A Curvy Path

[KingJimmy]

One of my co-workers does photography, and he suggests when shooting on a very overcast day to simply shoot in black and white, especially when there isn't much color to begin with. So, being today was such a day, I decided to experiment with the black & white settings on my camera. How do you guys feel about the composition of this photo I took on a walking trail near today? I feel like it might not be crisp enough. I believe when I set the focus, I aimed it towards the end of the path as it enters the trees.

Canon Powershot s5 IS
f/3
1/50
Iso: 80
Focal length: 20.7mm

Thanks,

Jimmy

[Sterling]

Composition-wise I'd prefer to see a little separation between the bend in the road and the edge of the frame on the right side.

As far as your co-worker's advice, forget it! The in-camera b&w modes are not the best way to get a pleasing b&w photo. As you can see in your photo, it tends to produce very little contrast which means very little black in the black & white. There are a number of methods to convert color to black and white using post processing software. IMO, the color version of this shot is probably quite superior to the camera's idea of black and white.

[KingJimmy]

Thanks. I agree, I took a couple b&w photos today, and can't say I was really very happy with the b&w my camera produced, with the exception of maybe one. It was my first real attempt at doing b&w on my camera. I don't know that I could get the contrast I'm looking for with the camera in and of itself. Any suggestions besides to do post-processing?

My co-worker is kinda a purist, and doesn't believe in using anything for post processing. He wants to limit himself to the medium of the camera alone. I don't mind doing post processing myself, as all of these things are simply tools. As it is, the hardware on the camera itself is "processing" the image according to the settings on there, so I think the idea of limiting yourself to however the camera produces the image, while challenging, does possibly leave one with what is ultimately an inferior image. As it is, back in the days when we actually loaded film into a camera, the film produced received "post processing" depending on how the individual/machine developed the picture after the fact.

[Sterling]

My co-worker is kinda a purist, and doesn't believe in using anything for post processing. He wants to limit himself to the medium of the camera alone.

That's fine for him. I guess he's happy with less than optimal images. I'd encourage you to dump him as a source of advice if you actually want to produce better quality images. In my experience, most of these "purists" just don't know how to do any post processing and so they look they down on it. They also are usually completely ignorant of the fact that PP has been an integral part of producing images since photography was invented. For me, it boils down to allowing the camera's low IQ computer do the PP it sees fit vs. using the big brain of my computer to implement the decisions I select.

I don't know that I could get the contrast I'm looking for with the camera in and of itself.

No, you may not be able to. It may be like saying, "I sure like HDR shots, how can I get them using only the camera?"

I don't mind doing post processing myself, as all of these things are simply tools. As it is, the hardware on the camera itself is "processing" the image according to the settings on there, so I think the idea of limiting yourself to however the camera produces the image, while challenging, does possibly leave one with what is ultimately an inferior image. As it is, back in the days when we actually loaded film into a camera, the film produced received "post processing" depending on how the individual/machine developed the picture after the fact.

Sounds like you should be the one giving your friend advice.

[KingJimmy]

Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. I went back and re-touched my b&w images in photoshop. Attached is my re-do. I think it is definitely a lot more crisp.

[Sterling]

Definitely improved.

[KansaiGreenie]

Hi King Jimmy,

I agree with Sterling. It is better to do your monochrome conversion outside of the camera and your second image is an improvement. As for your co-worker being 'kinda of a purist', photography has always been at least a two step process, if not a three or four... I trained as a black and white film photographer developing shots in a wet darkroom. Post processing was always necessary. Anyway....

I agree with you that your image is soft. The increased contrast helps, but with a shot like this you need more depth of field. There are two things I think you need to do. First, is to use a smaller aperture. F3 on your Powershot at 20.7mm, I'm guessing, is wide open. I would have used a higher ISO and closed down the lens. Second, to get maximum DOF set the focus one third of the way into the scene. You said that you focused on the end of the path near the trees; I think that is too far into the scene. I would have focused just past the first bend in the road.

Does that help?

KG

[KingJimmy]

Originally Posted by KansaiGreenie

Hi King Jimmy,

I agree with Sterling. It is better to do your monochrome conversion outside of the camera and your second image is an improvement. As for your co-worker being 'kinda of a purist', photography has always been at least a two step process, if not a three or four... I trained as a black and white film photographer developing shots in a wet darkroom. Post processing was always necessary. Anyway....

I agree with you that your image is soft. The increased contrast helps, but with a shot like this you need more depth of field. There are two things I think you need to do. First, is to use a smaller aperture. F3 on your Powershot at 20.7mm, I'm guessing, is wide open. I would have used a higher ISO and closed down the lens. Second, to get maximum DOF set the focus one third of the way into the scene. You said that you focused on the end of the path near the trees; I think that is too far into the scene. I would have focused just past the first bend in the road.

Does that help?

KG

Thanks a lot for the suggestions, I find them very insightful. Yeah, F3 @ 20.77 is pretty much pushing the camera, though my F stop allows me to get to a 2.7. Next time I'll definitely set the focus towards the place you suggested on the path to get a better depth of field.