Color or black and white - and why?

bdcolen

And I realize this is out of place here, but I'm hoping for Richard's indulgence. :rofl

SimpsonBrothers

For me, I feel that the b&w brings out more emotion in the shot, it also seems "timeless" if that is the word I'm looking for.

thoth

I prefer the black and white for two reasons. First, the dress in the color version distracts me from her face, which is the important part. Second, the girl seems to be not feeling well. Her cheeks are flushed (which is more apparent in color but stands out just fine in black and white) and your conversion adds to the sense that she is under the weather. The conversion is key to that sensation and could have easily destroyed it rather than enforced it.

Wil Davis

I don't mind whether colour or mono, but I think I'd frame/crop differently (too much unimportant stuff on the left upsets the balance (IMNSHO))…

…but the answers to your original question are:

Either! & Because!



- Wil

DeeCajun

Yup B & W.. the glint in her eyes pops in the B & W

Flyinggina

First, it is a really good photograph. I worry about children growing up in a world where adults are constantly on their cell phones no matter where or what the occasion.

Color or black and white?

For me it depends.

If this were of one of my family members, I would probably prefer the color. The dress the little girl is wearing may well be a favorite picked out by her or something made by a relative. If so, it is part of the story of the picture. So are her rosy cheeks and general complexion. The colors and textures of the clothing do not take away from the little girl's face, her position vs a vs the adult or the cellphone in the hands of the adult. I have no problem at all getting a strong message from the color picture.

All of that said, I like the black and white. Partly that is because I am going through a black and white phase. (I wonder why!) Also, the conversion is good and I find it pleasing to look at. It shifts the focus fully to the little girl, however, and the story that I got from the color version (adult engrossed with phone while child seeks attention), while still there, is deemphasized because the gray tones of the adult's hands don't pull my eyes to them (and thus the cellphone) the same way the skin color does.

I think that for this photo, the choice between black and white or color is a very close call. I would choose black and white (tonight at least), but that is my subjective opinion. What does the client think?

One last thought. Color is reality. Converting to black and white is a distortion of that reality, as is, for example, HDR processing (though I suppose that one could argue that HDR produces something closer to reality). That doesn't make black and white or HDR processing good or bad. My point is that, although you may not like one or the other, they can be legitimate ways of capturing our world.

Black and white can be a powerful tool to tell a story. But it is just that, a tool.

Virginia

pathfinder

I think Virginia has hit on a good point.

As a family snapshot, the color image might be preferable, because the dress might be important.

But for me, the color in the dress pulls my eye from the child's face, which is where the action is, the reason for picture. I noticed the adult's hand in the B&W before I did in the color, but the hand is part of the setting , not the subject for me. The hand is important, but better found later, than seen initially on gazing at the image - JMO

As a non-family member, I prefer the B&W strongly. If it were my image I would burn the child's right sleeve a bit to bring its tone down since it is the brightest portion of the image, and competes with the child's sweet face for my eye. Very nice soft conversion.

zoomer

Crop from the bottom to just below the little girls arm. Clone crop the thin white strip from the upper left edge.
Black and white works but increase the exposure to clean her skin up and make it pop.
Color and black and white both work well here, since I love black and white that is the way I would go.
Why...my eye is happier with black and white.....don't know why.
She is a cutie.

Flowerman

I agree with Virginia on all of her color comments. I will add one more - the innosence of the child is lost in B & W. After all this shot is all about the child. Leave B&W for cityscapes and the like.

The voice of an old man who grew up using B&W and embraced color as soon as money allowed, some 55 years ago.

One last comment - the color capture is fantastic in this shot - IMO the person's hands age 20 years in B&W and the child loses her innosence.

bdcolen

bdcolen wrote:

And I realize this is out of place here, but I'm hoping for Richard's indulgence.

Thank you all for your thoughtful, interesting comments. And for validating an observation I have made several times:

Shoot people in color and you see their clothing; shoot them in black and white and you see the person.

