# How to spot a fake B&W?



## rfosness88 (Apr 11, 2009)

I noticed flea77 called out bluemary in the thread "http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/161828-constructive-criticism-my-photography-style.html". flea77 spotted bluemary's B&W photos as fakes assuming that means they were shot in color and converted to B&W during post.

How do can you tell/whats the advantage of shooting in B&W?



Thanks


----------



## ann (Apr 11, 2009)

you would have to ask the poster about fake b&w. 

perhaps they like black and white film better than a digital conversion.

some cameras will allow one to use a black and white function, but they tend to be too flat and there are "better " ways to convert the color to black and white with post processing.


----------



## Dwig (Apr 11, 2009)

There is no such thing as a "fake" B&W image. The world is in color and we perceive it in color, so in a sense any B&W image is a conversion from color, whether digital or film. There is no "real" vs. "fake" method of conversion in the film world, the digital world, or in hybrid systems.

With digital, there is no way to shoot a B&W image with any general purpose camera. If a digital camera can shoot color it can only shoot color, period. Any B&W images taken with digtal cameras are conversions from the original sensor's RAW color data. Cameras that offer a B&W "shooting mode" are merely offering to do the color-to-B&W conversion in their inbuilt RAW-to-JPEG conversion before saving or simple to do the conversion on the fly for previewing and tagging the saved RAW file so that the manufactures computer based RAW convert will default to a B&W conversion.


----------



## Marc Kurth (Apr 11, 2009)

As if it matters.


----------



## AlexColeman (Apr 11, 2009)

There is no such thing as fake black and whites.


----------



## Sherman Banks (Apr 11, 2009)

Marc Kurth said:


> As if it matters.


Exactly!  It's more of a photosnob remark acting as if digital black and whites are inferior to film.  In the end, who cares what it was taken with, a good photo is a good photo.


----------



## rfosness88 (Apr 11, 2009)

oh ok, was flea77 referring to a digital B&W as fake, compared to a film B&W?


----------



## rufus5150 (Apr 11, 2009)

> As if it matters.



+1

Reminds me of those people who think the need to examine the exif to determine the artistic merit of a photo.


----------



## BTilson (Apr 11, 2009)

Well depending on how you look at it, ALL black and whites are fake, since the world we live in is in color. Again, not that it matters though.


----------



## Marc Kurth (Apr 11, 2009)

.


----------



## MikeBcos (Apr 11, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> +1
> 
> Reminds me of those people who think the need to examine the exif to determine the artistic merit of a photo.



Yes, those who see the word "auto" anywhere in the exif and proceed to tear the image and photographer apart.

Black and white is black and white, I shoot B&W film but I'll also happily convert a colour digital image, the end result is all that matters.


----------



## TheMightyGoat (Apr 11, 2009)

Sherman Banks said:


> Exactly!  It's more of a photosnob remark acting as if digital black and whites are inferior to film.  In the end, who cares what it was taken with, a good photo is a good photo.



This is true.


----------



## Torus34 (Apr 11, 2009)

Actually, color film has always existed but the world itself was, until recently, just b&w. At one point in time the world changed from b&w to color. That, curiously, coincided precisely with Kodak introducing a film with the name of Kodachrome(r). Films from that time on showed the world in color because then it _was_ in color, excepting only those films which were changed to produce a b&w instead of a color print. That change also occurred when the world changed from b&w to color. The change was made to accomodate those people who were used to looking at a b&w world and wanted to continue to do so. ;-))


----------



## abraxas (Apr 11, 2009)

Torus34 said:


> Actually, color film has always existed but the world itself was, until recently, just b&w. At one point in time the world changed from b&w to color. That, curiously, coincided precisely with Kodak introducing a film with the name of Kodachrome(r). Films from that time on showed the world in color because then it _was_ in color, excepting only those films which were changed to produce a b&w instead of a color print. That change also occurred when the world changed from b&w to color. The change was made to accomodate those people who were used to looking at a b&w world and wanted to continue to do so. ;-))



And apparently your Momma can take it all away...



> Kodachrome
> They give us those nice bright colors
> They give us the greens of summers
> Makes you think all the worlds a sunny day, oh yeah
> ...


----------



## DavidElliot (Apr 11, 2009)

Torus34 said:


> Actually, color film has always existed but the world itself was, until recently, just b&w. At one point in time the world changed from b&w to color. That, curiously, coincided precisely with Kodak introducing a film with the name of Kodachrome(r). Films from that time on showed the world in color because then it _was_ in color, excepting only those films which were changed to produce a b&w instead of a color print. That change also occurred when the world changed from b&w to color. The change was made to accomodate those people who were used to looking at a b&w world and wanted to continue to do so. ;-))



this reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip where the dad explains it in a similar fashion. sort of.


----------



## EhJsNe (Apr 11, 2009)

I personaly loved that B+W flea claimed was fake.

And how can A B&W be fake in any way shape or form?

It just doesnt make sense. There isnt a way to make a fake black and white image.

It is in fact, only consisting of shades of black, and white, isnt it?


----------



## flea77 (Apr 11, 2009)

Well since you want to talk about me, might as well put in my two cents.

My definition of a fake B&W is when you take a image that is captured in color and convert it to B&W. If you had all read what I wrote instead of just jumping in referring to me as a snob, you would have seen that I clearly stated there was noting wrong with doing that, I am just not a fan of them, and to each their own. But then if you had read that you might not have had the fun of joining this thread to call me a snob, now would you?

Next, no, we do not see the world in color as such, we see the colors reflected by objects, or the color transmitted through objects, not the actual color of objects, so there! :mrgreen:

Next, yes, there are differences between images shot on film, and those done by digital. If you think there is not then you inhaled too much in the sixties, heh. Sometimes those differences do not matter, sometimes they do. Sometimes digital does a better job, sometimes film. Some people prefer the look of film for some things, some don't.

I never claimed the picture in the other post was a fake, I flatly stated it was, by my definition. I never said it was bad, as a matter of fact I said I would love to see the color version of it as I thought it was a nice shot which, in my opinion, was ruined by trying to make it look like a real B&W.

And Marc, if you would bother looking in the other thread, you might understand that IT DOES MATTER when the OP specifically asked for C&C, so he wanted my opinion, which I gave. Insinuating that I do not know how to make a good image because you do not respect my opinion is just childish and I would expect more from someone your age.

I also find it interesting that no one in this thread has yet to actually answer the OP's questions, so I will:

rfosness88, you can tell several ways. First, instead of grain you have compression which causes blur in the details instead of sharpness. If you have shot a lot of film you can see it instantly. If not, zoom in a look at the details, you can see the artifacting at minimal zoom. 

Second, good film and good lenses as a general rule have sharper details all around. This gets a little harder to tell once you start getting into 20+MP. Here I am talking about really nice film and cameras, nothing you get from walmart.

Thirdly, in general film has a nicer tonality and latitude than digital, as a general rule. Once again cheap film and really nice digitals get tougher to distinguish.

I think that also answers your pros and cons questions, if not, PM me and I will be glad to explain more.

Lastly I have to express my despair. I would have thought that people would at least take a minute to read the referenced thread before calling me names, then they would have seen I have far more digital equipment than film, so it would be hard to classify me as a film snob. So much for my faith in human nature.

Allan


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Apr 11, 2009)

Am I right in thinking that this is a film vs digital discussion? Some might wish to check to FAQs on that.


----------



## Dcrymes84 (Apr 11, 2009)

This post made no sense....


----------



## abraxas (Apr 11, 2009)

flea77 said:


> ...
> 
> So much for my faith in human nature...



Actually, I think it's your indiscretionary use of the word 'fake' that negates anything of value you may say later in your posts. You probably make some valid points, but the personality- whew!  Maybe put as much thought into your tone as you do your arguments and you may find yourself more convincing.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 12, 2009)

abraxas said:


> Actually, I think it's your indiscretionary use of the word 'fake' that negates anything of value you may say later in your posts. You probably make some valid points, but the personality- whew!  Maybe put as much thought into your tone as you do your arguments and you may find yourself more convincing.



Well then, like a good C&C, tell me how to fix it. Since I sincerely consider converted color images as fakes, what word should I use? Counterfeit? Forged? Fudged? BS? Phony?  I do not see problems when someone C&Cs some way over processed HDR and uses the term "fake looking" to describe it. Why not?

When you say tone and personality, did you read the referenced post? What exactly did I say wrong other than use the word "fake"?

Honestly curious,

Allan


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Apr 12, 2009)

Unnatural?


----------



## NateWagner (Apr 12, 2009)

It seems that they are not saying that your word is wrong, they are saying that your idea is wrong. 

You are free to consider digital B&W photos as fakes if you want, but that does not make what you think correct.

Beyond that, as the world is in color, anything is going to be a conversion. You are merely calling a films conversion to black and white to be real, versus a computer/digital conversion of color to black and white to be fake. 

In addition, my understanding is that different black and white films will produce different black and white images. With that in mind, it seems to me that the film is then doing the conversion, in which case it would still be a fake as it is inherently doing a conversion.

But, hey, whatever.


----------



## bchalifour (Apr 12, 2009)

What's the point anyway?
Isn't it a waste of time? Shouldn't the matter be whether you enjoy the photograph or not?
Isn't a BW photograph a color photograph when one only uses black and white? ;o)


----------



## flea77 (Apr 12, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> It seems that they are not saying that your word is wrong, they are saying that your idea is wrong.
> 
> You are free to consider digital B&W photos as fakes if you want, but that does not make what you think correct.



Nor does it make it incorrect. As I stated, it was my opinion, and my opinion is correct to me and that is all that matters.



NateWagner said:


> Beyond that, as the world is in color, anything is going to be a conversion. You are merely calling a films conversion to black and white to be real, versus a computer/digital conversion of color to black and white to be fake.



You misunderstand. A B&W image from B&W film is not a conversion. The film only responds to the values of light intensity. If you were to take that original exposure and colorize it, that would be the same as taking a color image and converting to B&W. The original design of the capturing medium is what matters, not whether it is film or digital.



NateWagner said:


> In addition, my understanding is that different black and white films will produce different black and white images. With that in mind, it seems to me that the film is then doing the conversion, in which case it would still be a fake as it is inherently doing a conversion.



Yes, different B&W films respond to light values differently, as do color films, digital sensors, and for that matter, people's eyes. It is all about how the original medium captured it.



NateWagner said:


> But, hey, whatever.



I agree! As I have stated repeated this is just my opinion, I never said it was the correct answer to anything. I, personally, do not like the looks of most images captured on digital sensors that have been processed to B&W, regardless of what you want to call it. No amount of discussion will make me like them. I have however stated that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, and to each their own. But if you do that and then ask for my opinion of the image, you should not get upset when I give you my honest opinion.

Allan


----------



## Marc Kurth (Apr 12, 2009)

Allan,

First, I publicly apologize if I hurt your feelings, that was not my intent at all. Yes, I did read both threads and yes I read your multiple attempts to convert people to your way of thinking. We all understood your opinion the first time.

I find it interesting that you call me out for childish behavior. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath, step back and take an objective look at the wording you have used in the posts we are talking about. 

Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason that so many people reacted so strongly to what you said? I would suggest that you are well aware of the negative connotation of what you are saying, yet you continue to play the victim. Sorry, but it's transparent to most of us.

With all due respect, I am finished with this conversation and for the record: I will always defend a persons right to believe whatever they want - seriously.

Marc


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 12, 2009)

Every time there has been a seismic shift in photographic capture technology, "purists" clung to the old media and accused those who had moved on to be inferior and not as 'true.' Good to see that people haven't changed. 

An image that is captured on anything other than a tin plate is a phony not a true representation of the scene! 

Flea, if you must know, digital images are originally captured by the sensor in black and white and then colorized by the image processor. So by converting a digital image to black and white, you are actually placing it back in its correct space, according to your asinine categorization scheme. 

Digital reacts differently to light than film, but different films react differently to light than each other as well. To fuss and moan about the medium to me reveals a real bankruptcy of actual artistic output or thought. Crowing about "true" or "fake" black and white is a fairly transparent effort to define yourself as the superior photographer. 

Finally, if we are comparing images in a digital context (as in, on the internet) ALL images are digital, regardless of the capture method. Perhaps your camera's files reveal artifacts but a scan of similar quality is going to reveal the same problems.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 12, 2009)

tsaraleksi said:


> Every time there has been a seismic shift in photographic capture technology, "purists" clung to the old media and accused those who had moved on to be inferior and not as 'true.' Good to see that people haven't changed.



Once again, I refer you to my sig, which shows I have far more digital equipment than film. I shoot approximately 90% digital, so I am far from a purist, sorry. Especially since I am in the IT industry, I have been using digital cameras since 320x200 $500 cameras were here, of course I was using film as well.



tsaraleksi said:


> Flea, if you must know, digital images are originally captured by the sensor in black and white and then colorized by the image processor. So by converting a digital image to black and white, you are actually placing it back in its correct space, according to your asinine categorization scheme.



