# 5995-97 / around the house (life without color)•kitchen sink ~ therefore I see

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

(embiggenable)

STILL MESSIN’ AROUND WITH BW CONVERSION ON SOME OF my pictures. Some of which are converting quite well, by which I mean that they “work” as very good (iMo) photographs. That written, as much as I am pleased with the converted results, the idea of making in-camera monochrome pictures, that is, seeing in monochrome, is, for me, a non-starter.

The primary reason for that consideration is the fact that, in the digital darkroom, the control one can access in the color>bw conversion process is quite formitable-excluding cheesy canned “looks”-especially the capability to accentuate / de-centuate individual colors during the conversion. A capability which mirrors the use of making pictures with bw film using color filters to achieve the same effect. The significant analog/digital difference being that, shooting with film, the use of only 1 filter is possible, whereas in the digital darkroom, one can use as many “filters” during the conversion process as one wants on a single image file.

The other significant reason I do not want to learn to see in monochrome is the fact that I see in color. That is, from an art-making POV, I see color as an individual and integral visual component of the form I wish to create on the 2D plain of a print. From a real-world descriptive POV, the world is full of color. Therefore, picture making wise, I see in color.

All of that written, I do enjoy the visual experience of viewing a rich, well made monochrome print. So, I will be converting to monochrome and printing some of my pictures for display on the soon-to-be constructed, free-standing, 2-sided gallery wall (in my house).