Recent Photographs: all photographs © 1969-2020 by Carl Weese
I love it. Another little dose of inspiration from you. E
Oh this is very nice. I'm wondering, and hope you can tell me, what the difference would be if this were in black and white.
Michael,Hooo! The answer to that simple-seeming question could go on forever. Mainly, do we want to discuss converting the digital capture to b&w, or shooting the picture on a good b&w film in the first place? The latter, please.If I had been shooting b&w the 35mm Tri-X film would have recorded far more, and richer, detail in both the shadows and the highlights. All color description would disappear, but detail description in the lightest and darkest areas would be much greater than in this RAW digital capture carefully processed for extended tonal range.Possibly the biggest change I would expect from this is a greater sense of looking through the foreground window. The poster on that window, lower right of the picture, shows in the capture only because of the remnants of red coloration. There'd be no red in the b&w film negative, but there would be rich tonal separation so you'd easily read the text even though it would be in fairly soft focus. That would give a stronger sense that the picture begins at that plane, and so extend the depth. I would have exposed to fully detail those low values, and film would still have retained more in the bright wall across the room. The color capture had to be exposed to retain some semblance of substance in the brightest highlights on the wall. The sky and bridge seen through the window weren't too hard to hold because they are severely darkened since they're viewed at an acute angle through heavy plate glass--dirty plate glass at that. As much as I am enjoying my current explorations with digital capture, if I want a result in b&w I would still, without doubt, shoot film.
Post a Comment