Would you choose color or black&white version here?

[niels123]

*Please vote*

Color:

Black&White:

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Neither. It looks like you just de-saturated the colour picture. A B/W picture is not just a colour picture with the colour removed. I don't think that either of these is an attractive picture of the model

 

[FEBS]

I agree with AcutancePhotography .

This photo needs a lot of post processing to look more pleasing in my idea. At that moment it doesn't matter if it is color or bw .

 

[zim]

My immediate reaction was colour, Acutance's comments explain to me why

 

[Hillsilly]

I like redheads, so I'm voting colour.

 

[Click]

I prefer the color version.

 

[Hillsilly]

FWIW, my wife is a redhead. When I'm shooting her in B&W, she thinks she looks better when I use an orange filter. Whereas I like a blue filter look.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I Voted black and white, but for that the lighting needs more shading on the face side, and darker lipstick.

 

[niels123]

Neither. It looks like you just de-saturated the colour picture. A B/W picture is not just a colour picture with the colour removed. I don't think that either of these is an attractive picture of the model

How do you convert to BW?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

How do you convert to BW?

Colour and B/W photography share many of the same composition elements, but there are differences.

The most obvious is that in a colour photograph colour is important. The photographer may need to change the lighting in such a way as to bring out or suppress one or more of the colours of the scene as the photographer sees fit

For B/W, you are more interested in how the tones are recorded. In some scenes the lighting that works better for colour may not work for B/W and vice versa. In some scenes you can use the exact same lighting and it will work for both instances.

My point is that there is more to a B/W shot than just a de-saturation of colour. Just like I can't just can't take a B/W shot and simply add colour. If you have seen any of the "colourized" movies, the results are not always well done. What you end up with is a B/W image that has colour, which is different from a colour image, if you get my meaning.

When I go out and decide to take a B/W shot (It is rare that I take a colour shot and then decide back home to turn it into B/W. I usually make that decision before taking the shot), I compose and light it as a B/W shot. I then collect a colour image of my intended B/W scene. Then I can remove the color and (hopefully) end up with the B/W scene I imagined.

At least that's the way I do it. :-\

I have often fantasized about getting a true monochrome digital camera but can't justify it. Might rent one though. I think they would be fun to play with.

 

[unfocused]

Some of the comments seem a bit harsh.

My two-cents (and worth every penny): Sort of depends on the look you are going for here: documentary, portrait or glamour.

Very hard for me to separate my personal style when critiquing others. I personally tend to "clean up" almost every portrait I shoot. Admittedly, I'm sort of a wimp, but I tend to make portraits that I think will reflect how we see the person more than how they actually look.

When you see a person, you are not seeing them frozen in time, but as a human being that moves, talks, reacts, etc. As such, we don't usually focus on minor imperfections (a zit, a mole, a wrinkle, etc.) because the person is moving and we are reacting to them and not studying them. But if we freeze them in time, those imperfections can be distracting.

For ordinary portraits, I tend to reduce the skin imperfections (but not remove them entirely, especially if they are a permanent feature -- a mole for example. If it's a temporary imperfection like a pimple, I have no problem erasing it).

I personally like either lighting that give a lot of modeling and shows off the character of the face or 'glamour' lighting that can tend to wash out details but look very flattering. I'm not much for "somewhere in-between" but again that's a personal preference.

Also, I like a longer lens in order to compress facial features so noses don't look quite as big. Again, it's that frozen in time problem. When you meet someone and talk to them, you don't really study their features. But, in a still photo, you have lots of time to do that.

This is a nice environmental portrait that I think works in either format. My personal style would be to up the saturation a bit in color and up the contrast a bit in either black and white or color to give it a touch more drama.

How do you convert to BW?

I use Silver Efex Pro.

If you really want to learn B&W conversions try Vincent Versace's "From Oz to Kansas." I think he goes a bit overboard and makes too much of some fairly insignificant little differences, but it's probably good to learn the techniques and pick and choose what you want.

Scott Kelby's books also offer some simple Black and White conversions.

At a mininum, add a adjustment layer using the "gradient map" option. Then you can play around with a levels adjustment (another layer) to get the effect you are after.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I certainly apologize if any of my comments came across as being harsh. That was not my intent.

 

[Famateur]

I would go with black and white for this portrait, though I agree that some tweaking of color filters would improve the result (to my tastes). All depends on the style you're going for...

I will often bump the orange channel for black and white portraits of lighter-skinned individuals. It softens the skin tones by reducing the contrast of imperfections like sun spots, freckles, moles, etc. It can be a good learning exercise to play with all the color channels in the black and white conversion tool (if you use Lightroom) to see what the effect is from each. Take each to the extreme, and you'll see the spectrum of what can be done with color channel adjustment.

If a stark portrait is the intent, maybe just tweak the curves/contrast to get a bit more pop (it does look a bit like just a desaturated color image). If the intent is to give a pleasing portrait to the subject, Unfocused gave some pretty good tips on retouching. My general style is, if it's a permanent feature (mole, birth mark, significant scar), it stays. If it's temporary (pimple, cut, rash, bruise, yellowness of teeth), it goes. If it's permanent but wasn't always that way (wrinkles), I'll often reduce it. For me, the objective is to make it pleasing/flattering without it being obvious to the average viewer that it was touched-up.

You might consider posting the RAW files to see what other members come up with. Seeing what others produce might help you decide which advice suits your style.

Thanks for sharing -- it's not always easy to ask for input in a public place.

 

[Famateur]

It's worth the risk of being a redundant reminder to suggest shooting RAW and processing on a calibrated monitor, even for black and white. There's more to calibration than color accuracy.

 

[Famateur]

I know you didn't ask for a full critique, so feel free to ignore this....

A few more thoughts:

1.) You might consider raising your umbrella up a bit. Looks like a large/close umbrella, so you'd still get soft shadows, but they'd give a little more flattering definition to the face from a higher angle. Because of the low angle, the shadow from the nose crowds the eye a bit, and her upper lip is actually casting a shadow that joins the nose shadow. Other features are subtly affected as well. Lighting from below is generally less flattering for portraits.

2.) Is she wearing contact lenses? If so, you might consider having her remove them next time. If she's not, I'm not sure what that outline is around each iris.*

3.) Looks like your speedlite is either not quite strong enough to fill your umbrella, or it's pushed a bit too far into the umbrella for full coverage. If you're getting the light output you like, don't worry about it. If not, you might take a look at that (shoot a picture of the umbrella directly, and you'll see the difference as you move the speedlite in and out).

Anyway, just a few thoughts. I have no idea what your skill/knowledge level is, so I don't know how useful my input will be.

Cheers...

* It's amazing what tiny things suddenly jump out when you print large! I printed a 13x19 portrait of my daughter, and one little wispy stray hair across her eye and a few tiny bits of lint on her clothes bugged me enough that I removed them and re-printed. I'm much more particular about looking for little distracting things now. My philosophy is, if it's not necessary to tell the story, get rid of it (either in composition or in post).

 

[Tinky]

Voted no preference.

I would like to have seen a mono conversion with a red channel emphahsis and then a green channel empahsis as I think they would be two totally different images.

I generally don't like mono conversions.

I think they are the preserve of the mixed lighting user, or the can't quite get WB right with my 10 stop ND-er.

I don't mind monos. Monos which have been devised, envisaged and executed as such, shot for contrast and patterns and relief rather than shot for complimentary or contrasting chromas of the same greyscale.

Just an opinion, but i think the only proper way to shoot mono is to have a filtered viewfinder (in the film days, you could just filter the lens) as RGB bayers don't work that well with traditional bw filters.

Yet I cannot see in BW without them.

You could go down the RAW+ JPEG (mono picture profile) to get the mono preview and the full colour high bit depth RAW to tinker with, but nothing beats a filtered viewfinder.

Anyway, my opinion is that it is better in colour. Mono has to be in the concept, the intent, before a camera is lifted.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I agree with AcutancePhotography .

This photo needs a lot of post processing to look more pleasing in my idea. At that moment it doesn't matter if it is color or bw .

Without reading all the comments to sway my opinion, this was my first thought too.

However, I do agree with Hillsilly about redheads so I would lean toward the color version even after post work to improve either image.

 

[unfocused]

It's amazing what tiny things suddenly jump out when you print large! I printed a 13x19 portrait of my daughter, and one little wispy stray hair across her eye and a few tiny bits of lint on her clothes bugged me enough that I removed them and re-printed. I'm much more particular about looking for little distracting things now. My philosophy is, if it's not necessary to tell the story, get rid of it (either in composition or in post).

Off topic, but something I've thought about editing portraits is that by the time I'm done working on one I know that person's face better than probably anyone else in the world, including them. When you zoom in and really study a face, you quickly come to the conclusion that perfect skin does not exist in the world -- even (or sometimes especially) among professional models.

Never sure how I feel about that. Sometimes I'm a little creeped out, other times I appreciate just how beautiful most human beings are if you really look at them.

Anyone else ever get a similar feeling, or am I just a weirdo?

 

[distant.star]

.
I think unfocused's comment goes to the heart of it. The intent is everything. As a candid portrait I love this. The expression on her face and the look in the eyes are outstanding, and that's 98% of a candid portrait. I also don't go for or do "touchup" work on candid portraits (and I do a lot of candid portraits). As a "studio" or "formal" portrait, this doesn't work at all -- even substantial post would not elevate it to such level.

My guess is the "model" probably doesn't like the color because of its perceived "imperfections," and she prefers the monochrome as it hides a lot.

Some of the comments seem a bit harsh.

My two-cents (and worth every penny): Sort of depends on the look you are going for here: documentary, portrait or glamour.

Very hard for me to separate my personal style when critiquing others. I personally tend to "clean up" almost every portrait I shoot. Admittedly, I'm sort of a wimp, but I tend to make portraits that I think will reflect how we see the person more than how they actually look.

When you see a person, you are not seeing them frozen in time, but as a human being that moves, talks, reacts, etc. As such, we don't usually focus on minor imperfections (a zit, a mole, a wrinkle, etc.) because the person is moving and we are reacting to them and not studying them. But if we freeze them in time, those imperfections can be distracting.

For ordinary portraits, I tend to reduce the skin imperfections (but not remove them entirely, especially if they are a permanent feature -- a mole for example. If it's a temporary imperfection like a pimple, I have no problem erasing it).

I personally like either lighting that give a lot of modeling and shows off the character of the face or 'glamour' lighting that can tend to wash out details but look very flattering. I'm not much for "somewhere in-between" but again that's a personal preference.

Also, I like a longer lens in order to compress facial features so noses don't look quite as big. Again, it's that frozen in time problem. When you meet someone and talk to them, you don't really study their features. But, in a still photo, you have lots of time to do that.

This is a nice environmental portrait that I think works in either format. My personal style would be to up the saturation a bit in color and up the contrast a bit in either black and white or color to give it a touch more drama.

How do you convert to BW?

I use Silver Efex Pro.

If you really want to learn B&W conversions try Vincent Versace's "From Oz to Kansas." I think he goes a bit overboard and makes too much of some fairly insignificant little differences, but it's probably good to learn the techniques and pick and choose what you want.

Scott Kelby's books also offer some simple Black and White conversions.

At a mininum, add a adjustment layer using the "gradient map" option. Then you can play around with a levels adjustment (another layer) to get the effect you are after.

 

[distant.star]

Off topic, but something I've thought about editing portraits is that by the time I'm done working on one I know that person's face better than probably anyone else in the world, including them. When you zoom in and really study a face, you quickly come to the conclusion that perfect skin does not exist in the world -- even (or sometimes especially) among professional models.

Never sure how I feel about that. Sometimes I'm a little creeped out, other times I appreciate just how beautiful most human beings are if you really look at them.

Anyone else ever get a similar feeling, or am I just a weirdo?

Yeah, I often feel that way when working a portrait. Nose hairs, stray hairs, moles, blackheads, scars, and on and on. There is no perfection, of course, and beauty is in the eye....

I once saw a black woman who had skin as perfect as I've ever seen. It was a perfect caramel tone and flawless (to the naked eye) everywhere I could see -- face, neck, chest, arms, legs. I felt compelled to tell her that, and did. I wanted to recruit her for pictures, but I felt like it would seem too perverted to ask. I probably just should have taken some candids on the spot, shown them to her and asked if we could do something in the future. Well, always next time!!