameras have long gone. Likely I took them apart as a kid.

Old camera has adjustments to get buildings straight. And although calibration on bellows is for infinity to 1 meter the bellows would allow down to a few cm away a real macro lens. Two view finders one flipped from portrait to landscape plus of course ground glass and bag over head and camera method. Think called the Duplex film pack says Periutz Persensofilm dad thinks it took 12 pictures to pack and as you pulled one out it loaded next didn't have to wait to expose whole role well not on a role.

So any ideas why my dad had to buy new camera to take colour pictures?

[JAS_Photo]

My thinking was, someone may want to show off their photo as a B&W/ sepia/ duotone rather than in one of the other categories. Does not matter if it is film based or not. B&W processing is its own art really. We only have four categories currently and they zip along at a good pace so one more category probably would not hurt.

[edG]

I will add my voice to the request and would welcome a B&W section.

[Iguanasan]

I'm a little confused on this one. Right now all the sections seem to be mostly broken up based on content and I don't really see the point in creating a B&W/Selective Colour/Sepia section.

What do you do with a B&W landscape? Which section do you put it in? What about a sepia portrait?

Not trying to be a pain, just trying to understand the reasoning behind the idea.:confused::confused:

[casil403]

I'm kind of with Iguanasan on this one...:)
I do a lot of BW images especially of late and I am okay with the viewings/comment count they receive. I've not noticed very many issues with images getting missed on comments....that is unless it has been a particularly busy posting day and there are just so many. I often go back into pages 2, 3, 4 etc. and find images that have missed comments and when I do I try to comment on them when I am able, have time and I see something that catches my eye. :twocents:
I like the set up the way it is currently, but that is just my opinion and as always I will be happy to go along with the consensus of the group.

[JAS_Photo]

I dunno, B&W is traditionally considered the medium for fine art and generally if someone chooses to process an image in B&W, it is a concious decision to present it in B&W for a reason, whether its to send a message to the viewer in some way or show off their photo in a more "artistic way".

It was just an idea. It did not even occur to me there would be a big opposition to it or any reason why there should be either actually. Ultimately, it is Marko's forum and his decision.

[Mad Aussie]

As I said before, I'm fence sitting. I don't mind either way.

And being that I'm not the worlds best B&W photography artist it unlikely to be something I'd personally use very much.

Having said that, I do usually view B&W as being something different and somehow separate from the mainstream categories.

I'm not sure why I feel that way really however, I think it may be because I like colour. Take a landscape shot for instance, in colour, the colours are very much a part of the elements important to the photo. Take that colour out, and for me, most landscapes lose something. Which is not to say I haven't seen some very impressive B&W landscapes.

As JAS said, these days, the decision to go B&W is always a conscious decision, and usually because we are looking for something more artistic from a photo we took. It may be that the B&W aids to hide blown out areas or noise, but also to enhance some feature without the distraction that colour can bring.

I think for those reasons (and probably more) I can accept B&W as a category unto itself.
I'm also happy with how things are, but would be happy for the change as well.

[Iguanasan]

...snip...
It was just an idea. It did not even occur to me there would be a big opposition to it or any reason why there should be either actually. Ultimately, it is Marko's forum and his decision.

I didn't say that I'm opposed to the idea, I'm just trying to understand it better. If there are photographers who like to do a lot of B&W and think that they would like to have their stuff in their own forum section then I wouldn't stand in the way and as you say, ultimately, it's Marko's decision.

My confusion comes from the fact that if I took a B&W portrait I would put it in the portrait section not the B&W section so I'm wondering why a B&W section is necessary? :confused:

[kat]

In all reality..how many BW photos we get posted? LOL..I think I can safely say..I do most of them :)

I'm either or.

I can say that when I do BW, it's for the most part..for a certain mood for the image. Take out color from a person and I find eyes and wrinkles start to pop (if I have taken it the way I envision it). Or that green dreary landscape now becomes that dreary dark landscape. So for me..it's a concious thing. I know before I shoot..it's going BW.

So can those images be placed in a catagory on it's own. Sure..but it can go with the flow too.

[Mad Aussie]

My confusion comes from the fact that if I took a B&W portrait I would put it in the portrait section not the B&W section so I'm wondering why a B&W section is necessary? :confused:
I think you are over-thinking it Iggy. Or under-thinking it :rolleyes: ;)

It's not necessary. B&W's can go in the respective category that the subject within the photo allows.

However, because some feel it is a category unto it's own, it also deserves it's own category in some peoples minds and this is backed by other forums that have a separate place for them. But not all do.

Hmmmm .... perhaps a poll would help here :lightbulb

[Mad Aussie]

Following on from this thread http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f8/black-white-section-8943.html where we are discussing whether we need and/or want a separate B&W forum added, I thought a poll on the question might be interesting.

Please note: The poll results will not be a definitive indication that a B&W section will or will not be added. This is just to add another piece of info to be considered.

[Mad Aussie]

Poll is set to keep your votes private!

[Mad Aussie]

Looking fairly even really.

[Bambi]

I don't think a decision can be made with just this number of votes. :shrug:

[Marko]

Hmmm - I'll basically do anything that makes sense to the members and me....and I'm not at all saying no here.

But there is also the consideration of how the forum is currently divided.

Show your photo - Landscape & Nature (flowers, mountains, storms etc.) (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f11/) (3 Viewing)
A place to show your photography when you don't want critiques
Sub-Forums: http://www.photography.ca/Forums/images/statusicon/subforum_new.gif Animals (mammals, birds, insects etc.) (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f20/), http://www.photography.ca/Forums/images/statusicon/subforum_new.gif People photography (portraits, sports etc.) (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f21/), http://www.photography.ca/Forums/images/statusicon/subforum_new.gif Architecture & Man Made (cities, buildings, roads, objects & abstracts) (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f22/)

If we added a b/w forum would we not have to subdivide it to reflect subject matter?

Given that only 8 people said yes (and 6 no) at this time there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming desire for it....:shrug:

One thing that WOULD make sense right now is to TAG every black and white show with BW.

[Marko]

I already posted in the other thread (with the poll)

anyone mind if I MERGE THREADS?

anyway like I said there....for me the only issue here is logic....and how to easily find images.

BECAUSE black and white is it's own category of photography it would only make sense to duplicate the entire show forum for black and white to cover the different subject matter. DO you agree?

Show your photo - Landscape & Nature (flowers, mountains, storms etc.) (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f11/) (2 Viewing)
A place to show your photography when you don't want critiques
Sub-Forums: http://www.photography.ca/Forums/images/statusicon/subforum_new.gif Animals (mammals, birds, insects etc.) (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f20/), http://www.photography.ca/Forums/images/statusicon/subforum_new.gif People photography (portraits, sports etc.) (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f21/), http://www.photography.ca/Forums/images/statusicon/subforum_new.gif Architecture & Man Made (cities, buildings, roads, objects & abstracts) (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f22/)

This leads us into another area...How many categories will we need for the future to cover all eventualities?

many thx!

Marko

[AntZ]

Having a B&W section might get some of us thinking more about B&W. To be honest the only time I really consider the sections is when I start a thread or when I check if a post is in the critique section. I almost exclusively use the today's post search.

I'm not opposed, but don't see a huge need for it. Can the number of posts on a page be made larger?

[Fortytwo]

How many categories will we need for the future to cover all eventualities?


Depends on what you want. :) B/W doesn't quit fit in the categories already here. Terms like "architecture" or "portrait" are about the subject of the photo. B/W is about the technique used. Personally, I wouldn't mix them up. Either you sort on subject (animals/people/architecture/landscapes etc) or on technique (bw/macro/panorama etc).

My personal preference is on subject. Because that tells the story. Technique is more of a means to an end. :)

[Wicked Dark]

My preference is to not have a B&W bucket becuase it will get lost and also because its imprecise. I have no interest in portraits and thus never go look at any, but if it were caught up in a larger bucket I'd have to wade through more threads than I do now just to get to something that has meaning or interest for me. Perhaps if there were the same subcategories as we have now it would eliminate this, but it would still be yet another forum and set of threads to go through and I don't know how much benefit it would bring. I do a fair amount of b&w and don't see why they should be segregated from the other shots simply because they aren't in color.

[Mad Aussie]

I posted a bunch of B&W's into the Alternative Photography section last night. The ALternative Photography has 'Sepia' listed so I figured B&W is also a monotone and could go there for now.

Perhaps that's all that's needed? B&W to be added to the description for the Alternative Photography section. These days it is more of an alternative I guess.

[Mad Aussie]

I already posted in the other thread (with the poll)

anyone mind if I MERGE THREADS?
Nope... I don't mind.

[ericmark]

I ask myself why present an image in black and white.
• Cheaper was first reason as colour film was more expensive.
• Availability never seen colour film in old 120 format.
• Higher dynamic range.
• Easier to process.
All of course only valid with wet process.
• Colours messed up due to lighting.
Most discharge lighting is monochrome although not black and white more likely orange and white and where an area are lit with a mixture of light sources then often the colours are meaning less and to convert to black and white is likely best option.
• Impact
The lack of colour draws ones eye to different parts of the image and this can be further enhanced by returning colour to selected areas. However the same can be said for any other filter and have sections for every filter in the Photoshop arsenal would not make sense.

However a section for wet process may be? Where those who still use a darkroom and use the enlarger to modify their image, they may wish to talk about this unique part of the process. Which to those of us that us that use digital we would likely find boring.
My sister still dabbles in the dark art and with a name like Ceridwen, it suits her. (In Welsh, it means white witch) I however can never see myself returning to sticking bits of card in over exposed areas to reduce exposure and spending 2 hours to produce one completed image, which I have to go through whole process again to repeat.

However I can understand others will. So if you want a section for wet process then I see no reason to object. This would include colour for those who are really into dark art and don’t even have a safe light.

But where people are not talking about how to process but it’s artistic content they could still include their images in the other sections.

Question must be how many members dabble in the dark art? I think appropriate name since they have to turn lights off! Unless the forum has members who use wet process then no point in a wet process section.

And there will I am sure be people like me who no longer have an interest but have done it in the past. and I would be unlikely to look in a wet section so if there are very few members who still use it they could find the odd question goes unanswered because no one is reading the posts where if not separated those a little older in the tooth could have answered their question.

So I would say no to Black and White section. I am a little more flexible with a monochrome section, which would include sepia and sodium lighting but still can’t see it really needs its own section. Although I would support a wet section if there were enough members who still use the wet process.

[QuietOne]

I do think MA's solution of using the Alternative forum is a good one. His post there was specifically to try out doing B&W. If that's the emphasis for a photo, that would be a good place to put it.

[AcadieLibre]

This is one I think should be done, and its own forum opposed to a sub forum. Black and white is a very well regarded and has a historic importance to the life of photography. So I say yes, just on the importance of B&W to the promotion of photography as an art forum is well warranted. I see B&W more of an art form than colour, a very, very personal taste bias I admit but at this time I shooting 80% B&W and I am in the June starting film again and it will be all B&W.

T:L: D.R; Hell Yea

[Marko]

Please note that the other BW thread has been merged here for ease.
I've also reopened the poll in case anyone has not voted.
Thx!

marko

[JAS_Photo]

I am with Acadie on that!

[AcadieLibre]

However a section for wet process may be? Where those who still use a darkroom and use the enlarger to modify their image, they may wish to talk about this unique part of the process. Which to those of us that us that use digital we would likely find boring.
My sister still dabbles in the dark art and with a name like Ceridwen, it suits her. (In Welsh, it means white witch) I however can never see myself returning to sticking bits of card in over exposed areas to reduce exposure and spending 2 hours to produce one completed image, which I have to go through whole process again to repeat.

I think alternative photography would cover the wet process. I shoot B&W on Camera even on my DSLR if am planning the shot in B&W. When I went to digital a few years ago I thought I can shoot colour and convert them to B&W later. The difference for shooting in B&W I find to be a whole other mindset, it is not colour and should not be shot in colour. Once you shoot in B&W overtime you understand what you are shooting and why it is not colour and should not be colour converted big difference when you get into it. What is pushing me back to film the B&W . I will not be doing a dark room but more than likely and Epson V7000 or a used V7500.

[Wicked Dark]

so if I have a series of photos, and one happens to be B&W do I have to eliminate that one and post it on its own in the B&W area? I often do just one or two in a group and I'd hate to have to segregate that one on its own.

[Mad Aussie]

so if I have a series of photos, and one happens to be B&W do I have to eliminate that one and post it on its own in the B&W area? I often do just one or two in a group and I'd hate to have to segregate that one on its own.
I think this is where things will be messy somewhat.

People like us, who shoot mostly without B&W in mind and then convert later when we realize something might look good in monotone will likely not use a separate B&W forum section especially if our B&W is part of a set of photos.
Purists like A.L will use the B&W section exclusively if they have a B&W shot.

But if we have a separate section I hope we have more purists here than just A.L and one or two others because it's not like A.L has ever been prolific in his posting of photos. On the other hand, that might make it all the more special/unique.

[casil403]

One more point that should be taken into consideration is that I very often will do both a colour and a BW version of the same image and post for comparison viewing....I am not sure where I would post in that case. :shrug:
Seems easier to just leave things as be for the time being as and Marko pointed out there is not an overwhelming positive response for it according to the poll...I believe it has pretty much been a constant 60/40 split.

[Mad Aussie]

It's a tough one.

But do we say no to this just because only a few members might use it passionately?

Maybe a trial period could be considered. Something like 3 months perhaps to see if it does get used enough to warrant being in it's own section.

I still think making it the leading sub-forum under Alternative Photography is probably the easiet answer for now.

I'll get back on my fence now ... I seem to be playing devil's avocate here.

[Wicked Dark]

so getting back to my question, what happens to my photo? will it be moved or eliminated from the color forum if it's part of a series that includes color?

[Mad Aussie]

so getting back to my question, what happens to my photo? will it be moved or eliminated from the color forum if it's part of a series that includes color?
I don't see that a photo would be removed from the current forums if it's part of a set, or part of a critique thread.

It would be expected though, if you put up a thread that only contains B&W photos, that you would use the new forum if it gets created.

But lets remember ... nothing is decided. Currently the current forums are adequate. But forums like this do need to evolve as demand dictate. Marko 'simply' has to decide if the demand is present and if now is the right time.

[JAS_Photo]

Well if I deliberately make a photo B&W, then I think it should be shown on the merits of its black and whiteness, in which case I would put it in the B&W section. if B&W is an afterthought as in "here is a photo and oh, here it is in B&W", then it does not need to go in the B&W unless the photographer decides to put it there.

[ericmark]

I think alternative photography would cover the wet process. I shoot B&W on Camera even on my DSLR if am planning the shot in B&W. When I went to digital a few years ago I thought I can shoot colour and convert them to B&W later. The difference for shooting in B&W I find to be a whole other mindset, it is not colour and should not be shot in colour. Once you shoot in B&W overtime you understand what you are shooting and why it is not colour and should not be colour converted big difference when you get into it. What is pushing me back to film the B&W . I will not be doing a dark room but more than likely and Epson V7000 or a used V7500.

I can see the point you are making but can't work out the linguistics. My camera will give a better dynamic range in RAW to Jpeg so to take any picture which I want as a Black and White I would select RAW to get range. However I can see no way to take Black and White RAW images? Once taken I can in camera convert to a Black and White or Sepia image in Jpeg to see how it would look but I don't have ability to take RAW images in Black and White. And since the whole idea of RAW is to store all information can't see any cameras allowing RAW in Black and White.

It has been pointed out to me there is a difference between Black and White and desaturate it that with former one can select the sensitivity for each colour. This function is not available in my camera as far as I know? In camera all I can do is select B&W.

With a wet process I would use B&W film but with digital you would need a B&W CCD to do the same thing. Closest would be Fuji's SuperCCD S3 Pro with the extra dynamic range but that's still colour. I can find movie cameras that are B&W so CCD's must be made but can't find any B&W D-SLR's?

Personally I would not buy a Black & White camera but I can still the the advantage with more ppi recorded.

So are there any D-SLR's with B&W CCD's? And do any D-SLR's which also work in colour take RAW images in B&W?

[ericmark]

Out of interest while looking to see if one can buy B&W cameras I came across this Why In-camera Black and White is a Bad Idea - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light (http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/just-say-no-in-camera-black-and-white.html) reading the foot note is interesting and I can see what Reader RN says makes sense.

[ericmark]

It seems I was wrong you can get B&W cameras see here Special black-and-white-only digital fine art camera reviewed by Nicholas Hellmuth. (http://www.digital-photography.org/Black-and-white_digital_fine_art_photography_landscape_figur e/digital-photography_camera-reviews_MegaVision-E4_medium-format_digital-camera_price_comparisons.php) Although my purse does not stretch to a Hasselblad so I'll continue to take in colour and then convert to B&W.

[Marko]

By using custom settings on most higher end digital cameras, you CAN throw away all colour info. IF you want to by changing the format. I believe if you choose a monochrome setting and save the image as TIFF, not RAW, all colour info goes gone.

Not saying I recommend this technique as I have not shot digital BW this way, but it can be done.

I'm still on the fence on this one (BW forum) based solely on the divided member count and how to categorize images. Logically for me, BW is its own game based on history alone. Whether the image is film or digital, does not matter much to me.....

I'd like to think about this a bit more before I use the gavel, but I am leaning toward 'yes'. We're still a smallish group but I think if we are thinking long-term it's a forum that would have to be created in the future anyway...

Continued input is appreciated and feel free to PM me about this issue as well.

many thanks!

Marko

[AcadieLibre]

You know you wanna, so just go for it.

[Fortytwo]

I always wonder when I see a b/w section but no color section.

[Marko]

You know you wanna, so just go for it.

You are right; I do want to. Likely next week.


I always wonder when I see a b/w section but no color section.

Once We put up the BW section I'll add the word Colour to the current show section.....

and if it does not work out (meaning if that BW section does not get respectable volume) I can take it out until the volume re-justifies it.

[Marko]

Hi members,

I created a BW forum today here Photography & Fine art photography - Black and White - Monotone - photography forum at photography.ca/Forums (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f33/)

I realize that the support for this forum was not overwhelming with a 60/40 split in favour of the Bw forum....but this is a fine art photography forum...whatever that means ...and Black and white photography is firmly entrenched in fine art photography so it only made sense to do it.

If there is little volume over the next few weeks in that forum it will be abolished until there is enough volume...my guess is that there IS enough volume though.

For now there are no subforums, but i will create them if the volume in the next short while warrants it.

Thanks for the input everyone!

Marko

[JAS_Photo]

So far some really awesome images showing up in the B&W section! :)

[ericmark]

I would agree however already there has been conflict with the cyanotype process and it was moved into another section and this was my worry and why I voted against it's own section.

Nearly every image in that section could also be rightfully placed in another as most are "Landscape & Nature (flowers, mountains, storms etc.", "Alternative photography", or "General photography" and questions and answers are not unique to Black and White.

There are of course some and the attempt to emulate old images is one good example.

I am sure as a new section the viewing figures are high. However once the novelty value wares off will it continue to get the viewing figures.

Up and running now so all that can be done is wait and see. I am watching with interest and it has become my new flavour of the month and as I did with HDR at the moment I am going a little overboard with Black and White until I feel I know how to do it.

Some tutorial on Black and White with Digital Cameras would be good. However what section would that go in? "Digital photography" or "Black and White - Monotone - photography forum"? And that was my point.

I do feel wet processes are very different to digital and talking about either to someone who is involved with the other format can be boring, so I can understand splitting wet and digital, but as already seen this is not happening here, and the one post which referred to a wet process was very quickly moved.

Please do not think I am complaining, I am just trying to be constructively critical and at this point I think letting the section run is the right thing and it has certainly sparked an interest with me.

All best Eric

[Marko]

I would agree however already there has been conflict with the cyanotype process and it was moved into another section and this was my worry and why I voted against it's own section.

Nearly every image in that section could also be rightfully placed in another as most are "Landscape & Nature (flowers, mountains, storms etc.", "Alternative photography", or "General photography" and questions and answers are not unique to Black and White.

There are of course some and the attempt to emulate old images is one good example.

I am sure as a new section the viewing figures are high. However once the novelty value wares off will it continue to get the viewing figures.

Up and running now so all that can be done is wait and see. I am watching with interest and it has become my new flavour of the month and as I did with HDR at the moment I am going a little overboard with Black and White until I feel I know how to do it.

Some tutorial on Black and White with Digital Cameras would be good. However what section would that go in? "Digital photography" or "Black and White - Monotone - photography forum"? And that was my point.

I do feel wet processes are very different to digital and talking about either to someone who is involved with the other format can be boring, so I can understand splitting wet and digital, but as already seen this is not happening here, and the one post which referred to a wet process was very quickly moved.

Please do not think I am complaining, I am just trying to be constructively critical and at this point I think letting the section run is the right thing and it has certainly sparked an interest with me.

All best Eric

Hi Eric - yeah there will be some conflicts and overlap for sure - but I'm happy about the new forum and think it was the right call.

In terms of the cyanotype... even though it's blue (therfore monotone) cyanotype is not a b/w process and it was posted in the wrong forum. It has been an alternative process for well over 100 years AFAIK...so i moved it. The alternative forum even has the word cyanotype in its description.

The digital photography forum I find confusing and I think we need to make its description clearer.

In terms of wet versus digital in the new bw forum - my pleasure to split the forum up and add a "wet" subforum when the time is right.

As Admin - I want the choices to be as clear as possible without many 'empty' forums and as little overlap as possible. I'm continually open to suggestions.

many thx!

marko