B&W or Colour ??

steoc

I did a few shots with this girl last night.
I had in my mind to have it in B&W but while editing the colour before the mono conversation i was unsure so what do you peps think??
Any C&C also very welcome.
Steoc

the_monkey

Both nice shots, but I prefer the B&W one, could be just me, but I prefer B&W portraits.

adox

I`m by no means an expert and I am sure there will be more qualified opinions than mine to follow, but for what its worth:

B&W for me. For a close up portrait like that, her hair colour and the flower are distracting and taking the eye away from her face. On a wider shot the colour would have been welcomed and added some contrast to the shot but on this one B&W. In the B&W shot my eye is drawn to her eyes and her piercings whereas in the colour shot I`m staring at her hair and the flower.:)

steoc

Thanks Guys i see what you mean about the colour and how it would be distracting from her eyes.
The mono tends to find the eyes quicker.

PyeContinental

Colour.

Why would you not want to see the colour of a flower, and if her hair colour is such a feature, why use that model if you're going to change it to make it seem that she has black hair?

Personally, I think that deliberately producing black and white photos when nobody has to any more is pretentious. When that's all that was available because of the technology, people would have given anything to be able to record the beautiful colours in the world. Now that the technology exists to do that, deliberately choosing not to is conceited and a deliberate perversion.

Imagine if Van Gogh had decided that his Cafe Terrace At Night would look more arty if he did it as a charcoal rubbing.

We would not have the wonderful inviting glow of the golden lamplight extending the welcome out into the street.


What if Monet had decided that the shapes of the poppies in the field at Argenteuil were more important than their colours?

It's like the difference between dry bread and strawberry pavlova.


What would be the point of the below photographs if not in colour?

MiskyBoyy

Colour for me.

A photo is meant to draw the viewer in to fully explore it, not just look at one fixed point and move on.

In the B&W photo, she looks pale but in the colour photo, you can see the lovely colour of her skin & the soft freckles underneath!

magicbastarder

PyeContinental wrote: »

Personally, I think that deliberately producing black and white photos when nobody has to any more is pretentious. When that's all that was available because of the technology, people would have given anything to be able to record the beautiful colours in the world. Now that the technology exists to do that, deliberately choosing not to is conceited and a deliberate perversion.

anyone choosing to draw a portrait when a photograph can record detail more faithfully is thus also participating in a 'deliberate perversion'.

you do know where the word 'art' comes from?

PyeContinental

magicbastarder wrote: »

you do know where the word 'art' comes from?

"Converting to greyscale" does not create art, nor make you an artist.

DaireQuinlan

PyeContinental wrote: »

"Converting to greyscale" does not create art, nor make you an artist.

If you think that the way to create a B&W shot is to 'convert to greyscale' then you don't have a clear enough understanding of the process to dismiss, or even discuss it.

magicbastarder

PyeContinental wrote: »

"Converting to greyscale" does not create art, nor make you an artist.

your statement is too ludicrous to take seriously any more, so i will just sit on the sidelines for a while and see how this develops.

PyeContinental

Well I don't have time to get in to an argument right now. It's clear your sensibilities have been offended, so I'm not going to ruffle your feathers by replying anymore, for a while at least.

Paulw

I prefer the colour too.

The B&W seems a lot softer.

steoc

PyeContinental wrote: »

Well I don't have time to get in to an argument right now. It's clear your sensibilities have been offended, so I'm not going to ruffle your feathers by replying anymore, for a while at least.

As the Op i think that no one here is as you say looking to get into an argument. Photographers convert images into B&W all the time. You have strong opinions which is fair enough. But that doest mean your right.

genie_us

I like them both but I think I prefer the b&w version too, I agree with whoever said there is too much to look at in the colour one but I do like the contrast.

That was probably of no use at all to you

magicbastarder

i'd go with colour; in the b&w, the shoulder and cheek are fairly featureless blobs of white. maybe try a different style of b&w conversion?

thefizz

Has to be B&W for me. Colour is too distracting.

zero19

I like the B&W version more myself.

bernard0368

I keep going towards the B&W but then I see things in the colour I like better,
her freckles pushing through add a little that is missing from the B&W they seem to add features to her. The B&W seems a little flat though her eyes do pull you in even if they look a little too white.
IMO if you could pull the freckles out in the B&W it could add a lot to the image. Also a little burn under her right eye, lower lip and around the nose may help offset the flatness.

amdgilmore

On the one hand, I think it's a shame to use a model with purple/blue hair and then desaturate the photo. But on the other hand, the colour of her hair and the colour of the flower clash and don't create a pleasing effect. So it's black and white by default.

Going black and white is a decision that really should be made in advance though. Contrary to what that strange chap earlier in this thread seems to think, it's not supposed to be a filter that one applies to colour photos to make them look "arty"(?). It's a different discipline with its own set of rules and sensibilities.

Dave!

PyeContinental wrote: »

Well I don't have time to get in to an argument right now. It's clear your sensibilities have been offended, so I'm not going to ruffle your feathers by replying anymore, for a while at least.

You really can't think of a single example of a photograph that is more striking, meaningful, powerful, aesthetically pleasing, etc., in B&W rather than colour?

In the OP's example I'd be inclined to agree that the colours contribute a lot, but I wouldn't go as far as to make blanket statements like you did earlier

magicbastarder

Dave! wrote: »

You really can't think of a single example of a photograph that is more striking, meaningful, powerful, aesthetically pleasing, etc., in B&W rather than colour?

the problem with the examples PC chose is that (s)he deliberately chose pictures chock full of colour, where composition and texture are not as prominent, so PC did manage to prove that some pictures do work better in colour. which is not really the beginnings of a solid argument.

OldGoat

I'm drawn to the colour image. I'd usually opt for the B&W but her hair is a striking colour and is a part of her personality, chosen by her to be loud, vibrant and noticed. Blue hair is still rare enough to see on people that it still has a strong visual impact. Converting to B&W steals that from her.
The B&W has lost too much detail in her face, the freckles. Over-softened?

If I were to make any changes to it I would try to add a little more orange to the sunflower to provide more contrasting colour to the blue.

Mrcamera

B+W for me also.

As for people not wanting to shoot black and white anymore as it is old hat, well that is nonsense.

AnimalRights

This is the 1st BW v Colour thread on boards that I can't make a decision, I think both look great and I can't separate them and out of all the thousands of pics I've taken that has only happened to me about 7-8 times and I used both.

Snowie

The tones are all wrong her skin is not that pale yet it is in b&W shes got frecles in color and in b&W theres none you really need to pay more attention to the skin tones that is the secret to black and white!

inkedpt

Hi Steoc!

Just because it is a portrait, and in a portrait all the attention should be drawn to the subject, I would go for b&w, with a new editing. It looks to me that her cheekbone disappear

In the color version her hair, skin color and freckles look really nice but my eyes wonder all around.

cheers

steoc

Thanks for taking the time to view and comment i take them all on board.
I am going to do another edit on the B&W as i do see now the loss of detail on her face and arm.
I still like the colour but i am leaning towards the B&W. Ill have another bash at it tonight and will post later.
Thanks again,
Steoc

kelly1

I'm not sure which I prefer but I would probably go for the b+w if there was more contrast in her face. The light is too flat for a b+w portrait IMO.

ScumLord

I think they're both appealing in their own way. The B&W one looks classic despite the model having modern piercings. The Colour one is striking and conveys more personality.

If only you could combine the two.

kevc2

I much prefer the colour version.

Cookie P74

B+W for me but with slightly different processing that shows the freckles and bit more cheek bone definition as mentioned above.

Great portrait btw both in colour and b+w.