Breaking new ground

Thanks for the explanation Rob, I understand your original post better now.

I also agree that it is a good idea to review the image in b+w in the camera.

For me, the mono images work better than the colours and agree with others have said about monochrome. Push them further, you may be pleasantly surprised!

If you like, I once put a link to my Google Drive to download a file for others to give their take on it and post them up, you could do the same and then you can see the results and ask what they did to get that "look" ??

Thanks, Gareth. It was actually a couple of comments you made recently saying you would like to see particular images in mono (inc. the first one posted in this set) that gave me rise to consider it. I remember your inviting different versions of an old image of yours a while ago, so I may take up your suggestion.
I think it's not easy, once you have processed a colour image reasonably satisfactorily, to start thinking about which one(s) might look better in B&W. To decide in advance of pressing the shutter, as discussed above, is not something I've ever done. That alone takes a bit of thinking about!

Does it your everyday vehicule

Colour or b+w simply depends on your way of getting what you're after in a photograph... I work in b+w almost exclusively because I like the way it makes reality just a bit (or more) 'off' (one can get there with colour too of course, just think of Bill Ward [thingsthatihaveseen] on this very forum, and his at times very abstract landscapes and natural details), leaving more to the imagination. The colour photography that I really enjoy uses the colours present toward the same effect - very difficult in my experience. But if realistic reproduction is part of the intent, I would think colour is the more obvious choice (although b+w might very well work if the photographer knows his way), and can be just as artistic (think of Roger's [coker] macros here).

So it's all a matter of intent, really, and the only thing I'm pretty sure of is that, most of the time, the shot will work in b+w if it was taken with that intent - happy accidents do happen in pp, though.

In your set, I prefer the b+w in 2 and 8 because you have taken them away from their representation of reality (and very effectively indeed). 4 and 6 don't go far enough for me, but they could. The colour versions of all four are evocative of the place and weather, which is fine, but don't take me anywhere beyond.

Thanks for posting and raising the question, it has brought interesting thoughts to the table.

Thanks, Serge, for your comment, which is as thought-provoking as your photographs often are - and none the worse for that! If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that you often prefer B&W because you see it as more likely to make the viewer think. Colour landscapes, for you, are more likely to restrict thought simply by virtue of presenting a more literal view of what was seen, even though the scene may be very nice to look at. I assume this is what you mean by "don't take me anywhere beyond."
If my understanding is correct, I have no problem with what you say. I think that, personally, and at the moment, I would fall into the category of those who might say, "Yes, I like that, even though I'm not quite sure why." I need (and would like) to look into the world of B&W photography to broaden my understanding of it.

Not exactly, it's more of a 'side-stepping' reality sort of thing (not sure I'm being any clearer here ).
I hope they don't! But they will take the viewer to a different place than b+w - and that place, to me will generally be more literal, yes (but again, the photographer's intent is paramount here). Yet they can can still convey all sorts of feelings and thoughts. General landscapes may not take me 'anywhere beyond' reality, but may certainly take others there.
Happens to me all the time, and I'm quite happy with the feeling.