In the Stop Bath
I agree that sometimes mono is far and away the best medium to use when taking some images. Absolutely no argument.
Having said that, I believe that mono seems to be the new HDR of the moment. Anything captured MUST be converted to mono. Every picture put up seems to attract the comment "Would look great in mono".
Is it only me that thinks that a shot should be approached with a view to mono and not "rescued by converting it" ?
(Switches "old git" mode off and waits for the mob.......
Senior Member
I tend to agree. Nine times out of ten: if i edit a shot to mono, i took it with mono in mind.
And to help me 'think' in mono when I'm shooting in mono I switch my picture style in-camera to mono, and tweak the contrast/filter etc to suit what i have in mind.
Obviously this has no impact on the underlying raw file, but i find that looking at the shot in mono on the back screen very helpful while shooting. ( I do this with colour shots too - set the picture style to be a rough approximation of what my finished edit will be - but that's a different subject really)
the other 1 times out of ten it's when i'm editing and thing "ooh this would work in mono", so the latter scenario does happen sometimes!.
Which Tyler
^WHS^Originally Posted by PhilW
Nick
"Photography is lies" - Bailey
"Few artists are much more than halfway sane" - Roger Hicks
www.nbrphoto.com
Marvin
Actually, I agree entirely. Nevertheless sometimes people post colour images that are just screaming to be in monochrome ... did they forget that they were using a colour camera?
Anyhow, the rules have changed since I learned the craft. In olden (film) days, monochrome film had a lot more latitude (dynamic range) than colour transparency ... so a very contrasty scene tends to scream "monochrome" at me. Modern digital cameras also have a limited latitude, OTOH there is now a workaround - the "dreaded" HDR, which is perfectly reasonable when used properly but can be hideous when overdone.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
Senior Member
sometimes to my dodgy eyes I see a picture and ask myself (and occasionally out loud) does that work in mono.
I must admit I try many of the pictures I take in mono- sometimes I don't trust my eyes and their interpretation of the colours therein. Some colour images don't look right to me so I go for the simple approach...mono.
Last edited by spinno; 23-04-2012 at 15:01. Reason: missing word
David
-----------------------------------------------
We are here to learn.
Some things are relevant, some aren't...just rejoice in the fact that at least you seem to have the choice to decide which is which.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spinno1001
Senior Member
You're quite correct OG. I seem to remember making a comment in similar vein in the appraisal gallery. On occasions I am of the view that a shot looks poor in colour and the author thinks that a mono conversion will have the result of Harry Potter using his wand and saying "expelliamus".
Member
As long as we've seen the back of hideously overdone HDR where the photographer (or should I say software-jockey) can't take a criticism, and chooses to rebut with "I actually quite like the effect", which just encourages more HDR-disciples to repeat it!
The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE. - Ernst Haas
Senior Member
it either looks like an Ansell original, or it doesn't.
if your eyes are slightly educated, you'll see it.
we're talking mono here above.
On t'other had a riot of colour captured in high quality might be a gorgeous scene, even a dream scene.
The old story - it works, it doesn't, and only the main vast public will tell you this.
But let's keep away from puppy shots (though again, not all the time)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote