Same shot, same crop, the only change is one is converted to B&W. Cropped and converted in PS but no other alterations at all. Which do you prefer? TIA Magick Michael

B&W version

Usually I'd be more drawn to the BW..... after staring at this for a while I think I actually like the color version better (!)...... I'm feeling as if the seperation between the tones of his face and the background are getting lost in the BW.... if that makes any sense? Wonderful portrait work here and the one in the gallery. Strike up a conversation with this guy.... get his address and mail him some prints. I'm sure he'd love them. :~)

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

color imo... the skin tone is blending in with the background tone, with the color it brings him forward again :] opps crossed with chelle... yep same :]

Message edited on: 05/11/2005 21:39

Too hard to define tones as on the lines of what Michelle said. Most definitely colour.

"The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions."

Jumps on Color bandwagon, for reasons already stated.

Me too. What they said. Hm. If you played with contrast and artificial lighting, or with using just one or two channels, you might (might) get the face more distinct in the bw version. I think. :-)

-- erlik

guess i gotta be different, but i really like the B&W better. i think it's classier and makes for a helluva a portrait. i would play with it as Vlatko suggested.

I was wondering along the lines of Erlik..... after I posted this morning I started thinking about it more. I'm not sure how you do your BW conversions though. Are you following Donald's method? But usually playing with one or two of the channels will result in better seperation of tones.

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

Ooooooh! I even prefer this one over the one in ur gallery!!! Splendid portrait!!! And I honestly can't chose between the 2 as I like them equally for different reasons! Truly superb shot!