Bad colours

[rino54]

Hello to everyone,

A funny rejection this morning :
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=745993&key=22504455

Does it mean it would be better in colour? Anyway, I'll continue to explore my b&w side even it's not bad weather or steam locomotive.

I'm sharing with you another rejection of the day :
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=745988&key=1138753787
I know the light was not amazing but in this one I liked the texture from the trees behind. It makes an interesting contrast with the deep balck and white from the locomotive. I found my last trip on NS territory very interesting for a b&w student like me.

Have agreat day!

Renaud

[milwman]

Looks good to me, they or one of them don't care for B&W? To bad but some times its what they like not what works. B&W wont get the views that color gets and that maybe part of it.

I started out with B&W and thats how i would printed it, hard light from the side, Hard and snappy contrast and the sky is right too.

[JRMDC]

Looks like poor channel mixing to me, very flat in tonality. Looks like a simple grayscale conversion or desaturation of all color, which is not how to do BW, it sort of misses the point. How did you convert to BW?

[DWHonan]

A funny rejection this morning :
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=745993&key=22504455

For what it's worth, the location is Roosevelt, Washington, along BNSF's Fallbridge Subdivision.

[rino54]

Hello!

Thanks for the details about the Roosevelt picture. I couldn't find it on my notebook. So now my database is updated.

About the BW works, I used the multichannel from Adobe Lightroom. The first picture was done in spring on a low lighted day. I supposed that's the reason the tones are kind of flatten. But the point was not of working on high constrasts but having an interesting background.

Thanks for you comments.

Renaud

[Joe the Photog]

Personally, I like the B&W conversions of each, though I tend to also agree with what J. said. At least, that's why I think RP rejected them, esp. the BNSF shot. I'd say give it more typical B&W treatment and it could get in. The NS crop is a bit too loose for me, esp. given all the room between the front of the train and the left of the frame.

[rino54]

Hello,

Interesting comment Joe. What's definition of "more typical B&W"? Does it mean more contrast (more dark vs. mor white)? Or maybe more graphical subject?

I'm interested with your answer because I'm working and B&W for a few month now, trying to define what contemporary B&W railroad photography could be.

Thanks for your help,

Rebaud

[JRMDC]

What's definition of "more typical B&W"? Does it mean more contrast (more dark vs. mor white)? Or maybe more graphical subject?

I will not speak for Joe but will give an answer of my own. BW is not about contrast, per se. It is about tonality, of which contrast is one part. It is about interesting variations in darker and lighter. Increasing contrast is only one way of increasing the variation in tonality. Channel mixing is another.

Yes, some subjects are more suitable for BW than others. But the issue isn't how graphical, but how interesting the tonality is. One great thing about steam railroading is that one has a natural contrast between white plume and dark engine. Backlit subjects are also natural candidates for BW because of the contrast between shadowed and lit areas.

One can't take a dull BW shot and make it interesting just by increasing contrast. In some situations that can help, but it is addressing a multidimensional problem by only dealing with one dimension. It works only if the dominant issue is in that particular dimension.

[JRMDC]

I might add that a good way to begin exploring this might be to study the masters of the genre, here are two:

http://railpixcritic.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

Besides Shaughnessy and Plowden (and the book reviewed on the link has mostly non-RR subjects; Plowden has other books that are focused on RRs) one thinks of Steinheimer, Link, etc. Another name on the tip of my tongue but apparently remaining there for now. :(

[Dennis A. Livesey]

When I do a PS B&W conversion I do it by going to Image>Mode>Greyscale. I believe that is the recommended way.

However, I use Aperture and use Monochrome Mixer to what I think is excellent results.

[photoid=299477]
[photoid=268514]
[photoid=268148]

BTW, I like both shots a lot. But agree with Janusz that something is not right.

The funny rejection is obviously the wrong button hit by the screener.

[JRMDC]

The funny rejection is obviously the wrong button hit by the screener.

Or maybe "bad color" means poor channel mixing, so bad mix of tones (due to underlying bad colors or a bad conversion of good colors)?

[JRMDC]

When I do a PS B&W conversion I do it by going to Image>Mode>Greyscale. I believe that is the recommended way.

Recommended by whom?

I've read more than once that grayscale is limited.

Here is luminous landscape, saying channel mixing is a "better way".

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/b-w_better.shtml

At any rate, Renauld apparently did mix.

[rino54]

Hello,

Thanks for the comment. I agree about the Plowden or Shaughnessy work. I have their books some from A. Adams or M. Kenna. What I am wondering is : do these people consider "thinking in b&w" or they just take the picture and then print them. It's too bad I can't talk with such photographers because in some way I feel like part of the interest of their work is because of the "nostalgic" effect. I recently did a kind of survey on rp.net about b&w (after reading an intersting thread here). Most of b&w are picturing steam operations. Sorry but for me it's just like reproducing older pictures people can see on books.

Why only b&w with steam? We (rilroad photographers) now have the choice of doing pictures in b&w or colours (this was not the case decades ago). So why not trying to search everyday life subject?

On my side, I really appreciate Plowden's work : he is showing the "industrial" side of our societies (and not just landscapes like Adams). M. Keena also does great pictures. There is an exhibition in Paris now and I was able to discover the way he worked on industrial subject liek nuclear power plant. This photograohers works the pictures a lot when printing. To know more about him : http://www.michaelkenna.net/

I tried to express myself the best as I can (my english is flying away sorry). I'm getting some very interesting point here and this going to complete my research.

Thanks again,

Renaud

[Dennis A. Livesey]

No PS expert here!


(Still getting a handle on the whole layers/selection thingamawhosis)

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Recommended by whom?

I've read more than once that grayscale is limited.

Here is luminous landscape, saying channel mixing is a "better way".

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/b-w_better.shtml

At any rate, Renauld apparently did mix.

Grey scale would appear to be the fast and dirty way.

Channel mixing would be much like Aperture's Monochrome mixer in allowing great fun and flexibility.

Renauld may think he has poor English but he speaks photography sublimely. Check out his blog.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Why only b&w with steam? We (railroad photographers) now have the choice of doing pictures in b&w or colours (this was not the case decades ago). So why not trying to search everyday life subject?

The limitations of our photography technology often creates limited habits.

Do to the expense and difficulty in creating color in photography, B&W for years was the only viable option. Thus we got used to it's limitation's, even preferring, what is not real i.e. we naturally see the world in color.

Thus shooting a BNSF pumpkin or a UP yellow, usually screams for color.

I love B&W. I think however that was because the great amount of vintage steam photography I have seen was in B&W.

Having lived with this so long, it's a hard habit to break.

O. Winston Link had a point when asked why he shot in B&W.

"The locomotives were black, the night sky was black, the smoke was white, what the hell did I need color for?"

[NathBDP]

The limitations of our photography technology often creates limited habits.

Do to the expense and difficulty in creating color in photography, B&W for years was the only viable option. Thus we got used to it's limitation's, even preferring, what is not real i.e. we naturally see the world in color.

Thus shooting a BNSF pumpkin or a UP yellow, usually screams for color.

I love B&W. I think however that was because the great amount of vintage steam photography I have seen was in B&W.

Having lived with this so long, it's a hard habit to break.

O. Winston Link had a point when asked why he shot in B&W.

"The locomotives were black, the night sky was black, the smoke was white, what the hell did I need color for?"

Actually I think it's "The train was black and white! The engine was black, smoke is white, steam is white, cars are black, track is black, night is black. What am I going to do with color?"

Strangely enough one of my favorite images of his was in color, at night.

http://fixed.gr/nyc/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=2479

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Actually I think it's "The train was black and white! The engine was black, smoke is white, steam is white, cars are black, track is black, night is black. What am I going to do with color?"

That is indeed the correct quote from page 69 "Of The Last Steam Railroad of America" the second big book on Link that was brilliantly written by Tom Garver.

I was going off my memory of when Winston said it to me in his studio in the early 80's.

Wish I had written it down.

[rino54]

Hi to everyone!

I worked again on the Roosevelt shot. I attached it to this message and will try to add it to database. This time I worked with Adobe Lightroom 3 béta because it gives more from my Konica-Minolta and Sony Camera.

I wanted to share with you why I wanted to process this picture in B&W. When I checked for pictures to process in B&W, I searched for the one with some tone contrast. This one was a good candidate : the clear elevator, shadows on the nose of the locomotive and the medium tone background. Also there was a graphical reason : vertical (elevator) vs horizontal (train). And finally, this elevator reminds me some of Plowden's work, a photographer that really inspires me in my work on B&W.

Please note that I'm speaking here of one of my old pictures that was not done purposely with B&W in mind. Today, I'm trying to find subjects and scenes with B&W in mind.

Thanks for reading me :)

Renaud

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Great shot!

Brighten up the nose and rest of the lead locomotive and it's a shoo-in for RP.

Do it so I can make it one of my favorites.:grin:

[Chris Z]

This b&w stuff has peaked my interest, probably because I have never done it before. It seems to show quite a bit of drama. Here are two samples posted here. What would have to be done to make them look presentable. I'm not sure how these should be processed.

Chris Z.

[JRMDC]

This b&w stuff has peaked my interest, probably because I have never done it before. It seems to show quite a bit of drama. Here are two samples posted here. What would have to be done to make them look presentable. I'm not sure how these should be processed.

BNSF: blah tonality, not much of a mix of darks and lights, put it aside
Cumbres or Durango or wherever: very nice - just crop the bottom (dump lower left corner stuff) and right side and good to go!

[Dennis A. Livesey]

This b&w stuff has peaked my interest, probably because I have never done it before. It seems to show quite a bit of drama. Here are two samples posted here. What would have to be done to make them look presentable. I'm not sure how these should be processed.

Chris Z.

Alllllllrrrrrrright Chris! You will be assimilated...

You said the word: Drama.

The Cumbres one is SICK! Mostly because of incredible clouds.

It would seem that you heavily used the red filter to get that black sky. However, 315 is now black and that's no good.

Do a PS selection on the lower left, try Janusz's suggestions and get that sucker in the DB!

The BNSF would work if there is/were dramatic clouds. Maybe you can bring them out with the PS highlight.

That's rich; Dennis giving PS advice! Har! Har! Har! :-D

Ask Travis or Jim T.

[Chris Z]

Okay, It's in the data base. Although the color version looks much better to my eyes.

So I did my first b&w.

Chris Z.

[photoid=302962]

[Chris Z]

While we're on the subject of b&w. Here's a shot where I used cp filter and it messed up the color. It seems to work a little different in b&w. Can I get an opinion on this one.

Chris Z.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

While we're on the subject of b&w. Here's a shot where I used cp filter and it messed up the color. It seems to work a little different in b&w. Can I get an opinion on this one.

Chris Z.

Great composition, looks great in B&W!. Needs brightening and it's in.

Chris, I'm your newest fan.

[Chris Z]

Great composition, looks great in B&W!. Needs brightening and it's in.

Chris, I'm your newest fan.

Wow, that makes me feel pretty good. I'll give it a try and see what happens. BTW, thanks for the nice comment.

Here's another one I personally like, but it got messed up by a cloud that rolled over. Bad timing on that.

Chris Z.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Wow, that makes me feel pretty good. I'll give it a try and see what happens. BTW, thanks for the nice comment.

Here's another one I personally like, but it got messed up by a cloud that rolled over. Bad timing on that.

Chris Z.

Cheese whiz, you are your own worst critic! The 315 pan looks great! I'd like a little more room on the right but o/w looks like a winner to me.

This might start you thinking about looking back on other unsuccessful color shots and now doing a B&W conversion.

But that is a whole other debate!

'Nother hint: When out shooting and looking for B&W subjects, think texture.

[rino54]

Hello!

Ok, I'm giving up ti add this picture to the database. Backlit then poorly lit ... anyway I'm happy with this thread. Nice that Chris is now thinking of B&W. If you want to do more, search for pictures with tones going from white to black and design element (lines, textures, shapes...). Your Cumbres shot has this : tones (from the white of the clouds to the black of the locomotives) and strong texture from the clouds.

The BNSF is more "greyish" and the composition is not so strong. If you work more B&W, you'll discover how the colours are distracting from the reading. Emotions are stronger with B&W shots.

About Dennys comment, I tried to light the dark side of the nose but i can't really do much. Anyway a B&W picture has to have black and white. Something I notice of most of the pictures on rp.net is how many shadows areas are lightened ... it's like photographers were ashamed of having dark areas on the shot. But it is the thing that gives the shape, the depth of a picture! People who own Steinheimer book A Passion for Trains will discover such pictures like Plate 127. It shows City of San Francisco Train from the back. The Back of the train is all dark with only some steam coming, doing a spot that attracts the eyes. Then you have all the caoches that are bright against a real dark hill. And on right you have a pine tree. Silhouettes are making this shot strong ... and most of the picture is dark, no details of the back, just a silhouette. If you want details ... then you have to let yout imagination working ... that a great B&W photography for me.

Great day.

Renaud

[JRMDC]

Something I notice of most of the pictures on rp.net is how many shadows areas are lightened ... it's like photographers were ashamed of having dark areas on the shot. But it is the thing that gives the shape, the depth of a picture!

The shots on RP reflect the preferences of the owners and screeners, not necessarily of the photographers.

In general, the simpler the shot, the less tolerance for dark areas on the train itself.

[Chris Z]

Here's the second shot. Thanks for all the help and encouragement from everyone here. I'll have to seriously look at b&w now.

Chris Z.
[photoid=302971]

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Something I notice of most of the pictures on rp.net is how many shadows areas are lightened ... it's like photographers were ashamed of having dark areas on the shot. But it is the thing that gives the shape, the depth of a picture!... If you want details ... then you have to let yout imagination working ... that a great B&W photography for me.
Renaud

The shots on RP reflect the preferences of the owners and screeners, not necessarily of the photographers.

Agree with you Renaud about shadows but not the shame. Janusz points out the reality here.

I hope to get this one on soon...It needs some work I know:(

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=746753&key=537759000

[wds]

This whole thread inspired me to look deeper into the B&W conversion aspect of digital photography. Didn't like any of my earlier tries, but decided to see what fall colors would look like in B&W. This one had some strong backlight on yellow leaves, and looked like a prime candidate for conversion. I like the way it turned out...
[photoid=303023]
Thanks to Renaud and all the others for the insights.

~Wayne

[trainboysd40]

Something I notice of most of the pictures on rp.net is how many shadows areas are lightened ... it's like photographers were ashamed of having dark areas on the shot. But it is the thing that gives the shape, the depth of a picture!
I'm not going to deny that I did some silly stuff with photo processing last year, but this year I'm really trying to balance my shadows. Sometimes harsh contrast isn't everything =)

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Here is my latest B&W. It took about 4 trys, I think the most ever for me, to get it accepted.

I liked versions I did with making the clouds black and another using selective color. This version is the safest, most likely not to be disliked version.

[photoid=303183]

Here are the other versions so you can take a look.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2785/4087623496_2570b71d7c_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2660/4086866205_15cdbcf15c_o.jpg