And responses to a few specific comments - Travis, believe it or not she isn't feverish - she just has an incredible rosey cheeks. But you're absolutely right that the black and white made it even more noticeable;

Yes, Virginia, color is reality. But rather than think of black and white as a post-processing trick, I think of it as a film choice, while I do see HDR as a post-processing trick. Does that make sense? Perhaps not. But being grounded in the film world, it's how I tend to think;

Pathfinder - the hand is very much part of the subject, as is the leg you want cropped, because both provide context...

...as, Wil, do the doorway elements. Is she coming or going? Is she 'seeking shelter from the storm? Is she finding it, or is Mom too distracted? Or will she be heading out?

But back to color or black and white. I believe that those who either said, or whose comments suggested, that we have two quite different images here, are correct. The black and white is the far more interesting image, suggesting, with much more ambiguity, and therefore story possibility, than the color image. The color image, because of the colors, is the warmer, softer image. Most parents would probably prefer the color image. But from a photographic perspective, I'll take the black and white.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to give this some thought and comment.

rutt

B.D., you stumbled into the hypothesis of one of my long held theories:

Rutt's First Law of Dgrin: If someone asks whether a portrait works better in B&W or color, the flesh tones have more magenta than yellow.

So far, there has never been a counterexample, and this is no exception. I know you have your own theories and probably dialing back on the magenta vs. yellow balance won't change your mind about this one (or anything for that matter) but what if we give the color version a fighting chance?

thoth

I must say that Rutt is on to something there. I don't know that it changes my mind about B&W representing what I saw in the image better. But I do think that his color version competes much more successfully in fulfilling what the image promises. I think the richer blacks of Rutt's color add that touch that the original B&W version gave over the original color. I feel like I'm talking in circles.

bfjr

rutt wrote:

B.D., you stumbled into the hypothesis of one of my long held theories:

Rutt's First Law of Dgrin: If someone asks whether a portrait works better in B&W or color, the flesh tones have more magenta than yellow.

So far, there has never been a counterexample, and this is no exception. I know you have your own theories and probably dialing back on the magenta vs. yellow balance won't change your mind about this one (or anything for that matter) but what if we give the color version a fighting chance?

You did the same to one of mine and it didn't work either.

I like the B&W better and yes because the colors (all of them) are distracting.

On a side note:
Have any of you noticed how digital color is getting out of hand??
Lots O stuff seems Amped to the enth degree.

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

B.D., you stumbled into the hypothesis of one of my long held theories:

Rutt's First Law of Dgrin: If someone asks whether a portrait works better in B&W or color, the flesh tones have more magenta than yellow.

So far, there has never been a counterexample, and this is no exception. I know you have your own theories and probably dialing back on the magenta vs. yellow balance won't change your mind about this one (or anything for that matter) but what if we give the color version a fighting chance?

Well, I'm loath to argue with you on a technical point, because the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of your being right - seriously, and I know that you will probably be able to demonstrate that what I'm about to say is wrong - but this is one case where I believe the original image I posted is definitely closer to reality that your adjusted image. But as I said, you are probably right.

rutt

bdcolen wrote:

But as I said, you are probably right.

That was my take-away.

thoth

rutt wrote:

That was my take-away.

:lol4

Wil Davis

bdcolen wrote:

…snip

...as, Wil, do the doorway elements. Is she coming or going? Is she 'seeking shelter from the storm? Is she finding it, or is Mom too distracted? Or will she be heading out?

snip…

BD I think I owe you an apology…

I could have sworn the originals I saw were in landscape format, yet when I look back on them, they're all square and X2…

hmmm…

I'll guess that they're all slightly large for my piddly diddly 19" display, in which case I wuz wrong! …I should have looked more closely…

…I was going to suggest that they might look better square!



- Wil

BTW - mono is good, but the colour version is also good, so I stick with my original Either! & Because!

also…

BTW - might I suggest that we post no larger than L (for the small displayed (or minded) folk like me…)?

topcat374

B&W - timeless image (especially with the style of dress) juxtaposed against modern technology... just my take on it though:).

pathfinder

Ok John, I will grant you the adult's hand is too magenta in BD's image. In my defense, I was looking at my MacBook at work this morning with its un-calibrated glossy screen. I shuold have known better.

Here at home with my i1D2 calibrated matte screen, I do agree that the adult's hand looks better less magenta, and measures more appropriate with my Digital Color meter, with yellow >magenta.

When I compare the two color renderings side by side, I can see the magenta in the child's face in the original image, but I do not really like the "tan" hue the child exhibits in your edited image either. I think somewhere in between is better.

I do know that skin should read -> B is + and B > than A in LAB, but I also know that it is much truer of adults in southern California, and not always completely true of rosy cheeked infants in mid-winter in New England or central Indiana.

I appreciate the more "accurate tones" in your image, but I think the best image is somewhere between BD's and yours; and I still like the monochrome version.

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

I appreciate the more "accurate tones" in your image, but I think the best image is somewhere between BD's and yours; and I still like the monochrome version.

This and B.D.'s comment miss the point. We could fuss with the color all we want. But I postulated something about dgriners, portraits, and questions about B&W vs color versions. So far I've never seen a counterexample, have you?

OK, OK, OK, I know that's not what you really want to talk about. How about this? Take the two COLOR versions to her parents and ask them to pick one. Actually, we'll need some double-blind apparatus to make the experiment valid. But if we could do that, I'd bet dinner at one of the best places in town they'd pick the one with the A>=B flesh (except for the rosiest parts of her cheeks.)

But, real? What I saw? How are we ever going to decide that?

Oh, and I think the B&W is a killer! B.D. is a great candid B&W photographer. Really great.

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

This and B.D.'s comment miss the point. We could fuss with the color all we want. But I postulated something about dgriners, portraits, and questions about B&W vs color versions. So far I've never seen a counterexample, have you?

OK, OK, OK, I know that's not what you really want to talk about. How about this? Take the two COLOR versions to her parents and ask them to pick one. Actually, we'll need some double-blind apparatus to make the experiment valid. But if we could do that, I'd bet dinner at one of the best places in town they'd pick the one with the A>=B flesh (except for the rosiest parts of her cheeks.)

But, real? What I saw? How are we ever going to decide that?

Oh, and I think the B&W is a killer! B.D. is a great candid B&W photographer. Really great.

So you are saying that the parents would pick the more magenta version of the image? Or would they pick the image with less cyan perhaps more red, not more magenta?

Like I said, I am well aware of the general statement that B should be + and > than A for skin tones - but that does not hold well for infants, rosy cheeked toddlers, or kids playing in the snow. True for sun tanned Floridians though.

We certainly agree about the monochrome version. I also agree with Virgina, the parents might not prefer the monochrome version though.

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

So you are saying that the parents would pick the more magenta version of the image? Or would they pick the image with less cyan perhaps more red, not more magenta?<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Like I said, I am well aware of the general statement that B should be + and > than A for skin tones - but that does not hold well for infants, rosy cheeked toddlers, or kids playing in the snow. True for sun tanned Floridians though.

We certainly agree about the monochrome version. I also agree with Virgina, the parents might not prefer the monochrome version though.

I misspoke. The parents will pick the A<=B (more yellow) version like 90% of the time, realistic or not. I'm trying not to speculate about why, but if I had to, I'd say it looks healthier and that's more important than anything when it comes to one's children.

pathfinder

The use of color, and how color affects emotion and distance to the viewer, has been a major tool of painters and artists for thousands of years.

But even painters did not always use color. Think of pen and ink drawings, charcoal drawings, pencil studies, etc. Monochrome imagery definitely antedated photography.

Grisaille is a term used for monochrome grey paintings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grisaille -

vintagemxr

bfjr wrote:

>snip<
On a side note: Have any of you noticed how digital color is getting out of hand?? <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > Lots O stuff seems Amped to the enth degree.

I completely agree with that statement. It seems popular of late to rely on over done colors to carry an otherwise weak image or to hype up an image that would have been very nice with more realistic colors (No, the image B.D. posted isn't weak!). Some branches of photography seem to be drifting back to the overwrought pictorialist fashion of it's early days except this time using color instead of soft focus and posed models.

To reiterate what others have said here, if I was family I'd go for the color photo as it seems much more warm and alive but if I was looking to dramatize a particular point about kids, parents, and technological obsession, then the b&w version does a better job because it leaves more room for imagination and interpretation by the viewer.

Doug