DSLRUsers.com

We went out for a rare morning tea today.
I quite like the slice of life we were presented with, but am unsure whether it works better in Black & White or Colour...
Opinions on this or any other aspect?

BW all teh way, a possible slight crop from teh top and right - its a nice insight into the couple and also the croup of girls/guy

I'm with Gerry....black and white all the way

Black and white's much better. The yellow walls are dominant in the colour image and lead your eyes to blank wall space whereas in the b&w image you naturally focus in on the faces of the people.

Definitely colour. Not sure why, I just like the colour better in this instance.

Colour as presented but if the B&W could be processed in a more grungy fashion I might change my mind.

The two choices are quite different. I can see more
detail in the colour one. Black and white can be good
or ven better proding you don't loose detail in the
picture.

B&W easy

The colours are too distracting in this environment. Black and white is better.

PiroStitch wrote:The colours are too distracting in this environment. Black and white is better.

lol, piro, given your typical shots i reckon this is a general rule for you

I usually prefer giving out pieces of the puzzle and letting others solve it themselves

Cropped as per suggestions. I like - wish I had thought to do it in the beginning. At first I cropped it just above the door, removing the light. But this bothered me as it chopped the top of the painting off so I went up to just above the painting & just getting in the whole lampshade.

Also added "grunge" whatever that is. I think I may have gone too far though. I think it improves some things but takes away elsewhere. I lack the experience to finesse this. I used "Film Noir" in SFxPro2, then removed the frame that added and increased the vignetting. I also used a few control points to darken the URHS corner a little as that was blowing out. I do like the way the RHS woman has been isolated. This conveys quite a different story.



EDIT. Partially removed a shiny mark on the door.

I prefer it without the crop. Now the lady doesn't look like she's interacting with anyone on the RHS.

That’s it Greg. The original was just a tad too flat but the new treatment has given depth and strength to the photo - I like.

PiroStitch wrote:I prefer it without the crop. Now the lady doesn't look like she's interacting with anyone on the RHS.

Strange. That's one of the things I like about the treatment. BTW I think it has more to do with the added grunge than the crop. She is isolated by the high contrast white area around her.

I think I prefer the first version, I don't think the extra contrast helps. I also think the danger of prepackaged editors like FXPro is that you can think in terms of the options it offers rather than in terms of what you want the image to do and be. (Why aren't thing like this given names like FXAmateur?).

Rather than cropping, regional tonal adjustment might work better - From the first version: darken the door a touch and darken the room behind the door; darken the wall above the picture rail a touch; hold back the wall behind the right table a little bit; and probably hold back the back of the far right bench somewhat. Maybe try increasing grain in Lightroom for a bit more grunge but you wouldn't want to overdo it.

Murray Foote wrote:Why aren't thing like this given names like FXAmateur

Because they are aspirational. They want to sell them to amateurs like me who want to lift their game but don't know how.

Murray Foote wrote: I also think the danger of prepackaged editors like FXPro is that you can think in terms of the options it offers rather than in terms of what you want the image to do and be.

And the beauty of tools like these is that they enable an amateur like me to quickly see potential roads to take an image down, and you will notice that I didn't keep the entire packaged solution. I merely used it as a starting point. In woodwork I prefer the hand hewn approach, but am well aware that power tools will produce a good result much more quickly. A few deft touches by hand can take that good result to excellent. I admit though that I am anything but deft when it comes to photography. I will take the good result quite happily. I know the journey is more important than the destination, but the journey is my education not the route to this particular image. Butting my head against a brick wall is NOT a journey. Being shown a new vista just around the corner from that wall, whether by the kind people here or a software program is. I am not entirely happy with the second image, but I think it is a vast improvement on the first. I would not have got here without 1. Chris and 2. SFxPro. I will continue to explore this new territory.

Murray Foote wrote:Rather than cropping, regional tonal adjustment might work better - From the first version: darken the door a touch and darken the room behind the door; darken the wall above the picture rail a touch; hold back the wall behind the right table a little bit; and probably hold back the back of the far right bench somewhat. Maybe try increasing grain in Lightroom for a bit more grunge but you wouldn't want to overdo it.

Thanks I'll give it a go in the next few days. I am busy doing other things today. As I said I felt the version as posted may have been overcooked. This may bring it back to something I like better. Incidentally, the original conversion was also done in SFxPro. Just a more naturalistic one. I find it does a much better conversion than I can achieve in LR or even PS. I am sure that is my lack rather than the tools though.

Mr Darcy wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:Why aren't thing like this given names like FXAmateur

Because they are aspirational. They want to sell them to amateurs like me who want to lift their game but don't know how.

The word amateur derives from the Latin amare (to love). An amateur is therefore a lover of photography, independent of skill level and therefore it is an aspirational term.

Pro as in pro photographer should usually be commercial photographer in terms of in common usage. A commercial photographer is constrained by producing what other people want and the need to generate images quickly for profit to be possible. Not all commercial photographers are highly skilled. At least some amateurs may have more freedom of mind, time and resources than most commercial photographers. Another advantage amateurs have is that they are more likely to cooperate and share insights and techniques than most commercial photographers. There is no reason why amateurs should not be at the highest levels of attainment in photography.

Greg
That's one beautiful image! Odd thing is it works very well both ways. It reminds me of an Edward Hopper painting. (see 'Nighthawks', 1942). It just captures that style so well. Is that the D800 you are using at the moment?
I think the colour adds an ambiance that's missing in the B&W but could live with either.

Matt. K wrote:It reminds me of an Edward Hopper painting.

Funny you said that. Pam said exactly the same. We saw a Hopper retrospective in Boston some years ago. We were very struck then and remain fans. the "grunge" version in particular is reminiscent of Hopper in that the protagonists are isolated. This is VERY Hopper. In almost all of his paintings there are multiple figures, but they almost never interact. In many instances they do not even relate to their environment. Consider for example, Cape Cod Morning. The woman in the painting is in the landscape, but not of the landscape,

I lean to the B&W but like you could go either way, hence the post. I will, when I get the time, rework it so I am somewhere between between the first B&W and the grunge. I am getting very much to the edge of my PP skills - such as they are - though so I am not hopeful of a good outcome.

Voila! There's the image there.

The contrast is similar to Tri-X with a colour filter applied.