OT: Black & White or Colour?

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

Is there really anything that looks better in B&W than in colour? This is
something I have a problem with, since every time I create a B&W version of
a photo, I usually end up preferring the colour one, even though black &
white does appeal to me in a way.

if there is no colour interest in a shot but it has interesting
textures, it can look better in B&W. Try snapping a pair of mallard,
the male looks best in colour, the female in B&W.

clearly B&W would not have existed in any large way if colour had been
invented first and of B&W processing lends itself to both simple and
advanced darkroom work, hence use by enthusiasts.

A lot of the B&W nude shots on Photosig are IMHO B&W to drape "art"
round what is looking at [censored] and bums. Its often done very well
(better than alleged pros)and I dont think theres anything odd or
wrong about glorifying [censored] and bums, but there you are. That reminds
me.....
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
City of Adelaide petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cuttysarksister/
to email remove clothing.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone here prefer black & white to colour photographs? Or simply like
them in addition to colour? Or not like them at all?
SNIP<

This is my opinion and that only ;-)

Basically, if a colour photo is an "exact" replication of what you see, then
it tends to be boring. That's why filters are used to focus (sic) on slight
differences the human eye sees. As B&W can be made moody and dramatic, even
scarey (infra red film) then I think people take a second look. Many years
ago, I developed my own b&w pics. I took the colour films to Boots and had
them developed in colour, then did them myself in b&w. IMO, the vast
majority looked better in B&W, maybe cause I used cheap paper or was [censored] of
the enlarger, but there was a strong difference - and it wasn't only me who
noticed it. Oh those were the days of Ilford paper and Jessops B&W film!

I've seen some amazingily original photos in color and b&w on Photosig and
even after years I remember some of them, like the smiling jet (actually a
front open fuselage half open) or a photo of a French landscape that
mirrored a Monat without (I think) special effects (. Another colour I
remember was an Irish girl with a long slashed scar on her face and she'd
been crying - that wouldn't have had the impact in B&W because the scar has
coagulated blood of dark brown and red.

Ok, I perfer both, but they must have a "stand out" quality to them for me
to look at them.

Jhimmy

The Reid said:

if there is no colour interest in a shot but it has interesting
textures, it can look better in B&W. Try snapping a pair of mallard,
the male looks best in colour, the female in B&W.

That's what they always say, but I'm not 100% convinced by that argument.
The problem with "colour interest" is that if there's any interesting colour
in the photo then it can detract from the textures. So in your mallard
example, the colour of the male distracts you, so you don't notice the
texture, whereas in the female example, since it isn't very colourful you'll
notice the textures more and therefore don't really need to turn it to B&W
to emphasis it.

Let's take some extreme examples. For example, a sunset in B&W. That may
sound like a crazy thing to do, but I've tried that on one sunset photo and
it looks really good. It's not even obvious that it is a sunset, but it
still looks good. So I'd argue that sometimes it may be good to get rid of
strong colours.

Conversely, a photograph of grey rocks and cliffs on a dull, overcast day in
colour. Sometimes this type of photo looks like B&W even though it isn't,
yet if you remove the colour you can see the difference. And the difference
is that the "monochrome-looking" colour image actually has very faint colour
hues, faint blues, faint browns and so on, which personally I think looks
better than pure B&W.

Take this photo for instance. It's not a monochrome-looking shot, but look
at the different hues in the clouds! It's often assumed that clouds are just
white/grey, but they're often not.
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/pic-of-the-day/waun-fignen-felen-pool/

Even the clouds in the Snowdon photo mentioned in the other thread are full
of colour. They may look plain grey, but if you take the colour away you can
see that there's quite a strong blue tint in them.

Quoted message said:

clearly B&W would not have existed in any large way if colour had been
invented first

Probably, it might never be used at all. Perhaps no-one would see any reason
to use it. It's continued existence may be purely down to tradition.

Quoted message said:

and of B&W processing lends itself to both simple and
advanced darkroom work, hence use by enthusiasts.

This is true, and it's very educational.

Quoted message said:

A lot of the B&W nude shots on Photosig are IMHO B&W to drape "art"
round what is looking at [censored] and bums.

True, and this raises an interesting question. Does turning a pic into B&W
make it instrinsically more arty? In other words, might a mediocre colour
pic be considered good if it were converted black and white, simply due to
the arty pretentiousness of black & white? Or are there really certain types
of pictures that genuinely look better in B&W?

Or is merely down to the eye of the beholder?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/
Latest Blog Post: Swansea Valley Clouds
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/pic-of-the-day/swansea-valley-clouds/

Paul Saunders said:

Anyone here prefer black & white to colour photographs? Or
simply like them in addition to colour? Or not like them at all?

Quoted message said:

I'm particularly interested in the opinions of
non-photographers, or snappers.

That's me then. Very much like B&W in poor light conditions like
caves. Colour will be [censored] anyway unless you have *serious* flash
power (which you won't, as a snapper), black and white simply works
much, much better in that sort of place IMHO.

Quoted message said:

Is there really anything that looks better in B&W than in
colour? This is something I have a problem with, since every
time I create a B&W version of a photo, I usually end up
preferring the colour one, even though black & white does appeal
to me in a way.

Go caving...
Basically, where you're looking at different levels of shadow then
the colour information isn't helpful or really too relevant. In
such instances I think B&W works better, because there's no scraps
of colour to draw your attention away from what's important in a
composition.

Quoted message said:

One interesting aspect, from a photographer's point of view, is
that you can apply more extreme processing to a B&W photo than
you can to a colour one. To comment that it "doesn't look
realistic" isn't really valid with B&W since it doesn't look
realistic anyway

In low light your vision is basically black and white, because it
allows far more sensitivity (can't remember if it's rods or cones
that do B&W/colour, but you've got effectively 2 vision systems,
and the more sensitive B&W is used in low light). So for low light
B&W is natural and realistic.

Quoted message said:

I thought it better to ask this here than on my blog. And my
blog/website is partly the reason for asking this. Would anyone
like to see any B&W shots on my site/blog, or should I stick to
colour? My latest post (link below) is in B&W.

You should stick to what you like and are pleased with. If that's
B&W, post it. If you just include it because you think it should
be there out of some sort of artistic due, I wouldn't bother.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Jhimmy said:

This is my opinion and that only ;-)

Basically, if a colour photo is an "exact" replication of what you
see, then it tends to be boring.

Well leaving aside that small technicality that an "exact" replication is
impossible, I agree. Most successful landscape photos tend to look "better
than life", that's why Velvia became the most popular film for landscape
photographers, because of it's high contrast and high saturation. Reality
never looked so good! Add a polariser and/or a graduated filter and the
results can look amazing, and yet still still acceptable to the general
public. Strange how no-one ever seemed to complain about manipulation back
then.

Quoted message said:

That's why filters are used to focus
(sic) on slight differences the human eye sees. As B&W can be made
moody and dramatic, even scarey (infra red film) then I think people
take a second look.

I agree. Great photos are great not because they look like reality, but
because they look better than reality. Granted, sometimes reality looks
really special, such as at sunrise and sunset, but many people don't
actually see that, or don't look closely enough at those times. Generally
speaking, reality is boring because that's what we see all the time. It
needs to be enhanced to make it a bit special, a bit different.

Quoted message said:

Many years ago, I developed my own b&w pics. I
took the colour films to Boots and had them developed in colour, then
did them myself in b&w. IMO, the vast majority looked better in B&W,
maybe cause I used cheap paper or was [censored] of the enlarger, but there
was a strong difference - and it wasn't only me who noticed it. Oh
those were the days of Ilford paper and Jessops B&W film!

I tried B&W myself once, but never got into actually printing it. I
understand your point though.

I suspect that it's much easier to create great looking colour images with
digital and software nowadays, than it was with film and colour enlargers in
the past. I wonder how much of a factor that is now compared to then?

I recently heard a black and white photographer say that he preferred it
because working with colour was so much more limiting, and I think he's
working with digital these days, so he's obviously referring to the effects
of colour filters and so on.

Quoted message said:

I've seen some amazingily original photos in color and b&w on
Photosig and even after years I remember some of them, like the
smiling jet (actually a front open fuselage half open) or a photo of
a French landscape that mirrored a Monat without (I think) special
effects (. Another colour I remember was an Irish girl with a long
slashed scar on her face and she'd been crying - that wouldn't have
had the impact in B&W because the scar has coagulated blood of dark
brown and red.

Sometimes colour is obviously better, but when is black & white obviously
better? That's what I have trouble with.

Quoted message said:

Ok, I perfer both, but they must have a "stand out" quality to them
for me to look at them.

I agree again. I'm just searching for that "something" that tells me "this
photo would work better in B&W". The usual pat answer about colour interest
and texture doesn't quite do it for me.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/
Latest Blog Post: Swansea Valley Clouds
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/pic-of-the-day/swansea-valley-clouds/

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

That's what they always say, but I'm not 100% convinced by that argument.
The problem with "colour interest" is that if there's any interesting colour
in the photo then it can detract from the textures. So in your mallard
example, the colour of the male distracts you, so you don't notice the
texture,

its more that, unless a very good photo, there isnt much "texture"
interest in the male

Quoted message said:

whereas in the female example, since it isn't very colourful you'll
notice the textures more and therefore don't really need to turn it to B&W
to emphasis it.

I think B&W probably increases the effect

there may be an extra factor in that B&W film used to be "better" than
colour for that sort of thing.
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
City of Adelaide petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cuttysarksister/
to email remove clothing.

Following up to Peter Clinch said:

If you just include it because you think it should
be there out of some sort of artistic due, I wouldn't bother.

I removed the strong blue colour from this to make it look better
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict106.htm"

sometimes I like "colour black and whites"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/IMGP1402.htm"
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
City of Adelaide petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cuttysarksister/
to email remove clothing.

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone here prefer black & white to colour photographs? Or
simply like them in addition to colour? Or not like them at all?

Quoted message said:

I'm particularly interested in the opinions of
non-photographers, or snappers.

That's me then. Very much like B&W in poor light conditions like
caves. Colour will be [censored] anyway unless you have *serious* flash
power (which you won't, as a snapper), black and white simply works
much, much better in that sort of place IMHO.

That's an interesting view, but it's completely at odds with my views on low
light. I actually love low light and long exposures, and am frequently
amazed at how much colour there is in a scene which seems to lack it. From
snapping point of view, you may have a point, but I'm still not convinced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is there really anything that looks better in B&W than in
colour?

Go caving...

Funny you should mention that. Check my blog for the dates 11th to 13th of
this month.

Quoted message said:

Basically, where you're looking at different levels of shadow then
the colour information isn't helpful or really too relevant. In
such instances I think B&W works better, because there's no scraps
of colour to draw your attention away from what's important in a
composition.

I'm wondering if you're confusing what you see with what the camera sees. As
you say later, in low light we basically see in B&W, and I must admit that
it all looked pretty monochrome to me in Porth yr Ogof a few days ago, but
the camera saw it differently. In fact I was surprised at how much colour
was recorded, even with the bog standard flash on the camera (I don't know
if DSLR flashes are more powerful than normal digicams). Check out the first
pic for an example:
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/pic-of-the-day/porth-yr-ogof-pothole/

Granted, most of the colours in the cave were variations on grey and brown,
but still, it was quite colourful. Lots of old red sandstone rocks and
pebbles in the river, mixed in with the blue-grey limestone. And plenty of
mud of course, and bits of trees washed into the caves.

As for composition, what is a good composition in a cave? I guess a lot
depends on the shape and nature of the cave. This trip was spontaneous for
me, having been invited by my nephew, but it re-ignited my interest in the
cave and I plan to return on another occasion to take more serious
photographs. For this I intend to use a high power flashgun, separate from
the camera, using multiple bursts from different angles during a long "B"
exposure. I've never really done this properly so it will be new to me, but
I understand the process.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

comment that it "doesn't look
realistic" isn't really valid with B&W since it doesn't look
realistic anyway

In low light your vision is basically black and white, because it
allows far more sensitivity (can't remember if it's rods or cones
that do B&W/colour, but you've got effectively 2 vision systems,
and the more sensitive B&W is used in low light). So for low light
B&W is natural and realistic.

That's a very good point. I've photographed sunsets in very low light and
ended up with very rich colours, which my eye was unable to see. Is this
realistic? Yes. Is this what we see? No. So what is reality anyway?

So yes, I take your point about B&W being more representative and thus more
"realistic" in terms of what we see in low light situations, but is that
necessarily what makes the best photographs?

At the end of the day, my primary goal is to create the best looking images,
without them looking overtly unrealistic. Does it really matter whether
those photos correspond to what we actually see? Ansel's great landscapes
obviously don't look like how we see those places in reality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would anyone
like to see any B&W shots on my site/blog, or should I stick to
colour? My latest post (link below) is in B&W.

You should stick to what you like and are pleased with.

I like colour best and that's what I've always worked with. It's what I'm
most comfortable with. But on the other hand, I've always been impressed by
great B&W images, and I've always wanted to create some of my own.

Quoted message said:

If that's
B&W, post it. If you just include it because you think it should
be there out of some sort of artistic due, I wouldn't bother.

No, it's not a dubious sense of obligation, I really am interested in B&W
and I'd like to create some great B&W images. It's just that whenever I
experiment with B&W, I usually find myself thinking that the colour image
looks just as good, if not better. So why show the B&W version if the colour
version looks just the same, only better?

In the case of the Swansea Valley Clouds photo below though, I really do
think the B&W version looks better, I didn't like the look of the colour
image much at all.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/
Latest Blog Post: Swansea Valley Clouds
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/pic-of-the-day/swansea-valley-clouds/

The Reid said:

Quoted message said:

That's what they always say, but I'm not 100% convinced by that
argument. The problem with "colour interest" is that if there's any
interesting colour in the photo then it can detract from the
textures. So in your mallard example, the colour of the male
distracts you, so you don't notice the texture,

its more that, unless a very good photo, there isnt much "texture"
interest in the male

Maybe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

whereas in the female example, since it isn't very colourful you'll
notice the textures more and therefore don't really need to turn it
to B&W to emphasis it.

I think B&W probably increases the effect

Does it? I'm not 100% convinced of that. The same texture is there in the
colour photo. Someone recently said that going blind doesn't improve your
hearing, you just concentrate on it more.

Quoted message said:

there may be an extra factor in that B&W film used to be "better" than
colour for that sort of thing.

Really? How? Better resolution perhaps?

If so, then the reverse is true with digital. Since digital creates colour
from multiple sensors with different coloured filters over them (red, green,
blue), a monochrome image made purely from one colour sensor (e.g. red, for
a red filter effect) is actually using less pixels, hence has lower
resolution.

The best solution to this would be to create a monochrome digital camera,
with no colour filters over the sensors, and to use actual colour filters on
the lens instead, for the maximum possible resolution.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/
Latest Blog Post: Swansea Valley Clouds
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/pic-of-the-day/swansea-valley-clouds/

The Reid said:

I removed the strong blue colour from this to make it look better
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict106.htm"

Hard to tell the difference without seeing the original. It looks good, but
maybe the original with the blue cast might have looked good too, in its own
way.

Quoted message said:

sometimes I like "colour black and whites"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/IMGP1402.htm"

But that is B&W! Have you got the wrong image there? I've tried removing the
colour and it looks identical.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/
Latest Blog Post: Swansea Valley Clouds
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/pic-of-the-day/swansea-valley-clouds/

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone here prefer black & white to colour photographs? Or simply like
them in addition to colour? Or not like them at all?

I'm particularly interested in the opinions of non-photographers, or
snappers. People who are serious about photography tend to have a more
favourable opinion of black & white, or do they?

I'm predominantly a holiday snapper - so I guess fall into the above
category.
I like to think I can take a reasonably composed photo, but only use a
compact digital camera, and don't manipulate results much (apart from those
sliding controls on picasa).

I probably prefer colour, but I do like both.

I do like b/w in portrait shots and 'urban' shots.

Landscapes I think I prefer colour - although at the end of the day, as long
as it's a good shot...
Did Ansel Adams ever do colour stuff - I did like him (although maybe it was
more the subject matter).

b/w does appear more 'arty' to me. It's almost as though if you have a
slightly duff photo - it can look better in b/w, as then it's supposed to be
like that...

hth, peter

Paul Saunders said:

That's an interesting view, but it's completely at odds with my views on low
light. I actually love low light and long exposures, and am frequently
amazed at how much colour there is in a scene which seems to lack it. From
snapping point of view, you may have a point, but I'm still not convinced.

Part of my thinking is previous experience using B&W and colour film.
The caving pic on my pictures page is B&W because I'd taken to using B&W
film on caving trips because I just got rather grot, wishy-washy colours
with colour film on my old XA1 but nice distinct shadows with B&W. If
you're using (a) a much better and (b) digital camera it is a rather
different matter.

Long exposures are all very well for a static scene, but someone
thrutching through a cave might not be that static and they might be
doing that boring old "breathing" thing that people insist on and
fogging up the view! ;-) There will be times when time is of the essence.

Quoted message said:

I'm wondering if you're confusing what you see with what the camera sees. As
you say later, in low light we basically see in B&W, and I must admit that
it all looked pretty monochrome to me in Porth yr Ogof a few days ago, but
the camera saw it differently. In fact I was surprised at how much colour
was recorded, even with the bog standard flash on the camera (I don't know
if DSLR flashes are more powerful than normal digicams). Check out the first
pic for an example:
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/pic-of-the-day/porth-yr-ogof-pothole/

Granted, most of the colours in the cave were variations on grey and brown,
but still, it was quite colourful. Lots of old red sandstone rocks and
pebbles in the river, mixed in with the blue-grey limestone. And plenty of
mud of course, and bits of trees washed into the caves.

OTOH, next pic is more about (at least to me) "this is the sort of dumb
crawly things we do in caves". The red oversuit draws a huge amount of
attention, rather obscuring the crawler in grey which, to my eyes, is a
more interesting part of the picture.

Quoted message said:

As for composition, what is a good composition in a cave?

What's a good composition anywhere? I know a well composed picture when
I see it, but I lack the skill to create my own :-(

Quoted message said:

So yes, I take your point about B&W being more representative and thus more
"realistic" in terms of what we see in low light situations, but is that
necessarily what makes the best photographs?

Not necessarily, but it will vary from picture to picture. I think
colour will work better more often, but it's not a given.

Quoted message said:

At the end of the day, my primary goal is to create the best looking images,
without them looking overtly unrealistic. Does it really matter whether
those photos correspond to what we actually see?

That's up to whoever is looking...

Quoted message said:

No, it's not a dubious sense of obligation, I really am interested in B&W
and I'd like to create some great B&W images. It's just that whenever I
experiment with B&W, I usually find myself thinking that the colour image
looks just as good, if not better. So why show the B&W version if the colour
version looks just the same, only better?

I just tried your second caving pic, the one dominated by the red
oversuit, in B&W. I thought it looked much better in B&W, with the
focus completely changed... Try it yourself and see what you think. I
think maybe you discounted it as "just a snap", but of course that's
almost all of what I shoot!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

peter-potato said:

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone here prefer black & white to colour photographs? Or simply like
them in addition to colour? Or not like them at all?

Quoted message said:

Landscapes I think I prefer colour - although at the end of the day, as long
as it's a good shot...
Did Ansel Adams ever do colour stuff - I did like him (although maybe it was
more the subject matter).

b/w does appear more 'arty' to me. It's almost as though if you have a
slightly duff photo - it can look better in b/w, as then it's supposed to be
like that...

Even more arty is partialy B&W.

Second and fifth on here
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/palouse.shtml
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Angletarn Pikes via Beda Fell.
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/May07/martin9.htm

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Anyone here prefer black & white to colour photographs? Or simply like them
in addition to colour? Or not like them at all?

I like the 'one step divorced from reality' effect that B & W give to
some subjects. This can be taken even further with infrared film (or a
suitable photo manipulation program to give pseudo-IR). There was a
great series of IR photos taken back in the last century of (I think)
Irish castles. Didn't one of them end up on a U2 album cover?

There's some interesting stuff on:

http://www.atsf.co.uk/ilight/index.html

I also like B & W for portraits of people.

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

Someone recently said that going blind doesn't improve your
hearing, you just concentrate on it more.

Exactly!!!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there may be an extra factor in that B&W film used to be "better" than
colour for that sort of thing.

Really? How? Better resolution perhaps?

Yes and better blacks

Quoted message said:

If so, then the reverse is true with digital. Since digital creates colour
from multiple sensors with different coloured filters over them (red, green,
blue), a monochrome image made purely from one colour sensor (e.g. red, for
a red filter effect) is actually using less pixels, hence has lower
resolution.

this is all pre digital, making monochromes from a digital is an area
that needs exploration for validity. Shot in the dark. Phot of black
babe against black background shot on quality B&W film wont be matched
by digital?

Quoted message said:

The best solution to this would be to create a monochrome digital camera,
with no colour filters over the sensors, and to use actual colour filters on
the lens instead, for the maximum possible resolution.

I suspect so.
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
City of Adelaide petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cuttysarksister/
to email remove clothing.

Paul Saunders said:

Anyone here prefer black & white to colour photographs? Or simply like them
in addition to colour? Or not like them at all?

I'm sitting here with 4 b & w photos of my 8 month old son on my desk,
so I reckon I'm voting for b & w. Tends to diminish the impact of the
dribble.

--
Giles

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from Paul Saunders
contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Anyone here prefer black & white to colour photographs? Or simply like them
in addition to colour? Or not like them at all?

Black and white is good if you want to emphasise shape and form. It is
not successful where the shape and form is created by subtle changes in
colour.

The short answer is, it depends on the subject.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Paul Saunders said:

The Reid wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there may be an extra factor in that B&W film used to be "better" than
colour for that sort of thing.

Quoted message said:

Really? How? Better resolution perhaps?

Quoted message said:

If so, then the reverse is true with digital. Since digital creates colour
from multiple sensors with different coloured filters over them (red, green,
blue), a monochrome image made purely from one colour sensor (e.g. red, for
a red filter effect) is actually using less pixels, hence has lower
resolution.

Quoted message said:

The best solution to this would be to create a monochrome digital camera,
with no colour filters over the sensors, and to use actual colour filters on
the lens instead, for the maximum possible resolution.

Just a technical point -- if the light is poor and you ramp up the ISO
on a digital camera you get chroma noise, and that is reduced if you
convert to B&W, i.e. you can get more detail and less noise in poor
light conditions in B&W.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

snip

Quoted message said:

In low light your vision is basically black and white, because it allows
far more sensitivity (can't remember if it's rods or cones that do
B&W/colour, but you've got effectively 2 vision systems, and the more
sensitive B&W is used in low light).

Cones
] = C
Colour

(in Dutch : Kegeltjes
] = K
Kleur )

HTH

Theo (with different amount of cones in right and left eye)

www.theosphotos.fotopic.net