Black & White *does* look different

Just a brief photographic topic of discussion, no politics or flames :-)
I was curious and quickly converted a set of my photos to black & white.

This image in color:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit

When converted to b&w shows why the composition works:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...it/black-white

The form of the dunes is repeated almost exactly in the clouds from the
main mass and form to the isolated finger in the upper-left and the
mountains in the background match the foreground shrubs. I'll call it
intuitive genious but it may have been dumb luck g. It is interesting
that this is not obvious in the color version because the two are
complimentary (opposite) colors of blue and gold.

Some of the set don't look that great in b&w, many do, mainly the ones
lacking strong highlights look bland in b&w, which doesn't really have
much to do with whether there are strong colors or not.

Just some observations.

On Mar 19, 10:08 pm, Paul Furman wrote:
Just a brief photographic topic of discussion, no politics or flames :-)
I was curious and quickly converted a set of my photos to black & white.

This image in color:http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit

When converted to b&w shows why the composition works:http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...it/black-white

The form of the dunes is repeated almost exactly in the clouds from the
main mass and form to the isolated finger in the upper-left and the
mountains in the background match the foreground shrubs. I'll call it
intuitive genious but it may have been dumb luck g. It is interesting
that this is not obvious in the color version because the two are
complimentary (opposite) colors of blue and gold.

Some of the set don't look that great in b&w, many do, mainly the ones
lacking strong highlights look bland in b&w, which doesn't really have
much to do with whether there are strong colors or not.

Just some observations.

Behind the sand, burn in the background. Might give it more impact.

Paul Furman wrote:

Just a brief photographic topic of discussion, no politics or flames :-)
I was curious and quickly converted a set of my photos to black & white.

This image in color:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit

When converted to b&w shows why the composition works:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...it/black-white

The form of the dunes is repeated almost exactly in the clouds from the
main mass and form to the isolated finger in the upper-left and the
mountains in the background match the foreground shrubs. I'll call it
intuitive genious but it may have been dumb luck g. It is interesting
that this is not obvious in the color version because the two are
complimentary (opposite) colors of blue and gold.

Some of the set don't look that great in b&w, many do, mainly the ones
lacking strong highlights look bland in b&w, which doesn't really have
much to do with whether there are strong colors or not.

Just some observations.


It is rare to see an image that looks equally good in colour and black
and white.

A rare pleasure, in fact, because this is an outstanding image.

uw wayne wrote:

On Mar 19, 10:08 pm, Paul Furman wrote:

Just a brief photographic topic of discussion, no politics or flames :-)
I was curious and quickly converted a set of my photos to black & white.

This image in color:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit

When converted to b&w shows why the composition works:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...it/black-white

The form of the dunes is repeated almost exactly in the clouds from the
main mass and form to the isolated finger in the upper-left and the
mountains in the background match the foreground shrubs. I'll call it
intuitive genious but it may have been dumb luck g. It is interesting
that this is not obvious in the color version because the two are
complimentary (opposite) colors of blue and gold.

Some of the set don't look that great in b&w, many do, mainly the ones
lacking strong highlights look bland in b&w, which doesn't really have
much to do with whether there are strong colors or not.

Just some observations.


Behind the sand, burn in the background. Might give it more impact.

Yes it probably could use some burning & dodging. Some of the others
would need a lot to work well.

"Paul Furman" wrote

This image in color:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit

When converted to b&w shows why the composition works:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...it/black-white

The whole color set is awesome. It is interesting that some of the images
are better in color and some better in B&W.

Just some observations.

Thanks for sharing.

--
Mark

Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com

I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
the Army.
- Dom

Paul Furman wrote:
Just a brief photographic topic of discussion, no politics or flames :-)
I was curious and quickly converted a set of my photos to black & white.

This image in color:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit

When converted to b&w shows why the composition works:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...it/black-white

The form of the dunes is repeated almost exactly in the clouds from the
main mass and form to the isolated finger in the upper-left and the
mountains in the background match the foreground shrubs. I'll call it
intuitive genious but it may have been dumb luck g. It is interesting
that this is not obvious in the color version because the two are
complimentary (opposite) colors of blue and gold.

Some of the set don't look that great in b&w, many do, mainly the ones
lacking strong highlights look bland in b&w, which doesn't really have
much to do with whether there are strong colors or not.

Just some observations.

And originals taken on black & white film look different still from
conversions done in photoshop.