[Closed] Black and white

Pre-1960's - yes
Otherwise, no

When it looks good, do it. When not, don't. 😉

Black and white when you have good textures, rust can be good

Whenever you want to - there are no rules, why limit yourself?

if yr pics are shit, try black & white, if still shit then sepia, then wastebasket

Whenever you want to - there are no rules, why limit yourself?

I'm not asking for rules, I'm asking for tips and suggestions..

Rules.. lol!

suck it & see

suck it & see

I'm not asking for rules, I'm asking for tips and suggestions..

Rules.. lol!

But you're the one asking 'when and when not' to use black and white. 🙂

Unless the answer is 'when I think it looks better' or 'when I feel like it' it would suggest that you do believe that certain images are more appropriate in b & w than others.

Which logically leads to the conclusion that you believe there must be certain criteria or rules to determine the outcome, or your initial post would be irrelevant. 😀
[img] [/img]

But you're the one asking 'when and when not' to use black and white

Alright, given that you don't know me and hence the question has to be phrased explicitly, I shall try again.

"When do YOU use B&W?"

Which logically leads to the conclusion that you believe there must be certain criteria or rules to determine the outcome

OR that each person may have their own set of criteria, and I'd be interested to hear what they are...

When I think it looks better or when I feel like it. 😀

Since going digital I don't have to make the choice before I shoot any more, so just go with my gut feeling in photoshop.

Honestly, that's it. I don't try to over analyse it.

When using film.

I have a hard time deciding if it looks better or not, to be honest.

I have a hard time deciding if it looks better or not, to be honest.

Ok, (and yes, I know the framing is awful) but I prefer this:

[img] [/img]

to this:

[img] [/img]

but I've no idea why. 🙂

I dunno if I do, really. I think I like the colour but somehow it brings out the leaves on the floor.. and seeing the grass inside the tent makes it look a bit less posh than the gents' clothes would suggest.. they are different but I can't say, somehow.

Assuming you're using a photochop type program, what are you doing to the photos?

Currently, nothing 🙂

and seeing the grass inside the tent makes it look a bit less posh than the gents' clothes would suggest..

It was in Blackley (not posh!) & the suits were hired!

Cake was quite nice - bit modern for my taste:
[img] [/img]

But the bride (my stepdaughter) looked lovely:

[img] [/img]

Why did you have bouncers guarding your tent? Why did you take a pic of them?

Rusty Spanner - Member

Ok, (and yes, I know the framing is awful) but I prefer this:

[img] [/img]

That's grey and white.

when you start thinking and seeing in black and white.

That's grey and white.

when you start thinking and seeing in black and white.

Is there a plugin for that?

That's grey and white.

I know - much more work required yet. 🙂

CharlieMungus - Member

Why did you have bouncers guarding your tent?

As I said, it was Blackley 😀

[img] [/img]
I tend to use black and white for low light shots at gigs for instance .

When I was studying photography, my rule was that I only used colour fillum if colour was a principle important element in the image I wanted to take. With a roll of colour slide costing several times what a roll of B+W cost me, and being a propperly skint student, this rule served me well. Early work was all about light and dark, so B+W was perfect. Colour is another addition to the whole process.

A red London bus, a beautiful sunset, Liverpool V Everton; these are the kind of subjects where colour is essential.

Make sense?

Well it does to me so I don't care really.

[img] [/img]
I tend to use black and white for low light shots , at gigs for instance.
[url= http://pjkimages.tumblr.com/ ]more pics here[/url]

I tend to use black and white for low light shots

I just tried a few sample shots at high ISO. Noise still just as much in evidence in monotone, but somehow it doesn't seem as bad on the eye. Good idea that.

Elf - good point, but you've got the option of either in the wonderful world of didge...

See, today's tographers are overspoilt, Mol. Everything's too easy. Just change things with the press of a button. If it ain't quite right, fix it in Photoshop.

Takes away the real thinking about stuff, imo. Too much to detract from just taking photos.

The greats I admired whilst learning, yer Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Man Ray an ting, they din't have al the options available to people today, yet still produced stunning images.

Less is more.

If it ain't quite right, fix it in Photoshop.

The retina contains two types of photoreceptors, rods and cones. The rods are more numerous, some 120 million, and are more sensitive than the cones. However, they are not sensitive to color. The 6 to 7 million cones provide the eye's color sensitivity

See, today's tographers are overspoilt, Mol. Everything's too easy. Just change things with the press of a button

I disagree. Pressing buttons doesn't take a great photo for you. You just have more options, which provides you with more creative opportunities.

Last time I went to an aquarium I spent a while with long exposures trying to get the fish to make swirly swoopy shapes in bluey grey. There's no way I'd have done that with film, I'd have wasted a whole roll of film.

It worked quite nicely btw but the details of the far wall of the tank ended up being picked out better than the fishy swirls.. 🙂

It worked quite nicely btw but the details of the far wall of the tank ended up being picked out better than the fishy swirls..

I knew how to set it correctly, which is why it worked 🙂 I also knew that to get a better picture I just had to move the camera to point at a bit of the tank without anything in the background...

I tend to use black and white for low light shots , at gigs for instance.

Noise still just as much in evidence in monotone, but somehow it doesn't seem as bad on the eye.

Too bloody right. Can even be enhanced for further effect:
Tony the soundman at the Academy in Manchester:

[img] [/img]

The Uzual Suspectz: Right bunch of scumbags, honestly 😉

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I disagree. Pressing buttons doesn't take a great photo for you. You just have more options, which provides you with more creative opportunities.

You can disagree all you want, Mol. Fact is, someone with an eye for a picture can take better photos with more limited equipment than someone with all the gear and no idea. Granted, today's technology, in the hands of someone with talent, is awesome, but in the hands of someone without decent technique, is little more than distractive confuddlement.

Anyway; Henri disagrees with you:

[img] [/img]

Leica, Manual everything, no internal light meter. Nineteen thirty two.

someone with an eye for a picture can take better photos with more limited equipment than someone with all the gear and no idea

That's quite obvious, and not even close to my point:

It's perfectly possible to take great photos with limited kit.

If you are rubbish you'll be rubbish no matter what camera you have.

However, if you are the same person (me, for instance) then certain extra features or bits of kit allow more creative options AND allow you to capture more different shots. That's hard to argue against, isn't it?

I refuse to comment on threads where adults use baby words in a vain attempt to be interesting or individual.

Pity, as it's a subject that is dear to me.

Pity, as it's a subject that is dear to me.

Who the hell cares how he spells his words? If it's really a pity then get over yourself and comment!

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bw-photography-on-film-who-else-enjoys-it

There you go molgrips. 🙂

Let' not forget araki and some of his great b/w stuff

However, if you are the same person (me, for instance) then certain extra features or bits of kit allow more creative options AND allow you to capture more different shots. That's hard to argue against, isn't it?

I'd say that all the crap preloaded onto a modern DSLR and the last of the older film SLR's may allow to capture more shots, as they can save time, but in no way do they give you more creative options.

How can they?

A fully manual camera has all the creative options possible, it's knowing how to achieve those options that counts.

That's why I think it's far better for people to start using an SLR in manual mode, so they can understand the basics and how those parameters interact with each other.

Start simple, then add complication. It's much easier that way round.

Just my opinion, obviously.

Mols, have a look at the Dx0 film pack (either standalone or plug in) Think there is a 30 day trial option as well. its a quick way to test film effects on images,

I've always advised to rotate the image 180 degrees when deciding on final composition / colour balance / choice. If the eye is still drawn to interest (contrast being more important for B&W) then correct choice. Like anything its subjective.

The snapseed app is also fun to play around with for similar results.

We're talking at crossed purposes here. Personally, I feel many people get too bogged down with the myriad options their cams offer, and get too caught up with the tech, rather than learning good technique. Then, too often, they resort to Photoshop to correct their bad technique, and try to save otherwise crap photos.

Using film trained me to be able to get the image right in camera, not have to faff about afterwards making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Recently in North Wales, I was using a crappy cheap digital compact, just for snaps, but in spite of it having loads of fancy options, it's still not a very good cam, and frustrating to use. Far more sophisticated technologically than my lovely old FM2, but not as good at the purpose it was designed for.

The fact that it takes ages before each shot to work out what the flip it's actually doing made me want to lob the thing at a cah. My FM2, I cooduv got the pics I wanted rather than suffering what the dijicam struggled to produce.

Less is more....

but in no way do they give you more creative options.

I was talking about having a variety of lenses or zoom lenses, not especially metering. That is neither here nor there since it can be switched off. If you only have one focal length then there's nothing that can be done about that when you are out and about.

However I also disagree with you about beginners learning in manual mode. The important things about good photos are subject and composition. This is what you need to be thinking about. The camera will do the metering for you and do a good job in most cases. Faffing about with full manual mode as a beginner will take ages and completely eliminate any chance of spontaneous shooting. Whereas in P mode you could be merrily snapping away and learning about metering as you go.

If a shot requires say 1/200 at f8 for a middling exposure it really makes no difference if you've set it yourself or the camera did it for you. If it's over-exposed, you use compensation, if you need a faster shutter or smaller aperture, you use A or S mode.

The only time you need full manual is when doing something different like taking shots of lightening. And yes, it's good to know how it all works.

Take this shot for instance:

[img] [/img]

Seriously - is anyone looking at this and thinking about the exposure?

It all boils down to what photography is all about, doesn't it? Looking at a scene and being able to tell exactly what exposure is needed is all very lovely and craftsmanlike, but the suggestion that that's how you become a great photographer is bolleaux in my opinion. It's about subject and composition. Getting worked up about the exposure is a diversion for geeks I reckon. This is an art not a craft.

But I digress. The discussion was about black and white photographty...

Don Mc Cullin is someone who's work I really admire. Always worked in B+W, even though colour film was available.

[img] [/img]

Hatlepool. Really sums up the Grimness of Oop North, dun't it? Would colour improve this pic? Not in my onion; the greyness adds drama, atmosphere, the lack of colour speaks more about the scene than if it were included. This shot would be weaker in colour.

Not in my onion! Ha ha ha! You're great! Where do you get them from??!

Looking at a scene and being able to tell exactly what exposure is needed is all very lovely and craftsmanlike, but the suggestion that that's how you become a great photographer is bolleaux in my opinion. It's about subject and composition. Getting worked up about the exposure is a diversion for geeks I reckon. This is an art not a craft.

Wrong. Exposure is [i]everything[/i].

Photo graphy = painting with light.

Art = the execution of great skill, craft, talent to create....

Sebastiao Salgado:

[img] [/img]

I heard an interview with a famous fashion 'tog - can't remember the name now, but he said when he submitted stuff to mags etc it was always more likely to get accepted straight off if it was in B+W. He said with colour people would endlessly debate about whether the tone was exactly right or whatever.

I'm a big fan of B+W personally (when I can't get the white balance right 😉 )

A really good colour photo is all about the colours that are captured - Ernst Haas
A really good B&W photo is all about a fraction of a second frozen for all time - Cartier Bresson

[IMG] http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/DSC_0701-1.jp g" target="_blank">http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/DSC_0701-1.jp g"/> [/IMG]

Sometimes it's all about the model

Wrong. Exposure is everything.

Nonsense. If I took a picture of my living room, no amount of dicking about with the exposure (or basically making it darker or lighter) would make any difference. It's just my living room.

Exposure is important, of course. But subject is first - obviously.

Oh and re fancy camera settings - I know exactly what the 'sport' mode does on my camera and can do it manually, but I still used it the other day because it was quicker.

Sometimes it's all about the model

Very true....

[img] [/img]

Molgrips, if you don't know how the relationship between aperture, ISO and shutter speed affects depth of field and motion blur, how can you control it?

And photography is about whatever you want it be about - as is all art.

By selecting 'sport' mode or 'portrait' mode.

Look, you are mis-understanding. I'm not saying knowing those things isn't important, of course it is!

I'm saying that M mode is not a good starting point for a beginner.

Nonsense

'Nonsense', Mol? [i]Nonsense[/i]????

Right. Take a series of pics of your living room (or an object in it maybe), at different exposures. What the cam suggests, and over and under that. Go a few stops either way.

Then we'll have a look at the results and continue this. 🙂

Ok, we'll agree to disagree.

Just out of interest, do you think it's better to learn how to drive in an automatic before using manual transmission?

Or to start cycling with a full susser before using a hardtail?

this thread is crying out for Barnes and TrajicJeremey.
it's like last of the summer whinge without compo and clegg

Exposure (and tone) will change the mood, no doubt.

But I can't make it interesting, I'm sorry.

[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/6186631963_011a02520e_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/6186631963_011a02520e_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/6186631963/ ]P9276340[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6186632561_da345f1952_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6186632561_da345f1952_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/6186632561/ ]P9276342[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6187154812_78072aaf00_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6187154812_78072aaf00_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/6187154812/ ]P9276341[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

Two stops either way.

Just out of interest, do you think it's better to learn how to drive in an automatic before using manual transmission?

Depends what you're going to be expected to drive after you pass your test. Learn what you need to learn.

Or to start cycling with a full susser before using a hardtail?

Doesn't really matter. Cycling is about having a good time, isn't it?

Ok right so.

IMO, the 'overexposed' pic works better, for a couple of reasons.

One, the subject is isolated from it's background better, and stands out against the light space behind it, whereas in the 'correct' exposure, it blends in with the background more and is less distinct. The texture of the mat is more distinct.

Two, the eye of the toy is actually exposed correctly, whereas in the 'correct' pic, it's too dark. If this were a portrait, the most important point of interest would be the eyes.

Yeah, the highlights such as the paws are a bit bleached out, but imo, slight overexposure works better, given the lighting. Shots under household lighting tend to be perked up a bit with a touch of over exposure I reckon. Also the contrast is increased slightly. Better shadow detail too.

Now, turn them all black and white, and we'll move on to the next stage... 🙂

I agree that the over exposed pic is better. But is it good?

Is it good? What do you think?

The point of focus is on the eye, more or less, so that's a plus point. The composition's weak, distracting dark elements in the background, not an exciting subject. But as an exercise in seeing how exposure affects things, it's effective.

Now black and white them...

MrSmith - Member

this thread is crying out for Barnes and TrajicJeremey.
it's like last of the summer whinge without compo and clegg

[img] [/img]

"Oh, give over, we're enjoying ourselves!".

FFS Elf I am supposed to be working...!

[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/6187252792_70a13d0529_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/6187252792_70a13d0529_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/6187252792/ ]P9276340[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6186731519_9c8ba3b91b_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6186731519_9c8ba3b91b_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/6186731519/ ]P9276342[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6187252954_d4a2dd2e53_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6187252954_d4a2dd2e53_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/6187252954/ ]P9276341[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

They all contain varying degrees of information but it doesn't change the basic shot. Exposure and tone seem to be simply complimentary to the fundamental essence of the shot which in this case is a toy cat on a box in a living room. That never changes.

molgrips - Member

Just out of interest, do you think it's better to learn how to drive in an automatic before using manual transmission?

Depends what you're going to be expected to drive after you pass your test. Learn what you need to learn.

Or to start cycling with a full susser before using a hardtail?

Doesn't really matter. Cycling is about having a good time, isn't it?

Fair enough, but I still disagree.

Personally, I like to know how things work and how my input affects the activity I'm undertaking.
And understanding the process involved adds to it's enjoyment, for me anyway.
But, we're all different, all part of life's rich do-dah etc.

Personally, I like to know how things work and how my input affects the activity I'm undertaking

Me too. In all fairness I'm attracted to photography in the first place because of the technical aspects; it's from this starting point that I am able to exercise my limited artistic abilities. I believe I've made progress by tearing my attention away from lens sharpness and high ISO performance to me and onto the search for good things of which to take pictures, and good ways in which to take them. Sometimes using manual mode, sometimes not 🙂

To re-iterate, my point is that IF you are a beginner and IF you do not know anything about exposure, it is better to stick it in P first and start snapping and having fun, and THEN you can learn the rest as you go.

Mrs Grips has her own camera, it suits her needs. She doesn't care about exposures and the camera doesn't support manual mode. She still took this though, which I love:

[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6186760151_34dae128ae_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6186760151_34dae128ae_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/6186760151/ ]Sandy legs[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

Me too. In all fairness I'm attracted to photography in the first place because of the technical aspects;

Initially, many years ago, I found it far, far easier to persuade women to take their clothes off if I was vaguely waving a camera round at the same time.
And I couldn't play the guitar.

Of course the main thing is to be able to capture an image of something, but to be able to understand the 'science' or 'craft' behind the 'art' is fundamental in being able to produce better images than you might otherwise.

The overexposed shot, in B+W, reveals how detail in the shadow areas shows up. Might not be important in this case, but the point is that an image can be made better/stronger/convey more meaning if stuff like exposure settings, shutter speed, aperture etc are manipulated. Rather than simply always rely on the cam to do it's thing, it's better to know what will work best for the image you are trying to create. Part of the craft or skill is to also understand the limitations of your equipment, as well as the strengths. You could miss out on producing better quality images which do their intended job of conveying meaning/emotion/story to the viewer, if you simply rely too heavily on technology. So I spose what I'm saying is, that the real skill lies in not having to rely on the tech, but to have the intuition to know what will happen once you've set the cam up and pressed the button.

Having to use film sparingly was a great discipline, and taught me how to master technique to get things right. I din't have the benefit of instant replay and unlimited shots, but I still managed to take a decent pic or two.

I'm with molgrips on the M mode thing. Given that most will be on digital and effectively unlimited in shooting, I'd say getting an eye for composition and expression trumps either exposure or "moment", if it's "art" you're after. Scratch that of course if you are in awkward conditions, and I'd count most sport in that. Exposure settings are at least cheaper to experiment with in digital, I never had the luxury when using film of shooting loads, and but consequently looked at the meter settings a lot more, and carried a handheld meter too. I'm just getting into this again after using auto digital compacts for years. Anyway you've got me experimenting and having fun with the camer a for an hour or so so that's good. Here's a few taken tonight of my living room, same composition, different mood, haven't B&W them yet.

Auto everything
[IMG] [/IMG]

Flash off, normal ish exposure
[IMG] [/IMG]

Go a few stops darker and suddenly there's a picture in there
[IMG] [/IMG]

Anyway I have work to do tomorrow so will play some more when I get an hour. Night all.

Those curtains?

With that wallpaper? 😯

(Has to go and lie down)

To be continued....

If anyone is at all arsed about superb black and white cinematography,
'La Règle du jeu' has just started on Film 4.

G'night.

skin tone is so much easier with bw.
bw conversion from a colour photo with the channel mixer is so much easier than straight digital bw.

shoot slides for a bit,that'll make you a better photographer.
or turn off the monitor,you should know what you're doing.if not.learn.
modes aren't a transferrable skill.knowing how to expose is.

children are much less predictable than shooting sports.If I wanted to shoot kids I'd get a d2hs,cheap.5mb files are plenty big enough.great af.nice body.
lighting conditions generally don't change very much.so manual is fine for most situations.better actually.

shots might be free and unlimited.but time isn't.
neither is energy,for posing,for concentration.or for selecting the keepers out of a 12gb card.
people, they get bored,be they wives,girlfriends,friends,relatives.
why so many pictures of cats,dogs?because they don't get bored.

so,learn lighting.learn exposure.when you've got that dialled,well it becomes automatic,and faster,not to mention more precise.
asides from expressive.

my d200 meters fine,but I prefer using a sekonic.mostly it's the same.
mostly.
I won't even get started on flash.and I won't even consider getting started on multiple flashes.

my advice.fx is too expensive.bodies are worth naught after a few years.lenses are the better buy.

nice long tele lenses are even nicer longer tele lenses with dx.
plenty of good nikon wa lenses.some good dx primes.

most important thing is never the equipment.
any cyclist knows that..

asides from tripods.good tripods are niceness itself.

I only go for black and white if I can't get the white balance right after endless faffing, or if the colours look shit in general. This photo looked awful in colour bit in BW I think it looks alright (despite the framing of the planes being a bit close to the edge). The planes stand out from the sky much better than in the colour version. Don't have the original for comparison at the minute so I can't post them both.

[img] [/img]

A fully manual camera has all the creative options possible, it's knowing how to achieve those options that counts.

A really good [s]colour[/s] B&W photo is all about the colours that are captured - Ernst Haas

Then, too often, they resort to Photoshop to correct their bad technique, and try to save otherwise crap photos

but does that matter if you end up with something that still looks good ?

photoshop is only a tool just like other tools that photogtraphers have used over time to create their finished work - exposure times, light, filtering, developing etc etc.

look how manipulated blumenfeld's work is but it's still fantastic.

arguing against photoshop is like arguing against cubase in music. they're actually tools that enhance and enable creativity not limit or negate it.

just my two penneth

So I spose what I'm saying is, that the real skill lies in not having to rely on the tech, but to have the intuition to know what will happen once you've set the cam up and pressed the button

Agreed. I've never said understanding is not important - of course it is, and I've said that many times.

What I am trying to say is that if you are a beginner, it's better to get shooting FIRST and then learn about manual mode later, rather than starting off in manual and spending ages staring at your screen rather than shooting.

or turn off the monitor,you should know what you're doing.if not.learn.

This 'learn' part is what we are talking about!

photoshop is only a tool just like other tools that photogtraphers have used over time to create their finished work - exposure times, light, filtering, developing etc etc.

The main difference being that an already good photo is taken and enhances against a crap photo is taken and made average

i don't think that you can actually apply that as a general rule. so long as you end up with a good image, wgas how it was created. in the end, it's all creativity.

The same as music. How many over produced singers can sing well live on stage?

in truth probably far fewer than you could ever imagine but i bet there are albums in your collection that you consider incredible that could never be reproduced live. look at the stone roses for example, seminal first album, can't sing live to save his life.

point i'm making is that it's all about coming up with a finished product. whichever way you got there, it's all legit so long as the product is worth looking at or listening to. it doesn't need to be quantified in any other way.

Ohh I do LOVE a bit of B&W.
For portraits especially, and stuffs with texture.
For example:

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2592622256_4a528d655f_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2592622256_4a528d655f_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/2592622256/ ]IMG_5871[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3210/2592612472_b5358ff9d3_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3210/2592612472_b5358ff9d3_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/2592612472/ ]IMG_5861[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr

Sometimes B&W shows the light really well too, sort of suggesting it rather then shouting about it:

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/2592506286_a30587e018_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/2592506286_a30587e018_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/2592506286/ ]Candle[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr

But this one needed the colour I think, to show the decay better
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2594321015_af962abcc7_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2594321015_af962abcc7_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/2594321015/ ]Hinge[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr