Q. How come old photographs are always black and white?
Didn't they have color film back then?

A. Sure they did. In fact, those old photographs are in color.
It's just that the world was black and white then.

- Bill Watterson


To start of the new year, let's return to photography's roots and work in black and white. Since this is an 'easy' assignment, I'd like to welcome the new year by only including new photographs. As always, use this thread to share your successes and your learning images.

If possible, also include some notes about how you converted your photo into black and white.

I took this a few nights ago when I saw a frenzy of bugs just above my head. I just lifted the camera into them and took a few shots. This is the only one that remotely worked. It basically came out black and white because it was nearly dark and I used the flash. I did a simple desaturation to complete.

From Midland Texas (Bush country)...

I was just about to post this shot (and a colour version as well) in a new thread in the showcase section, but then I noticed this thread and thought the b/w version would be suitable to post here instead.

I was just mucking around today experimenting with various lighting and PS techniques. I was after a gritty look rather than a traditional flattering one... and, well I think you'll agree that this shot isn't flattering! (one of the reasons I thought I should experiment with shots of myself)

I did the b/w conversion using a Channel Mixer adjustment layer in PS, and it accounts for most of the "look" of this shot. I set it to Monochrome, gave it loads of the Blue channel but negative Red and Green channels, so it darkens the skin, shows *every* blemish and imperfection, but really brings out the eyes (and teeth had they been visible).



I probably do almost 1/2 my work in b/w these days, and I loooooove the Channel Mixer as a way to convert to monochrome - it is to Saturation what a Tone Curve is to Brightness and Contrast.

I just discovered this assignment, and as it happens I've got a BW shot (made yesterday)...

Adrian, Great black and white portrait. The lighting and post processing has definately achieved the gritty look you were going for. Looks stunning. Makes me think this should be a movie poster and I just haven't seen the movie yet.

(double post removed...)

I went past this "gentlemen's club" today, and had to go back for the photo.
When I saw it, I knew it would be best in black and white.



Everything was either white, red, or brown. I use PSE3, which doesn't have a
channel mixer, so I use multiple hue/saturation adjustment layers. The brick
reds came out quite light, and I needed the building dark. So, one layer
darkened all the reds, and balanced some other minor tones in the street scene
behind. A second H/S layer lightened all the reds, and was masked to only
brighten the neon sign and the bulbs beneath it. To lighten the wires without
removing them, I also cloned out the wires in the sky, and then reduce that
layer's opacity to 25%. Finally, a little high-pass sharpening, and it's
web-ready.

I really don't know how I converted to B&W these flowers, I think it was with Mitch technique, but I am really not sure...

Wow Mathew. I love how your images bring me home but judging from the snow I'll stay in B.C. for now . Great photo. This building is actually a candy store of photos. Irma, your images are beautiful. The soft focus couldn't have been applied to a nicer image. Precessing is top notch.

Rufus, :/ , nice stick. :/

Thanks Colin, I am very happy you like my pictures... I like a lot b/w flower pictures...

Matthew your picture is lovely... it looks as if it were taken in the 50's or 60's... The only little problem is the car... it is not that epoca... but it doesn't look too modern either... so it match some how in the old atmosphere of the picture... Do you know, by any chance, how old the building is?

Irma, I really enjoy the soft effect you have in the second shot. Somebody told me once that soft effect is not the right choice when taking macro shots, but in this case it's really enjoyable.

And my today's favourite is Adrian's portrait. The fact, that when taking portrait photos, you have to focus on the eyes, really works here! The eyes have so much to say.. And the light is just perfect.

Aha!
Petogruffer, I'm glad you like the stick!

Rufus Wrote:Aha!
Petogruffer, I'm glad you like the stick!

Irma, the building in Mathews photo is not likely one of the older ones in Toronto but I must say, it is not a very desirable place. Filmores Hotel is a strip club and has been referred to as a brothel. If the building had any real history it would be highly unlikely Toronto's City Council would allow such a venue to exist in it's place. Most of the more historical buildings in downtown Toronto with any significance are reserved for more appropriate uses. I'll fathom a guess that the Dundas street east building in the photo was built early to mid 1900's.

Thanks Colin for the info... I asked because in Mexico city there are some buildings with very similar achitecture and they were built in the same period you guess this building in the picture was built...

Wow, there are some absolutely stunning photos here!!

Mine were both taken yesterday...

Little Feet


My Mother


I converted them both using the channel mixer

I like the feet. Very cute.

Well, I now know a lot more than I wanted to about Filmore's, but nothing useful. The club's been in existence for about 25+ years, but wasn't the first club in that location. It sounds like it's had some interesting history, but nothing dates the building. (They do currently boast the cheapest hotel rooms in the city.)

I agree with Colin's guess. Toronto's a young city; our landmarks are barely 100 years old. Filmore's or the street address don't appear in the (on-line accessible) city archives, so it's not a building of significant historial/architectural impact.

The modern garbage can and the folder-over banner (vinyl) hurts the timeless feel of the image. The city keeps finding ways to look out of place with itself.

To avoid anymore hijacking of the B&W Assignment thread I have started a new thread for the continuing discussion on the age old Toronto architecture. Somehow I think it is more of an interest of Mathew's and myself but please feel free to jump in. http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/viewto...4112#34112

I just ADORE that first flower shot of yours Irma... stunning!
I'm not such a huge fan of the soft focus in the 2nd shot sorry, but the tones in the first shot just blow me away. It is very hard to get a flower shot to look original I think, but you've absolutely nailed it there.

Also Schell those little feet are very cute (as is the b/w photo you use in your avatar). You're certainly getting your money's worth out of your son! And so you should, being his mum.

And I hope you had a Happy Nude Year too Matthew! Great capture. I haven't really got anything to add to any discussion regarding the architecture of Toronto, but I'm following it with a lot of interest.

And Rufus.... Go fetch your stick!

Hi gang. Taken on a sunny but cold New Year's Eve.
Tamron 90mm macro at f5.6; 3 or 4 images combined as a 30-odd megapixel image; mashed the huge tiff down to greyscale; dodged/burned for that variable-contrast paper look. I thought to myself, why pay silly money for high-res kit if I can do it myself.
Good isn't it?

Canon wideangle zoom at 10mm, f8; raw to colour tiff, then greyscale, burn-ins before jpegging.

This is Baz, my mate's daughter. Kit lens that came with 350D, wide open at around 75mm I think; fill-flash.

Great work, Zig - I really like your second shot - the man really adds a surreal touch to it. Processing is great in your first shot, and the portrait is a definate keeper.