B&W photos

[D_Harry_Crax]

Who still takes black & white photos unless they're trying to copy Ansel Adams?

And, more importantly, do cocks look better in color or in B&W???

 

[readytocum]

wow damm hot pic, guess b&w gives a better contrast...in this one anyway

 

[tlbuncut5]

A cock looks good in any thing. B&W...or Color...Nice meat you have there.

 

[Viking_UK]

B&W gives much better contrast and they also seem more moody.
Colour's fairly bland. It's nothing special and reduces the impact of the image. Most of the great, memorable, iconic photos are in B&W.

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

I do, but I rather add a touch of colour to it, subtle, but nice.

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

I love B&W photography, especially of the human body. I've taken some nude B&W's of my boyfriend. :tongue:

 

[erratic]

A cock looks good in any thing. B&W...or Color...

Ahaha, true.

B&W is just another tool that photographers have in their kit. The problem with digital B&W is that it's just a desaturated colour image. They just took the colour image and sucked the colour out of it. The artistic gain in B&W with digital is less.

In film, the clarity of the image goes through the roof. If you're just looking for detail, there's nothing in the world that can touch good black and white film. Between that and grain (which is superlatively superior to digital's "noise") you can get images that feel intense and introspective without having to dick around with the negative.

There are lots of differing opinions on the other point you touched on, but generally speaking: Colour is harder on faces than black and white. Colour shows all the blemishes and splotches as well as the lines and wrinkles, whereas a black and white image really only shows you the lines and wrinkles. Black and white, on the other hand, is hard on the rest of the body (cocks included) because it shows you only the lines and wrinkles without the pleasant shades of skin tone. Plus, blush on the body makes it look alive and exciting. So colour tends to be better for body shots.

Of course, good photographers violate all the "rules" as often as they follow them, so anything I said above has a zillion counter-examples.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Interesting.
Are you a photographer, erratic?

I still love black and white.
I love the sense of modelling in this shot, from this thread. (There are many other shots in color there, and they're fine, but to my eye, not quite as beautiful.)
Dylan Rosser, the photographer, really seems to know what he's doing.
But I think the way the world works is that most people have come to vastly prefer color in their images.
Ansel Adams, at least the black and white version, would never get out of the gate today.
Pity, I think.

 

[erratic]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Interesting.
Are you a photographer, erratic?

Not the getting-paid-for-it kind, unfortunately.

I still love black and white...Dylan Rosser, the photographer, really seems to know what he's doing.

You can tell he really loves men. Even though I'm not a fan of all of his models, he always takes great shots of them. His physique shots are especially studied and loving.

But I think the way the world works is that most people vastly prefer to have color in their images.
Ansel Adams, at least the black and white version, would never get out of the gate today.
Pity, I think.

That's absolutely true. Although, seeing one of Ansel Adams' large format negatives printed out on grand scale is an almost religious experience. I think anyone rocking large-format chemistry these days deserves at least a bit of respect.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

That's absolutely true. Although, seeing one of Ansel Adams' large format negatives printed out on grand scale is an almost religious experience. I think anyone rocking large-format chemistry these days deserves at least a bit of respect.

I agree.
I once had a chance to buy a used Linhof Technika.
To my sorrow today, I didn't have the scratch.

 

[erratic]

I agree.
I once had a chance to buy a used Linhof Technika.
To my sorrow today, I didn't have the scratch.

Beautiful. I use this:

Except when I take pictures of dicks. That's all digital. (Trying to keep it relevant to the thread

 

[Nottswanker]

Linhof techs are superb cameras for studio and landscape photography. 50+ years old and today's best DSLRs haven't bettered their detail and sharpness.
The cocks look pretty great in Robert Mapplethorpe's B&W male nudes. 220 format Hasselblad I think?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Beautiful. I use this:http://photoclubalpha.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/minolta-autocord-ra.jpg

Except when I take pictures of dicks. That's all digital. (Trying to keep it relevant to the thread

I'll bet you get very digital.
A Minolta Autocord. Hmmm.
Seems to me they were supposed to be better than the Rolleicord.
It reminds me a bit of my father's Yashica-D. He'd graduated up to that from the Yashica J35, a rangefinder that he passed on to me.
The final camera he gave me was a Nikomat FT, little brother to the Nikon F, and a very good camera for the stripling I then was.
For a kid, I used it pretty seriously, and in photography classes at university, was told I should do books. (I'm sure they told all the boys that. If I saw my work from that time tonight, I'm pretty sure I would find it very obvious and naive.)
He sent the camera to me from Oregon, where he was taking a course and, before I had it in hand, he died suddenly of a heart attack.
So it was a gift from beyond the grave, stolen years later by a coke addict and probably sold for 10 bucks.
Now, I use digital, and not very much, I'm afraid.

Linhof techs are superb cameras for studio and landscape photography. 50+ years old and today's best DSLRs haven't bettered their detail and sharpness.
The cocks look pretty great in Robert Mapplethorpe's B&W male nudes. 220 format Hasselblad I think?

I wonder if the new Hasselblad digitals can match it ... 39 megapixels, the largest one, and about as expensive as a baby grand piano.
I have no idea.
(But I doubt it.)

Yes, Mapplethorpe got into Hasselblad. Before that, he used some press camera ... some kind of Graflex, maybe?
And before that, he was using Polaroid.

 

[erratic]

I'll bet you get very digital.
A Minolta Autocord. Hmmm.
Seems to me they were supposed to be better than the Rolleicord.

I'm not sure, to be honest. That's what I've been told, but I've never seen any comparisons. Regardless, the glass is lovely, the mechanics are still spot on, and the images are silky-smooth.

So it was a gift from beyond the grave, stolen years later by a coke addict and probably sold for 10 bucks.
Now, I use digital, and not very much, I'm afraid.

That's a rather sad coda

I wonder if the new Hasselblad digitals can match it ... 39 megapixels, the largest one, and about as expensive as a baby grand piano.
I have no idea.
(But I doubt it.)

They're gorgeous cameras, but medium format film still runs circles around them. For colour, dynamic range, and pure B&W, medium format is still untouched.

Yes, Mapplethorpe got into Hasselblad. Before that, he used some press camera ... some kind of Graflex, maybe?
And before that, he was using Polaroid.

You learn something new every day. And yeah, Notts, his nudes are out of this world.

 

[deleted3782]

Who still takes black & white photos unless they're trying to copy Ansel Adams?

Have you all noticed the detail of the folded and layered fabric of his jeans...or the dark mystery of his eyes? Can't get that in color. :wink:

I've never played with black and white on people (which for me would be converting my color images into black and white). When I took black and white pictures they were always of buildings and landscapes which were my interest at the time. My best friend from school and I kinda learned photography together through special classes. He became a professional photographer and he took lots of pictures in black and white of projects I worked on. The last time he was down visiting he took some black and white nudes of me...which I gave to another friend to develop...who lost the roll. I imagine they were really cool pics. He used his large format camera. Sadness.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Yes, Mapplethorpe got into Hasselblad. Before that, he used some press camera ... some kind of Graflex, maybe?
And before that, he was using Polaroid.

You learn something new every day. And yeah, Notts, his nudes are out of this world.

Not important, but I looked a bit further and found this:

Mapplethorpe took about 1,500 Polaroids during this five-year period, initially with a Polaroid Model 360 and then with a Graflex mounted with a Polaroid back that made slightly larger prints. This phase ended when his patron and lover Sam Wagstaff gave him a Hasselblad. With its square viewing frame and increased precision, the camera cast the die for Mapplethorpe’s mature style.
[ source ]

So even his Graflex work used Polaroid film.
FWIW ...

 

[Mickactual]

The last time he was down visiting he took some black and white nudes of me...which I gave to another friend to develop...who lost the roll. I imagine they were really cool pics. He used his large format camera. Sadness.

I'll echo that sadness, as those are photos I'd quite like to have seen. :frown1: