A life without colour...

[Chri5]

Is just as dramatic.

Here are two shots form from the North coast of Ireland. I don't usually do the black and white treatment but I think that these shots where supposed to be without colour.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done on both, even in B & W I can see the appeal of what it would look like in color.

[deetheturk]

Very nice Chris, and great conversion

[Rebel]

I like them both, nice shots.

[Mike Buckley]

I especially like the first one because of the terrific depth of field. I agree that both work well as monochromes.

[TonyW]

I particularly liked the first one. The way the stone wall spreads out as you go back in the image works well. Having seen this, I wouldn't wants to see it in colour.

[Ziggy]

I think the first one is a very well executed image, nice work Chris.

[Chri5]

Thanks very much everyone

[Manfred M]

Chris - agreed, both of these images work well as monochrome, but as to whether they work better that way or as colour images is going to differ from viewer to viewer (and to some extent will be dependent on the choices made when converting to monochrome).

B&W is a powerful compositional tool as going from some 16-million distinct shades (8 bits per channel RGB) to 256 shades (8 bits) really simplifies the view. The flip size is of course you have also deliberately chosen to throw away most of the data that your camera has recorded.

The only way a person can decide which version that they prefer is when they see the colour and monochrome versions side by side. I suspect that both images were probably quite compelling in their original colour versions too.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Chris I loved both of them. Did you use an infrered filter for the second shot or was it just the PP work which made the image look that way?

[Barbara Ponder]

Chris, both are great shots but I LOVE #2!

[Chri5]

Chris - agreed, both of these images work well as monochrome, but as to whether they work better that way or as colour images is going to differ from viewer to viewer (and to some extent will be dependent on the choices made when converting to monochrome).

B&W is a powerful compositional tool as going from some 16-million distinct shades (8 bits per channel RGB) to 256 shades (8 bits) really simplifies the view. The flip size is of course you have also deliberately chosen to throw away most of the data that your camera has recorded.

The only way a person can decide which version that they prefer is when they see the colour and monochrome versions side by side. I suspect that both images were probably quite compelling in their original colour versions too.

Very Interesting Manfred. I never thought of it this way. Thanks for looking

[Chri5]

Hi Chris I loved both of them. Did you use an infrered filter for the second shot or was it just the PP work which made the image look that way?

Hi Binnur. The second was Processed in photoshop. I have recently decided to bin my filters as they just lead to more thinking.

Thanks again

[flashback]

Chris,
I think the option to convert to B&W, or to present in B&W, or to shoot in B&W is a highly personal choice, and done appropriately can be extremely effective. Your first image in my opinion is stunning in B&W. Not to say that the color version wouldn't be (maybe a bit flat light-wise) but it is dependent on the story, or emotion you wish to convey. I suspect in color it might be vibrant greens and varying shades of greys in the stones and clouds. And while I suspect it would be a strong image in color your choice to convert to B&W - in my opinion - was a wise one.

I have no doubt that if I were to suggest a comparison to Ansel Adams someone here would be quick to call me out on it for any number of (real or perceived) reasons so I'll just say this: Had I only seen the image and not the name I would immediately assume that it was another Donald (just add Mackenzie) image (in my mind I'm complimenting you and hopefully not insulting Donald.)

I'm gonna disagree with the thought that people should see both images in order to decide which is more appropriate; the more appropriate image is the one you choose to present. Some images may not work in B&W but to my mind this one clearly does. If someone doesn't like it in B&W then so what, it's your choice, your image and your vision. I think you chose well.

As to your #2 image; it appears to me to be a very well done miniature (tabletop), very well photographed. Or perhaps a painted background for a movie (for some odd reason this image reminds me of The Wizard of Oz). In any case I like this image as well. There is a charm about it that is hard for me to articulate but it just resonates with me.

[Chri5]

Thank you very much Jack. Kind words indeed. Number two is actually a real landscape just processed with the IR B&W in ps. Thanks again.

[IzzieK]

I am a bit late to this party as in many other posts here but I like what I saw in both your shots and has no preference. Thank you for the inspiration to use the IR Filter in Photoshop. I am not keen in that filter but you did very well here. Excellently well, in fact. I like #1 too...both conversions are very nice and as to the comment of both Jack and Manfred, each has merits too...and I cannot play favourite to their comments either...

[Manfred M]

I'm gonna disagree with the thought that people should see both images in order to decide which is more appropriate; the more appropriate image is the one you choose to present. Some images may not work in B&W but to my mind this one clearly does. If someone doesn't like it in B&W then so what, it's your choice, your image and your vision. I think you chose well.

I sort of agree with you, Jack. I'm more thinking about Chris's musing about the choice of going B&W. I started out as a B&W (film) photographer, so I am very comfortable shooting it. When I look at a subject / scene I virtually always decide on going B&W or colour before I press the shutter release and virtually never change my mind when I get ready to work on the image in post. I have found that people who don't shoot B&W very often or are fairly new to it often seem to get overwhelmed by it. I also have an issue of throwing away most of the data that my camera recorded to get that B&W shot; so when I do produce a monochrome image, a lot of thought goes into it before I press the shutter release.

B&W photography is much easier than colour work in many ways; no need to worry about white balance, mixed lighting, etc. When you simplify down from 16 million shades to just 256 shades (in a jpeg), in many ways you have made your life so much simpler. Where things get a bit tricker is understanding how different colours will render in monochrome, so while some aspects are easy to grasp, this one is much more challanging; i.e. if you don't get it right, your image is not going to be particularly good.

So, one thing I firmly believe is that if the photographer is not comfortable in shooting B&W, he or she can learn a lot by reviewing a colour and B&W version of the image side-by-side. It helps the viewer learn how the colour tones mapped over to a grayscale image and how this affects the contrast of the image.