Actually I believe that is incorrect. Each photosite is colorblind, however cameras have a stationary permanent filter over the sensor so that each photosite reads information from one color, that is then processed to give "true color" to the final image from the sensors, which is color. There are many places online that describes this in great detail. I am of course referring here to digital cameras with single sensors, not something like a three CCD video camera (which also captures in color).



tsaraleksi said:


> Digital reacts differently to light than film, but different films react differently to light than each other as well. To fuss and moan about the medium to me reveals a real bankruptcy of actual artistic output or thought.



I completely agree, as I have stated before, the end result is all that matters. My preference is for B&W that was shot in B&W, film, and I do not like images shot on digital and converted to B&W as a general rule. I have never fussed or moaned about it, in fact, I have repeatedly stated there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, I just do not like the looks of it. I would have the same objection if you took a really nice film B&W, scanned it in at extreme resolution, then compressed the heck out of it. I am assuming you are not telling me what I should and should not find aesthetically pleasing?



tsaraleksi said:


> Crowing about "true" or "fake" black and white is a fairly transparent effort to define yourself as the superior photographer.



Once again, I have not crowed about anything, just stated that I find converted B&W displeasing to my personal taste. I have never suggested or hinted that I am superior to anyone. I think I have a small amount of talent at a very specific tenet in photography (which by the way is digital, NOT film). Other than that I find far more flaws in my work than other people seem to.



tsaraleksi said:


> Finally, if we are comparing images in a digital context (as in, on the internet) ALL images are digital, regardless of the capture method. Perhaps your camera's files reveal artifacts but a scan of similar quality is going to reveal the same problems.



I am not sure I follow you here. Yes, all images on the internet are digital. If you are saying that one can not tell the difference between pictures taken by a film camera and one taken by a digital camera once they are posted on the internet, I strongly disagree in most cases. If that were the case, then how in the referenced post did I know the image was from a digital camera and not film in the first place?

Let me once again try to explain this: I personally do not like the look of most images captured by a digital camera and then converted to B&W. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone doing this, I just do not find the image appealing to my personal taste. I do not think an image shot on one media is any better/worse than one shot on any other media unless the actual final image is actually superior to my taste. I think that digital has some advantages over film, and I think film has some advantages over digital. I think that the photographer is far more important than any media. I think Ansel Adams could kick all of our collective rear ends if we had 8x10s and he had a $5 walmart special no-name camera.

Allan


----------



## flea77 (Apr 12, 2009)

Marc Kurth said:


> Allan,
> 
> First, I publicly apologize if I hurt your feelings, that was not my intent at all. Yes, I did read both threads and yes I read your multiple attempts to convert people to your way of thinking. We all understood your opinion the first time.



Apology accepted. I would however point out that at no time have I knowingly attempted to convert anyone to anything. I am just attempting to explain my personal taste and opinions, preferably without being called a snob or having people allude to me not being able to create a descent photograph which is what I felt you were doing. I firmly believe that we all see things differently, and we all have different views on what is appealing in a photograph. None of which is "right" to anyone other than ourselves.



Marc Kurth said:


> I find it interesting that you call me out for childish behavior. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath, step back and take an objective look at the wording you have used in the posts we are talking about.



I will do that. I will point out again that I have seen the word "fake" used many many times to describe a heavily processed HDR with no one taking offense.



Marc Kurth said:


> Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason that so many people reacted so strongly to what you said? I would suggest that you are well aware of the negative connotation of what you are saying, yet you continue to play the victim. Sorry, but it's transparent to most of us.



I am sure there is a reason, but why someone would throw personal attacks at another person for what they find appealing in a photograph is beyond my comprehension.



Marc Kurth said:


> With all due respect, I am finished with this conversation and for the record: I will always defend a persons right to believe whatever they want - seriously.
> 
> Marc



I fully support your right to disagree with my opinions as well.  I can only hope that in the future neither of us takes our disagreement personally.

Allan


----------



## William Petruzzo (Apr 12, 2009)

> First, instead of grain you have compression which causes blur in the details instead of sharpness. If you have shot a lot of film you can see it instantly. If not, zoom in a look at the details, you can see the artifacting at minimal zoom.
> 
> Second, good film and good lenses as a general rule have sharper details all around. This gets a little harder to tell once you start getting into 20+MP. Here I am talking about really nice film and cameras, nothing you get from walmart.
> 
> Thirdly, in general film has a nicer tonality and latitude than digital, as a general rule. Once again cheap film and really nice digitals get tougher to distinguish.



?

Seems like saying a digital black and white image is a fake is the same as saying any digital image is a fake, especially since almost no one using a digital camera uses the B&W settings (or at least no one I've ever known). But also, these methods for picking out a fake black and white image didn't really have anything to do with the color, or lack there of. They had more to do with picking out a digital image. But, even then, it would seem like those methods would never work on the original image in question. It's just too small.

I dunno. I've worked with both formats for a long time and as of late, distinguishing the two just isn't that easy, or at least not where it counts.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 14, 2009)

bpetruzzo said:


> ?
> 
> Seems like saying a digital black and white image is a fake is the same as saying any digital image is a fake, especially since almost no one using a digital camera uses the B&W settings (or at least no one I've ever known). But also, these methods for picking out a fake black and white image didn't really have anything to do with the color, or lack there of. They had more to do with picking out a digital image. But, even then, it would seem like those methods would never work on the original image in question. It's just too small.
> 
> I dunno. I've worked with both formats for a long time and as of late, distinguishing the two just isn't that easy, or at least not where it counts.



It may seem that way to you, but to my eye the B&W conversions makes these factors stand out more and make the image less pleasing in my opinion. Just my two cents.

Allan


----------



## abraxas (Apr 14, 2009)

flea77 said:


> ...
> What exactly did I say wrong other than use the word "fake"?
> 
> Honestly curious,
> ...



That's all it took- A lack of social conscience.

Let's see what you got. Show us something 'real.'


----------



## Dao (Apr 14, 2009)

I consider myself a advance beginner.  So my question is, can a digitally captured image be processed to a point, it will looks like a photo taken with a B&W film?

Personally, I will believe so.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 14, 2009)

Dao said:


> I consider myself a advance beginner.  So my question is, can a digitally captured image be processed to a point, it will looks like a photo taken with a B&W film?
> 
> Personally, I will believe so.



I have seen some that completely fooled me, the last one I saw was taken with a D3x and processed in some software specifically for that purpose (don't remember if the guy mentioned a name or not since it really did not interest me). I do seem to remember it was not a quick and easy thing to do.

Allan


----------



## flea77 (Apr 14, 2009)

abraxas said:


> That's all it took- A lack of social conscience.
> 
> Let's see what you got. Show us something 'real.'



It was not a lack of social conscience, many people refer to over processed HDR images as looking fake, but I do not see you jumping them for it. I expressed what they look like to me, and to me, the word that comes into my mind first is the word 'fake'. If you can not handle what people think of your pictures (not you in particular, just people in general), then do not ask for opinions.

Something 'real'? Try The Ansel Adams Gallery

Allan


----------



## jdwyer (Apr 14, 2009)

flea77 said:


> I never claimed the picture in the other post was a fake, I flatly stated it was by my definition



......interesting. it's not a fake - but it is?


I read the whole post just assuming you meant "fake" as in hitting "desaturate" in photoshop rather than adjusting levels manually.


----------



## Joves (Apr 14, 2009)

bchalifour said:


> What's the point anyway?
> Isn't it a waste of time? Shouldn't the matter be whether you enjoy the photograph or not?


 You are correct.


----------



## Sherman Banks (Apr 14, 2009)

Oh no, this thread is not going to go away...

Where's this week's rant to stir things up? I'm tired of this one.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Apr 14, 2009)

Torus34 said:


> Actually, color film has always existed but the world itself was, until recently, just b&w. At one point in time the world changed from b&w to color. That, curiously, coincided precisely with Kodak introducing a film with the name of Kodachrome(r). Films from that time on showed the world in color because then it _was_ in color, excepting only those films which were changed to produce a b&w instead of a color print. That change also occurred when the world changed from b&w to color. The change was made to accomodate those people who were used to looking at a b&w world and wanted to continue to do so. ;-))


 
Oh, yeah -- I remember when that happened, actually.  I was in a house, there was this tornado, and then some old lady flew by on a bicycle.

Frankly, after that things got a little trippy and over-saturated...

But I think they sorted it out.


----------



## LWW (Apr 15, 2009)

Torus34 said:


> Actually, color film has always existed but the world itself was, until recently, just b&w. At one point in time the world changed from b&w to color.



It happened in 1958 under the Eisenhower administration. Color technology was reverse engineered from the remnants of the crash at Roswell, NM in 1947.

LWW


----------



## abraxas (Apr 15, 2009)

flea77 said:


> It was not a lack of social conscience, many people refer to over processed HDR images as looking fake, but I do not see you jumping them for it. I expressed what they look like to me, and to me, the word that comes into my mind first is the word 'fake'. If you can not handle what people think of your pictures (not you in particular, just people in general), then do not ask for opinions.
> 
> Something 'real'? Try The Ansel Adams Gallery
> 
> Allan



So, in a round-about way you're saying you can't produce your work, a sample of your vision of 'real?'


----------



## flea77 (Apr 15, 2009)

abraxas said:


> So, in a round-about way you're saying you can't produce your work, a sample of your vision of 'real?'



Whether or not I can is irrelevant. When you are driving down the road and pass a new car you think is ugly, can you design, engineer and build one that is better? When you go to an art gallery to view renaissance art and see one you do not like, can you do better?

One's ability to produce an item has no bearing on one finding an item attractive or not.

Why are you so bent out of shape about my opinions of what is, and what is not aesthetically pleasing to me?

Allan

PS. And no, I am not saying I can not produce 'real' B&Ws, I have lots of them, what does that prove?


----------



## abraxas (Apr 15, 2009)

flea77 said:


> ...
> 
> One's ability to produce an item has no bearing on one finding an item attractive or not.
> 
> ...



I think your choice of wording in your little opinion is out of your frustrations rather than aesthetics.  I'd like to see your work to examine the potential application of the word, 'suck.'


----------



## Dao (Apr 15, 2009)

Come on guys ..   just relax ...


----------



## abraxas (Apr 15, 2009)

Dao said:


> Come on guys ..   just relax ...



Just an opinion.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 15, 2009)

abraxas said:


> I think your choice of wording in your little opinion is out of your frustrations rather than aesthetics.  I'd like to see your work to examine the potential application of the word, 'suck.'



Did I do something to you in another life? You insult me by saying "little opinion" and saying my work might "suck". What have I done to you? Why is my opinion making you so mad? Do you attack everyone who does not share your views like this?

Allan


----------



## abraxas (Apr 15, 2009)

Actually you're mildly entertaining. Would like to see some of your work.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 15, 2009)

abraxas said:


> Actually you're mildly entertaining. Would like to see some of your work.



So you get entertainment from insulting people and their opinions for no reason?

Allan


----------



## abraxas (Apr 15, 2009)

flea77 said:


> So you get entertainment from insulting people and their opinions for no reason?
> 
> Allan



Just the ones that in my opinion are fake.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 15, 2009)

abraxas said:


> Just the ones that in my opinion are fake.



So, my opinions are "little" and "fake", and you suspect my work sucks, even though I am pretty new here and you have never met me, never seen my work, all because I said I do not think digital conversions to B&W are ascetically appealing to me. That's just sad.

Allan


----------



## Sherman Banks (Apr 15, 2009)

If we analyze your argument here, we may better see why people disagree with your statement. First, you define any digital conversion of color to B&W as "fake". So that would define any image converted from color to B&W on film as "true". A simple web search for definitions of &#8220;fake&#8221; is as follows: One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham, having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent. Now you've said that you use the term as a means to say that a digitally converted B&W image does not carry the authenticity of an image converted by film (as noted by the tonal range differences, and grain quality vs. pixilation statement), and does not fit your taste due to these inferior qualities. While many would argue that a B&W shot on film might have a much nicer feel to it, or might have more appealing characteristics, it&#8217;s doubtful they would define a digital conversion as &#8220;fake&#8221;. In essence, your argument goes beyond B&W digital vs. film, and actually encompasses the old argument of digital vs. film. If you don&#8217;t like a B&W digital rendering because of the noted quality differences, those differences are often seen in color images as well and would indicate that digital color renderings are also &#8220;fake&#8221;. Nobody here is trying to question the authenticity of another person&#8217;s work, and certainly nobody is calling anyone a fraud for the methods they create their images with, so your usage of the word &#8220;fake&#8221; is what everyone is upset about, not your opinion of the image itself. I&#8217;ll apologize for initially calling you a snob as I think you&#8217;re being misunderstood due to the words you&#8217;ve chosen to describe other&#8217;s work. Hopefully the argument can just go away now.


----------



## sdianne (Apr 15, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> I noticed flea77 called out bluemary in the thread "http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...structive-criticism-my-photography-style.html". flea77 spotted bluemary's B&W photos as fakes assuming that means they were shot in color and converted to B&W during post.
> 
> How do can you tell/whats the advantage of shooting in B&W?
> 
> ...


 

Personally I prefer to adjust my photos in RAW format after they are shot.  I don't really care for the black & white settings on my camera.  There is more control over tones and depth when you adjust manually.  

What are "fake" photos anyway?  I don't think I've ever seen one.  As long as it's pleasing to the eye of the beholder, who cares?


----------



## abraxas (Apr 15, 2009)

flea77 said:


> ...
> I do not think digital conversions to B&W are ascetically appealing to me. ...



If you would have initially stated your thoughts as quoted above, possibly you wouldn't have revealed what I believe was your actual intent.

Just my opinion, but since you fail to substantiate, or back up your opinion by showing you have some type of vested interest in photography, it appears to me as if your opinion is designed to attack anyone making a black and white photo from a color digital image.  Your intent, again in my opinion, is a deliberate attempt to dupe, deceive or trick the photographers here into believing, or accepting, that your opinion is real and based on an aesthetic, when in fact it is not ... it is insulting and fake.  

So, let's see what you got. Post something that you've done that demonstrates your aesthetic, your sense of beauty.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 15, 2009)

Sherman Banks said:


> If we analyze your argument here, we may better see why people disagree with your statement. First, you define any digital conversion of color to B&W as "fake". So that would define any image converted from color to B&W on film as "true".




In my opinion that is not true, I defined my use of the term "fake" as conversion from the original captured format. Following that logic, the medium on which it was captured (film or digital) doesnt matter. Color film converted to B&W would still be as "fake" in my opinion, just less noticeable. I might add that the noticing is what gets me. I really could care less how an image is made, but the B&Ws I see so often converted from color digital images look really bad, to me.





Sherman Banks said:


> A simple web search for definitions of fake is as follows: One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham, having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent. Now you've said that you use the term as a means to say that a digitally converted B&W image does not carry the authenticity of an image converted by film (as noted by the tonal range differences, and grain quality vs. pixilation statement), and does not fit your taste due to these inferior qualities. While many would argue that a B&W shot on film might have a much nicer feel to it, or might have more appealing characteristics, its doubtful they would define a digital conversion as fake.




That about sums it up, I see a B&W conversion and it does indeed look not authentic or genuine to me. To me, I see it, and it looks untrue, not like a B&W "should" look, and in my mind at least, the first work that jumps in is the word "fake". Perhaps I could use the word "unrealistic" instead?




Sherman Banks said:


> In essence, your argument goes beyond B&W digital vs. film, and actually encompasses the old argument of digital vs. film. If you dont like a B&W digital rendering because of the noted quality differences, those differences are often seen in color images as well and would indicate that digital color renderings are also fake.




Not true. As I have already stated, for whatever reason color images shot in digital do not have the same problem, at least to my eyes. I know of course they are exactly the same as the digital B&W, and if I force myself to look closely I can of course see they are the same, but in B&W images the differences just scream out to my eyes whereas the color ones do not. I do not pretend to know why, that is just the way I perceive things.




Sherman Banks said:


> Nobody here is trying to question the authenticity of another persons work, and certainly nobody is calling anyone a fraud for the methods they create their images with, so your usage of the word fake is what everyone is upset about, not your opinion of the image itself.




I certainly agree that no one is questioning the authenticity of the photos, and am not calling anyone a fraud. What happens is this, I see frequently people stating that over processed HDR images appear "fake" to them, I see what they are talking about as they look "fake" to me too (some of them), and the converted B&W images to me look just as unrealistic as over processed HDR images do so I choose to use the same term, "fake". I find it interesting that when someone uses the same term to talk about HDR images, there is no problem. But God forbid someone use the exact same word to describe a B&W image!




Sherman Banks said:


> Ill apologize for initially calling you a snob as I think youre being misunderstood due to the words youve chosen to describe others work. Hopefully the argument can just go away now.



Apology accepted.

Allan


----------



## flea77 (Apr 15, 2009)

abraxas said:


> If you would have initially stated your thoughts as quoted above, possibly you wouldn't have revealed what I believe was your actual intent.
> 
> Just my opinion, but since you fail to substantiate, or back up your opinion by showing you have some type of vested interest in photography, it appears to me as if your opinion is designed to attack anyone making a black and white photo from a color digital image.  Your intent, again in my opinion, is a deliberate attempt to dupe, deceive or trick the photographers here into believing, or accepting, that your opinion is real and based on an aesthetic, when in fact it is not ... it is insulting and fake.



Your argument falls flat when I clearly stated in the original thread that there was nothing wrong with B&W conversions, they just did not appeal to ME. I also stated I would like to have seen the original color versions. There was no "attack" as you put it. I did not go through every post in the B&W forum and do the same thing. Clearly stating that it was just my opinion makes it impossible for me to be duping, deceiving, or tricking anyone.

My opinion is my opinion. Everyone's is different. Why should anyone have to "prove" their opinion? That is absurd! Why would anyone have to have a "vested interest" to express their opinion? That too is absurd! Currently my opinion is that you just want to start a fight for whatever reason. I can not fathom how anyone could attack someone else for what they find ascetically pleasing in a photograph.

Now to see how that ignore feature works on this forum.

Allan


----------



## Dao (Apr 15, 2009)

my opinion is ...... 

we should lock this thread.  

and then take a short break .....

and then grab a beer or ice cream or .... something you enjoy ..

and then :hug::


----------



## Sherman Banks (Apr 15, 2009)

flea77 said:


> I certainly agree that no one is questioning the authenticity of the photos, and am not calling anyone a fraud. What happens is this, I see frequently people stating that over processed HDR images appear "fake" to them, I see what they are talking about as they look "fake" to me too (some of them), and the converted B&W images to me look just as unrealistic as over processed HDR images do so I choose to use the same term, "fake". I find it interesting that when someone uses the same term to talk about HDR images, there is no problem. But God forbid someone use the exact same word to describe a B&W image!


 
I think people are often referring to this as a fake representation of reality, not just as being a "fake" photo due to the processing.  It's  different from your B&W argument as both film and digital do capture reality but with some technical differences that come with the mediums.  HDR's tend to manipulate reality by oversaturating colors and creating elements that no image would ever capture in reality (halos, etc.).  

A note to your statment about capturing color then converting: most of us shoot in RAW, so no matter what the setting on our camera may be, it still records the image as color and we have to convert in post processing.  I feel that those of us who do this use a method that yeilds better results as we dictate the conversion process, not the camera.  Even with a jpeg conversion, the user still controls a lot of the elements of the conversion (or can at least), which in many cases may create results you don't find appealing due to the user defining the conversion characteristics.  But to say the camera will always do a better job processing the image to B&W isn't true because a camera can't judge an image's quality beyond the programming it was given.  In some cases, the camera's programmed judgement may be better than that of the user, but it's not always a constant. 

Anyways, that's my take on it.


----------



## KmH (Apr 15, 2009)

Classic examples of circular arguments. Round and round and round we go.

A black and white image recorded on film does not record the all the hue's that impinge on the film because the film is designed to lack that capability. 

The film image is *pre-processed* as a black and white rather than *post-processed* as a digital file would be. But both are surely processed. Fake is not the proper word but it does incite discussion. 

There is no way to convince flea77 otherwise, but continuing to go round and round at least keeps him and the others from other mischief.


----------



## rfosness88 (Apr 16, 2009)

Flea77 I see what your saying and I agree, I also see how tossing around the word "fake" on a photography forum can be a little risky. Maybe a more clearly defined definition during your critiquing. Thanks for answering my questions, I am now an expert on the subject lol. 

Lastly, I believe fake is a completely appropriate word to describe the process of the camera or computer TRYING to interpret(fake) B&W by it's conversion that was PROGRAMMED into it.

Sorry if the thread caused you or anyone else emotional damages.

I had only good intentions


----------



## rfosness88 (Apr 16, 2009)

I've heard this software can fake it the best, if anyone is interested. Plug in for Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperture.

The Power of Black and White


----------



## abraxas (Apr 16, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> Flea77 I see what your saying and I agree, I also see how tossing around the word "fake" on a photography forum can be a little risky. Maybe a more clearly defined definition during your critiquing. Thanks for answering my questions, I am now an expert on the subject lol.
> 
> Lastly, I believe fake is a completely appropriate word to describe the process of the camera or computer TRYING to interpret(fake) B&W by it's conversion that was PROGRAMMED into it.
> 
> ...



You flatter yourself.  None the less, at least you've posted photos and your opinion can be weighted- you're a known quantity. Good luck to you.


----------



## rfosness88 (Apr 16, 2009)

> You flatter yourself.


please explain?

ya im new to all of this, got my first cam 3 months ago, im just trying to learn all this stuff. So I prolly dont carry much weight around here. The internet is amazing though. I learn more in my apartment on my computer in an hour then a weeks worth of classes at my University. It's sad. Wish I could just pay for my degree without putting in the useless hours of class.


----------

