Digital BW, The Print

John,

>I hate to break the news to ya Bob, but this is a site devoted to - DIGITAL 
>BLACK  >AND WHITE THE PRINT.

Like I said in the first line of my posting, I know that because I've been 
reading it for nearly three years. And back in the 50's I was doing my own 
developing and printing of B&W. Now I've started learning to turn some of my 
color images back into B&W; not because I personally like them any better, 
but because some others do!

>And as far as my work goes, I consider black and white an amazing
>vehicle to express what you fell about what you see.

That must be the primitive side of your brain at work! It seems that we have 
two visual systems; our ancient B&W vision (common to all sighted animals), 
on top of which evolution superimposed our color vision.

>Color photography does not make the
>work more real, just more illusionary.

But it's all an illusion isn't it? And even B&W devotees are prone to color 
their 'B&W' prints. They add colored inks to 'cool' or 'warm' their images, 
i.e. color them. Others 'tone' their silver prints with various chemicals to 
make them even more colored. And some add patches of color to their digital 
'B&W' prints.

So, if other people like these sorts of photographs, I occasionally try 
producing some. I don't have to like them necessarily.

It takes all sorts to make a world, even a B&W one.

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@...>

By your reasoning we are more primitive than hawks, eagles, etc. because
they have more cones in their eyes than we do. They see color much better
than we do. For them it's hunting not photography.

bgs

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Frost" <bob@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Bob needs Color to survive



John,

>I hate to break the news to ya Bob, but this is a site devoted to - DIGITAL
>BLACK  >AND WHITE THE PRINT.

Like I said in the first line of my posting, I know that because I've been
reading it for nearly three years. And back in the 50's I was doing my own
developing and printing of B&W. Now I've started learning to turn some of my
color images back into B&W; not because I personally like them any better,
but because some others do!

>And as far as my work goes, I consider black and white an amazing
>vehicle to express what you fell about what you see.

That must be the primitive side of your brain at work! It seems that we have
two visual systems; our ancient B&W vision (common to all sighted animals),
on top of which evolution superimposed our color vision.

>Color photography does not make the
>work more real, just more illusionary.

But it's all an illusion isn't it? And even B&W devotees are prone to color
their 'B&W' prints. They add colored inks to 'cool' or 'warm' their images,
i.e. color them. Others 'tone' their silver prints with various chemicals to
make them even more colored. And some add patches of color to their digital
'B&W' prints.

So, if other people like these sorts of photographs, I occasionally try
producing some. I don't have to like them necessarily.

It takes all sorts to make a world, even a B&W one.

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@...>




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

"Real images of the world"??????? You gotta be kidding!!!!! For nearly thirty years I have been a commercial photographer and NEVER, NOT ONCE, has there been a colour film that shows "real" images, or "real" colour. There is an enormously, hugely, gigantically, big industry out there constantly trying to get what a fim sees to match what a "real" colour might be, but it hasn't happened yet and it won't anytime soon. Through the years there has been one interpretation after another of "colour", resulting in one photographer going this way, and another going that way. VPS isn't real, nor VHC, nor Ektar, nor Velvia, nor the new "saturated" ektachromes, nor the "warm" ektachromes . . . ALL of them offer an interpretation, as does black and white. ALL of them are false. As for black and white, I frankly think it gives a more "real" representation of what I see . . . perhaps because it minimizes the neon efforts of Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa. 

I shoot black and white to get an image I want. I shoot phony colour to pay for my house, car, food, kid's education, etc, etc.

Paul Aparycki
(an expert colour shooter, but a sensual pussycat in B/W)
  > As for me being in the dark ages, surely it's the devoted B&W fans who are 
  > still in the dark ages when B&W was the only way to produce images of the 
  > world around us. But they invented color photography quite a long while ago, 
  > and now we can get real images of the world on paper, that match what we 
  > see. I'd hate to be one of those animals whose eyes only detect B&W; but I 
  > sometimes get the feeling that some on this list would prefer not to have 
  > color vision!
  > 
  > Now look what you've made me say. ;)
  > 
  > Bob Frost.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

bgs,

It used to be hunting that probably led to the development of our eyesight. 
Now, as long as we can read the supermarket labels at 2ft, we get fed.

Human eyesight is possibly declining now since there is no longer any 
selection pressure for good eyesight, with corrective glasses available to 
most. Except perhaps on the roads, where drivers with poor eyesight might 
get killed off earlier (if they are not wearing their glasses).

Other animals exceed our abilities in many respects, we don't have a very 
good sense of smell, we have relatively poor eyesight, we can't run very 
fast, we are very vulnerable in our early years, etc, etc. The main thing we 
are good at is killing other animals, which is why we are 'numero uno' on 
the planet - at present.

But this is getting rather OT, so I'll shut up, and look out the window at 
this beautiful sunset. I don't somehow think it would be as nice in B&W!

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bgs" <bgs@...>



By your reasoning we are more primitive than hawks, eagles, etc. because
they have more cones in their eyes than we do. They see color much better
than we do. For them it's hunting not photography.

Pussycat (sorry Paul, I couldn't resist that),

A valid point, I agree. But (there always has to be one), surely all our 
views of the world are false. They are based on incredibly complex 
interactions between cells in our eyes and brains, and no two people 
probably see anything exactly the same. We know some people are color blind; 
some totally, some partially. But of the majority who can see red, for 
example, do they all see the same red, or blue, or green?

Couldn't this variability explain why some people swear a B&W print is 
neutral while someone else says it has a blue/brown tone? Or why some see 
'metamerism' in everything and others don't? I suspect there is a lot more 
variability in human eyesight than most people think, and we need to take 
more account of this. Quite a lot of research has been done, I think, with 
people who are totally colorblind and only see in B&W. I must read some of 
it up again.

As to color films, I find Provia F matches my view of the world quite well, 
and I hate the Velvia-type films. But then it might be different for you or 
anyone else.

I just do things the opposite way round to you; I shoot color to satisfy my 
instincts, and make B&W prints sometimes to please other people.

'C'est la vie'.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bhhc" <tawow@...>



"Real images of the world"??????? You gotta be kidding!!!!! For nearly 
thirty years I have been a commercial photographer and NEVER, NOT ONCE, has 
there been a colour film that shows "real" images, or "real" colour. There 
is an enormously, hugely, gigantically, big industry out there constantly 
trying to get what a fim sees to match what a "real" colour might be, but it 
hasn't happened yet and it won't anytime soon. Through the years there has 
been one interpretation after another of "colour", resulting in one 
photographer going this way, and another going that way. VPS isn't real, nor 
VHC, nor Ektar, nor Velvia, nor the new "saturated" ektachromes, nor the 
"warm" ektachromes . . . ALL of them offer an interpretation, as does black 
and white. ALL of them are false. As for black and white, I frankly think it 
gives a more "real" representation of what I see . . . perhaps because it 
minimizes the neon efforts of Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa.

I shoot black and white to get an image I want. I shoot phony colour to pay 
for my house, car, food, kid's education, etc, etc.

Paul Aparycki
(an expert colour shooter, but a sensual pussycat in B/W)

You wrote, "For nearly thirty years I have been a commercial 
photographer and NEVER, NOT ONCE, has there been a colour film that 
shows "real" images, or "real" colour."

Hmmm kind of like black and white, i.e not real?

Bob,

I'll get off it too but just one more comment. Illustration: blind cave fish
didn't get blind because they live in a cave -- they survived being blind
because they wandered into a cave. Most mutations don't survive. basis for
animal camouflage also. We're tough because we have that thumb thing
happening.

Sorry for being OT, so now Ill shut up.

Barry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Frost" <bob@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Bob needs Color to survive



bgs,

It used to be hunting that probably led to the development of our eyesight.
Now, as long as we can read the supermarket labels at 2ft, we get fed.

Human eyesight is possibly declining now since there is no longer any
selection pressure for good eyesight, with corrective glasses available to
most. Except perhaps on the roads, where drivers with poor eyesight might
get killed off earlier (if they are not wearing their glasses).

Other animals exceed our abilities in many respects, we don't have a very
good sense of smell, we have relatively poor eyesight, we can't run very
fast, we are very vulnerable in our early years, etc, etc. The main thing we
are good at is killing other animals, which is why we are 'numero uno' on
the planet - at present.

But this is getting rather OT, so I'll shut up, and look out the window at
this beautiful sunset. I don't somehow think it would be as nice in B&W!

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bgs" <bgs@...>



By your reasoning we are more primitive than hawks, eagles, etc. because
they have more cones in their eyes than we do. They see color much better
than we do. For them it's hunting not photography.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yes, exactly. Which is why I wouldn't accept the claim that colour is "real".

Get five different people in a room, show them all the same print and ask them if they think it is too cool or warm or this hue or that hue. Get ready for a good laugh.

Paul Aparycki

p.s. I recently bought a second pair of very neutral sunglasses. I don't like neutral grey for driving, but I got fed up with zipping along (especially in the autumn in the northeast) with a pair or Serengetis which have didymium coating (I think that is the correct spelling)  on some models and constantly going, "Wow! isn't that gorgeous!!!" only to take off my glasses and find out it is just another day.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think the reason that I love black and white is because it minimizes the distraction, though the hurdles one has to jump through to get the "previsualisation" correct can be  discouraging at times. Since day one in photography I have shot it for my pleasure, sometimes for business.

Yes you are absolutely right about each person seeing it differently (the tone or hue that is), so I suppose ultimately, none are right. That is an uncomfortable thought . . . it almost presumes that yes indeed, ther are an infinite number of universes (one for each person, soul), and none of them are the same colour . . . ought to keep Martha Stewart busy for a long, long time ;-))

Visually I live in two, actually three extremes. The first is B/W, which as I stated is somewhat therapeutic for me, the second is trying to get colour film make my client's product look right (it HAS become easier over the years), and the third is where I fiddle, experiment, and torture lighting and film, so who the hell cares what tone is right?

I think I'll give up here . . . am beginning to sound like I need help ;-))))))

all the best
Paul Aparycki

p.s. " the opposite way round" . . . you don't suppose we are "doppelgangers??"


  Pussycat (sorry Paul, I couldn't resist that),

  A valid point, I agree. But (there always has to be one), surely all our 
  views of the world are false. They are based on incredibly complex 
  interactions between cells in our eyes and brains, and no two people 
  probably see anything exactly the same. We know some people are color blind; 
  some totally, some partially. But of the majority who can see red, for 
  example, do they all see the same red, or blue, or green?

  Couldn't this variability explain why some people swear a B&W print is 
  neutral while someone else says it has a blue/brown tone? Or why some see 
  'metamerism' in everything and others don't? I suspect there is a lot more 
  variability in human eyesight than most people think, and we need to take 
  more account of this. Quite a lot of research has been done, I think, with 
  people who are totally colorblind and only see in B&W. I must read some of 
  it up again.

  SNIP SNIP

  I just do things the opposite way round to you; I shoot color to satisfy my 
  instincts, and make B&W prints sometimes to please other people.

  'C'est la vie'.

  Bob Frost.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,

I wasn't going to take this any further, but I just watched an old B&W 
movie - Casablanca (Humphrey Bogart & Ingid Bergman), and in between having 
my primitive emotional and sexual instincts stirred by Ms Bergman, I kept 
looking at shots and thinking, if only I could have taken a B&W shot like 
that. So perhaps there is something of the primitive dark ages in me as 
well.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bhhc" <tawow@...>


I think the reason that I love black and white is because it minimizes the 
distraction, though the hurdles one has to jump through to get the 
"previsualisation" correct can be  discouraging at times. Since day one in 
photography I have shot it for my pleasure, sometimes for business.

Yes you are absolutely right about each person seeing it differently (the 
tone or hue that is), so I suppose ultimately, none are right. That is an 
uncomfortable thought . . . it almost presumes that yes indeed, ther are an 
infinite number of universes (one for each person, soul), and none of them 
are the same colour . . . ought to keep Martha Stewart busy for a long, long 
time ;-))

Visually I live in two, actually three extremes. The first is B/W, which as 
I stated is somewhat therapeutic for me, the second is trying to get colour 
film make my client's product look right (it HAS become easier over the 
years), and the third is where I fiddle, experiment, and torture lighting 
and film, so who the hell cares what tone is right?

I think I'll give up here . . . am beginning to sound like I need help 
;-))))))