Need an opinion

Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
4,824
Location
Somewhere in the Oklahoma woods
I grew up shooting Panatomic-X in a 35mm camera.........then medium format..........and on to 5x7. I love black and white images. Then I drifted over to color transparencies and negative color, leaving behind my love of B&W. Recently, just for fun, I've been messing with some of my images to see if they might look better when converted to B&W. So far I've found many I really enjoy more converted. However, this shot has me baffled. Mind sharing your opinion with me?

p707020386-5.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


p934673256-5.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Attachments

  • p707020386-5.jpg
    p707020386-5.jpg
    251.5 KB · Views: 27
  • p707020386-5.jpg
    p707020386-5.jpg
    251.5 KB · Views: 24
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
1,905
Location
USA
i think the color one but im a bit on the fence. i would try to recover the clouds alittle more
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
24,487
Location
SW Virginia
Chris, I really think the B&W is the best version of this photo. The original is obviously a scan of an older color slide or negative, and the colors are just not up to the standards of today's cameras and digital reproductions. The B&W, however, shows the texture of the stone and the desert landscape quite well. If there were only a way to coax a little more detail out of the image...maybe a bit more contrast and sharpening?
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
16
Location
Central NY
I think the clouds in the B+W overpower the rock in the foreground. In the colored picture this is balanced by the bright color of the rock. With those 2, (cloud/rock) balanced in the coler version, my eye goes to the center and stays on the outcrop, which draws me to look deeper.
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
318
Location
Maryland, USA
I like the BW version, but the BW conversion looks flat. You could get a more dramatic effect by playing with the channel mixer. I have taken the liberty of editing a quick sample for you (obviously it could be done a lot better if you played around a little longer):

5602149996_ba539a33c9_b.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
24,487
Location
SW Virginia
Actually, Jim, it isn't a scan but a RAW image from my D200. But thanks for the comments.

Ouch. Hope you're not offended. I guess it is just the difference in the settings in your camera or RAW conversion. I tend to go with more vivid colors and contrast, and more sharpening. But that's just my approach and probably doesn't suit everyone.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
4,824
Location
Somewhere in the Oklahoma woods
I like the BW version, but the BW conversion looks flat. You could get a more dramatic effect by playing with the channel mixer. I have taken the liberty of editing a quick sample for you (obviously it could be done a lot better if you played around a little longer):

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5602149996_ba539a33c9_b.jpg

Anath,

Frankly, I don't care for the image as you've portrayed it.............but I'm interested in what you've done with "channel mixing". I don't know what that means. I'm assuming you mean something having to do with PhotoShop. :confused:
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
318
Location
Maryland, USA
Frankly, I don't care for the image as you've portrayed it.............but I'm interested in what you've done with "channel mixing". I don't know what that means. I'm assuming you mean something having to do with PhotoShop. :confused:

That's fine, I just wanted to show the kind of effect you could get with the channel mixer. It allows you to remix the red/blue/green channels in different rations that you can choose. I increased the red channel and reduced the blue channel, thus highlighting the rocks and darkening the sky. I used GIMP (www.gimp.org), which is a free and open source software that I find sufficient for most basic needs. In gimp 2.6, the channel mixer is in the "Colors" menu, under "components". You can select the level for each channel. negative values can also be selected. check the "monochrome" box to get a BW converted image. (there must be something similar in photoshop also)
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
61
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I don't usually like B&W, but the red sandstone and the desert is a little bland and seems to be at odds with the wonderful sky. I can concentrate on the rock formations better in B&W.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
4,824
Location
Somewhere in the Oklahoma woods
Gimp, huh? Sounds like Greek to me! :biggrin: I'll try and check it out. Thanks.

That's fine, I just wanted to show the kind of effect you could get with the channel mixer. It allows you to remix the red/blue/green channels in different rations that you can choose. I increased the red channel and reduced the blue channel, thus highlighting the rocks and darkening the sky. I used GIMP (www.gimp.org), which is a free and open source software that I find sufficient for most basic needs. In gimp 2.6, the channel mixer is in the "Colors" menu, under "components". You can select the level for each channel. negative values can also be selected. check the "monochrome" box to get a BW converted image. (there must be something similar in photoshop also)
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
387
Location
Calgary
I like the colour version better - in the B&W version, the rock in the foreground overpowers the rest of the picture.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
8,639
Location
New York City
Hey Chris, I like them both but disagree with Ananth's edit. His edit has the foreground overexposed.

I'd like to see more selective contrast and structure to the large boulder in front. You can use a few Control Points in NX2 there.

Also, some contrast to differentiate the horizon from the sky.

The poster, Desert Rat, posts alot of images from that region:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/member.php?u=3856
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
4,824
Location
Somewhere in the Oklahoma woods
Thanks, Dez. I know both the color and B&W rendition could have been processed better. I was mainly asking if the subject matter looked better in color or B&W. Believe me, I'm (painfully) aware of my processing short-comings. :rolleyes: But I'm working on it. :biggrin:
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Chris,

I was mainly asking if the subject matter looked better in color or B&W

I think you have a picture here in which both are very good. Personally I like the color one better, but I think if you give the BW a bit more contrast it would be at least as good as the color version.
And because the comp is strong, I don't think you could easily say which one would be better.

My (personal:smile:) conclusion is: doesn't matter, the subject could be easily converted to a very good BW one.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom