View Full Version : B&W or Color.... and Why?
So usually I just keep an eye on the conversations around here...but I had a burning question I've been asking myself lately. It seems that most great photographers shoot almost entirely in one or the other. I've been trying to figure out if I'm a B&W guy or a color guy lately. I find that color comes more easily to me, I think colors catch my eye, it's often what draws me in to take a photograph of something. But when all is said and done... it often makes for a pretty, but otherwise uninteresting photograph. In B&W, I'm forced to work harder to look at form, and what's interesting in the photo aside from some nice colors. To those who deliberately shoot mostly in one or the other... which is it and why have you made that choice?
capitalK
11-24-2008, 10:44
Q: B&W or Colour?
A: Yes
Andrew Sowerby
11-24-2008, 10:58
I have a theory: If there weren't such high rates of colour blindness in men, black and white photography would have gone the way of the dodo long ago.
B&W because it's cheaper (I self develop). Not an artistic decision, just a financial one. :)
@cjm.... I totally agree... I'm in the same boat. Taking film to a lab gets awfully expensive
ClaremontPhoto
11-24-2008, 11:21
Color, because that's how I see.
But sometimes B&W, just occasionally, for a change.
Finance plays no part because it's all C41 and it all goes to the lab for dev. and CD only. Which costs about the same as a film.
oftheherd
11-24-2008, 11:23
Both with a preference for b/w. It is easier to develop myself, and a good b/w print speaks a little more to me than most color. But some things just wouldn't be as interesting without the color, or more importantly with some shots, it is the color that makes the shot.
SergioGuerra
11-24-2008, 11:27
I only get color film developed at the lab, and it costs 1.57 euro per roll... I wouldn't call it awfully expensive.
Developing BW at home obviously costs less (40 cents last time I made some math), but it shouldn't be the reason not to use color..
I like to develop at home because you can do it at any time you want (4am?) and it gives me the pleasure to be the master (like if I were a master of anything) of your work... :D
chris000
11-24-2008, 11:35
B & W, the reasons are here:
http://www.chriswaldrenphotography.co.uk/news_7468.html
I do both and I take both to walmart for develop. I like low ISO color images, but when I need high ISO, I use B&W as I don't like those grains on fast color negs.
Hiromu
dazedgonebye
11-24-2008, 11:40
I have a strong preference for black and white. Half of what I shoot in color ends up converted to black and white anyway...so that's what I shoot.
Almost exclusively B&W, and always film. A common argument is that the subject will often tell you whether to use colour or B&W (an Autumn forest cries out for colour). Well yes, but, isn't the real challenge to see what you could do in the same situation with B&W? I also think that when you decide on one or the other (a conscious decision, I mean, not a default one) then you will start to think and see differently. Perhaps that suggests that taking colour photos and later deciding to convert to B&W is a compromise that won't produce the best results.
I see things in a B&W way, but after starting to develop my own color films I have used color films exclusively. Usually the end result will be B&W, but I like to have that color option... And now I can take those pictures also which are interesting in colours...naturally you can't take those if you have B&W inside your camera.
I have a theory: If there weren't such high rates of colour blindness in men, black and white photography would have gone the way of the dodo long ago.
ROFL! :)
B&W because it's cheaper (I self develop). Not an artistic decision, just a financial one.
Back when I started shooting, this was the reason I did mostly B&W. Now that I can afford it, I do almost exclusively colo(u)r. It was really the processing and printing that cost, not the film itself. Still is.
This is also the reason I shot many color slides way back when. I could more conveniently decide which ones I wanted prints of (typically less than 10%) very conveniently.
I see in color, I love color in photographs.
I can appreciate good B&W as well, however. :)
jwhitley
11-24-2008, 12:00
Having started off doing color work (primarily digital), then having switched to shooting, processing, and printing black and white film... there's a definite learning curve before one begins to "see the light". For me, at least, practice and feedback from both student and experienced photographers and printers has been invaluable to that process. As it stands, I'm starting to get some "omg, that will look *great* in black and white!" moments.. Yet there's a lot of great photography out there that depends on color for its mood and/or message. At some point, I'll flip back and start studying and learning to "see" color as well, informed by my black and white work.
That said, I don't see myself ever working exclusively with color or black and white; instead I hope to hone my sense of both ways of presenting a work, and choose the most appropriate tool to express my intent. Time will tell... ;)
When I make a colour photo, it almost inevitably resembles the reality, as other people see it. When I make a B&W photo it more often resembles the reality how I see it. This is why I prefer B&W.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2392/2192904423_32bd4c9d8e_b.jpg
Lilserenity
11-24-2008, 12:22
Apart from the fact I adore the joy of developing and printing in my darkroom black and white... I choose mainly black and white because it's how I see the world and I'm not colour blind, it's so raw and real, no distraction or annoyance from colour.
I do shoot colour but I find the result is often just not condensed into a strong message for me. Black and white expresses me well, I'm not a doom and gloom type, more of a considered one, I'm usually grinning and joking like a right doofus but I just feel B&W expresses me better.
Especially the urban stuff I do, but even nature landscapes work lovely. I really really love however b&w portraits and I was privileged to be entrusted with my nan's wedding album two months ago. Beautiful 8x10" prints from the 1940s which had not aged at all, and look pin sharp and shone from the pages I'm sure as much as the day they were presented to the happy couple.
It feels more earthy whatever that means!
That said I sometimes shoot Velvia so go figure!
well I suppose digital makes it a bit easier since you don't have to load your camera with one or the other. Fits with the idea that some photographers want to make as few final decisions when the click the shutter as possible (e.g. landscape or portrait etc..).
Carlsen Highway
11-24-2008, 19:52
I see pictures in black and white. When I go forth, there arn't any colour pictures around.
What I mean is that form and light and dark are how the photo's that I see are constructed, and even the colour is seen as a matter of how light or dark it is....
I am not colourblind. I just am useless at colour photography and never got a handle on it. I just dont see the pictures.
Any shots I take in colour are superior in black and white.
I spent a lot of time when I was younger shooting rolls of slide film because I wanted to be national geographic photographer one day... or some kind of magazine photographer and I new I had to do colour...But I was just crap at it. I destroyed all my slides at one stage.
I now do exclusively black and white pictures and colour doesnt even factor in.
Why?
I think its because its easier to see an effective compisition in black and white. Your just ldealing with lights and darks and form.
Even as an oil painter I found I had to paint as they did many years ago; seperately out the forms into a monochrome underpainting and a later colour stage over the top. And there tended to be less and less of it, as the colour components were really irrevant.
I greatly admire those who are adept and successful with their colour pictures, but it isnt something I can do.
Simplcicity for me - colour is too complicated. I cannot compose in colour.
Plus, I think, you need some distance....colour can be too "real", you need room to manouvre, which you get with BNW simply because your already removed from reality.
To be honest I love all the silvers and greys and creamy whites. Do not feel sorry for me.
ItsReallyDarren
11-24-2008, 20:29
Black and White films are by far my most used type of film. Ive shot with it so much now that when I compose for a scene I go colorblind in my head. I no longer see any color, only light and lines.
The past few times Ive tried shooting color it turned out bland and so so in my taste. It wasn't until recently that I started shooting at night with color and really liked the results. I walk around downtown and catch all the lights and colors and whatever shadows are in its way.
In my tastes Ive found that shooting with color film needs a dominant color to make an image stand out. Ive gotten a few shots during the day time that I liked but my tastes for color lie at night time. Since there's already a dominant color, black.
For me, when the sun is out its black and white. When night falls and the lights turn on I drop in color film.
nikon_sam
11-24-2008, 20:34
Both...
Color for most of the events I shoot...church, kid's high school stuff, family and anything else where people expect color...
B&W for the stuff I want to do...
I started in B&W and had to learn to shoot color (that is shoot color better)
The first time I did color back in high school the results were boring and dull...
The reason was...I wasn't used to looking for color, I was so used to shooting in B&W that my first rolls of color would have been better in B&W...after that I started looking for colors...
After years of just shooting color I decided I needed to get back to basics and head on back to B&W...
For now I shoot both and have no problem switching back and forth...
it's funny... I think most "friends" who see my photography much prefer my color photos. They tend to be bright, and a little more light hearted. Somehow... when I shoot black and while I conjure up a more reserved, somber... darker side. I often prefer the latter.
This sort of question always elicits comments about, I see in colour, therefore I shoot in it. I guess nothing wrong in the view but there are many other dimensions you see in that you cant shoot - dynamic range, tonal response, 3D, actual vs recorded colours, etc - so as a statement it really becomes a through away line, similar to the type, if you're not with us you're against us!. Colour or B&W photography, both offer a degree of abstraction from reality.
Nothing scientific, but from casual observation, I notice that those who regularly mix colour and B&W, or only occasionally do B&W tend to often miss what makes a good B&W image. Consistent B&W takes practice as it initially presents a level of abstraction (absence of colour) that isn't always easy to see through. The practice makes perfect approach... This doesn't mean that colour images are all good but for many, its easier to get an initial sense of whether or not it can work.
I dont even really buy the argument, because its cheaper than colour when it comes to hobbyists. B&W vs colour is like oils vs water colours. They are fundamentally different media with vastly different characteristics ...why would you photograph in B&W if your real love was colour? Seems to be compromising yourself! You can always not photograph at all or even get a digicam :eek:.
Personally, I shoot 99% exclusively in B&W film. I enjoy the results and often simple equipment involved. Whenever I shoot colour film its usually because Im lazy and I always have this compelling urge - which I inevitably succumb to - to convert it to B&W. If you asked me why I have such a strong attraction to the media, I don't think I can really give good definitive answer as to why beyond that I just enjoy it and feel attracted to tonality over colour :bang:
it's funny... I think most "friends" who see my photography much prefer my color photos. They tend to be bright, and a little more light hearted. Somehow... when I shoot black and while I conjure up a more reserved, somber... darker side. I often prefer the latter.
Should try this in Asia. Most (Chinese especially) view B&W as the past and associated with death. Far more than colour, B&W requires a developed appreciation for the media and this often discounts the average person's ability to have a preference for B&W over a colour image
I like black and white, because it records light. I'm not interested in color, just light.
And it's out of fashion and I like that.
But sometimes I shoot color.
Should try this in Asia. Most (Chinese especially) view B&W as the past and associated with death.
interesting.... didn't realize there was this particular aversion in Asia. In the states... as long as you take a picture of antique cars, or trains people see B&W in a nostalgic light.
for the color sighted (like me) b&w is a basic abstraction from the reality as I see it... a way to work in an otherworldly realm that is still rooted in reality... that is why I shoot b&w. Color is what I see... in a boring sense... so I avoid it at nearly all costs (though going to Hawaii or something I have to load up my Stylus Epic for some lush green snapshots).
lawrence
11-25-2008, 08:21
Like so many here I keep going back to b&w. The problem with colour is that it's usually too literal to be interesting although there are some masters of colour, such as William Eggleston, who manage to pull it off.
I'm planning to go to India for the first time in January and it's hard to decide between colour and b&w (I find it too complicated to shoot both, as I'm either mentally in one mode or the other). So I took a few rolls of colour the other day just to remind myself what it looks like and somehow they just don't work for me -- too busy, too much information, too much emphasis on the colour itself and not enough on the content. I think if I did shoot colour I'd want to go for a very de-saturated look but I'm not too sure how to achieve it -- maybe spending a few weeks with Photoshop would clarify this.
Converting colour to b&w doesn't work for me either -- it has to be 'real' b&w film. The digital b&w look is far too smooth and the transitions from one tone to another and the sharpness are different from film. And, of course, there's no grain, which to my mind is the 'soul' of the b&w experience. So it looks like the DSLR / colour film will not be on the plane to Delhi in January, this experience to be reseved for my rangefinders and HP5+ / Acros .
So it looks like the DSLR / colour film will not be on the plane to Delhi in January, this experience to be reseved for my rangefinders and HP5+ / Acros .
Couldn't agree more, Lawrence. I'll be doing the same on a trip to Australia in January, though I'm sure my wife won't understand why I'm doing it (family is supposed to be photographed in colour, surely??).
myM8yogi
11-26-2008, 00:42
Both simultaneously!!!
Seriously. Sometimes I am attracted to a complimentary colour combination and stick exclusively in colour, but my "default" settings for street and portrait photography with my M8 is to have a B&W conversion as the jpg image, and to keep the raw DNG data (a colour file). This way I retain all of the colour information for a very flexible B&W conversion in photoshop later if I need it. Often though, the M8s B&W conversion is pretty much perfect right out of the camera, and I do like having immediate feedback on my B&W images. It makes for a very efficient workflow on location, with great flexibility at the desk afterwards.
I love B&W for portraits (because red marks on the skin, tired bloodshot eys, etc are not noticed by friends reviewing the photos), and for street photography (the extensive use of colour in marketing frequently makes for distracting backgrounds in colour street photography).
On the other hand, I do use colour almost 100% of the time for landscapes. Sometimes I also manipulate images to have slightly "warm" subjects advancing out of a "cold" background to give a three dimensional character to the image. This is a trick that obviously isn't possible with B&W, and it works great on happy child portraits.
I should also say that just because I have a preference for B&W in some applications, that does not mean that I won't add colour later in Photoshop. I frequently play with duotones and tritones. I like to break up a selection of B&Ws from the same event with a few colour tones, and I appreciate that subtle overall immpressions of colour in shadows or highlights can convey a subconscious emotional charge to a print (e.g. blue, red, sepai, gold, green, purple etc.).
I only got my M8 three weeks ago, and before that I shot B&W film almost exclusively in an OM1, and digital in a dSLR. For me, the M8 is the best of both worlds!
ClaremontPhoto
11-26-2008, 01:54
lawrence:
Personally if I were to go to India I'd take color film for all those saris, spices, markets, and trains.
But if you decide on the B&W, and I understand why, perhaps you could take a small camera with color film for the family photos. Or give one of the family a simple digital camera to use.
Bokeh looks a lot better in color to me.
Although I enjoy both and agree that some images work better in one or the other, I personally prefer bw. I find working with color more difficult because it's another factor I have to consider when capturing images.... but whatever... they're both fun.
"Black and white are the colors of photography. To me they symbolize the alternatives of hope and despair to which mankind is forever subjected."
-Robert Frank (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertfran184087.html)
B+W, because it has such a long tradition, and I think part of making interesting photographs is situating oneself in relation to that tradition.
It all depends. There's no real answer, but personal preferences plays a big part when a question like this pops up. For me, there's a time to shoot color--India--for the spices, Saris, Colorful temples...etc. How do you capture spices, red spicy food, beautiful Saris with B&W? It all boils down to the photograph, what works and what doesn't work.
To limit myself to just B&W just doesn't cut it for me--the camera's a tool, so is the film that you choose. Choose the right one for the job.
I do B&W because I can afford it and because I like it. I love the media and capabilities it gives me. If I were about capturing reality I would probably shoot movies, or anything that is not as static as a photo. If I were about capturing colours I'd shoot colour film or rather digital; and would have yet another picture of the red pepper which I don't really need. I prefer to have a picture in B&W as good that anyone looking at it would say "hey, that pepper is really red".
Cheers,
Ed
stefan_dinu
11-29-2008, 02:21
I use 100% film and make both color and BW photographs. And I process all by myself from film to analog printing. BW for family memories and color for serious work. For color I use exclusively slide film. For small and medium format I use both, but for large format I use only BW.
It is really a matter of choice. It depends a great deal on WHY you are taking photographs. My mission with photography now, is to show others what they can see around them if they pay more attention. And for that reason, using BW is not an option, as aren't any photographic tricks that shows you the world different (macro, wide, tele, havy editing, and so on). For this reason I use only 35mm (on 35mm format) which I find closer to human vision, and I shoot 90% in landscape format rather than portrait.
With the risk of upsetting some people around here, I want to say that is far easier to make interesting, catchy photographs in BW. Just because is different for the viewer perspective of the real world. It is easier to follow the composition and to see the structure. It hides also the possible color messiness in the scene.
On the other hand, producing valuable color photographs it is more difficult, since you have another element that you have to take care of. There where numerous occasions when I could not use, or could not take a photograph just because the colors in the scene where a mess.
My gallery (link bellow) shows better what I am talking about. I do pay a lot of attention to color when I press the shutter, and I use the color information to compose the image.
I do prefer BW for familly memories. I have a 8 days son (very happy :) ) and didn't take any color photographs of him. I think it has something to do with the fact that all my childhood photographs where taken in BW. It is also closer with the ideea of the past, and the memories.
In terms of prints, I love BW prints, and I do a lot of practicing theese days. But the Ilfochrome prints from my slides....oh boy. As Mark Power said to me in a recent workshop: "they are such beatiful objects".
Oh, and another thing. I do tend to appreciate the today photoraphers which work in color.
stefan_dinu
12-05-2008, 11:15
Hey. I don't wanna be the last to post here. It is a rather interesting one. is there anyone else to share anything on this issue? :)
John Lawrence
12-05-2008, 11:27
I shoot both black and white and colour, but find like craygc did in his post that in certain places and with certain people black and white is looked down on. By this I mean elderly relatives (and one in particular) who just can not understand why anyone would shoot black and white - now that colour film is (or should that be was???) readily available. Likewise when I lived in Africa if I ever shot any black and white film the question I was always asked was "could I not afford colour film?".
I do tend to shoot more black and white film though these days and there are many reasons for that, one of which is that I tend to use older lenses and (not surprisingly) find that they don't render colour that well.
There, now you're not the last post!!
Not sure I agree w/this, but maybe things are different w/the Hokkien & Teochews in Singapore. Many people, regardless of ethnicity, regard B&W as old-fashioned, & I've never heard of any Chinese people associating B&W photos w/death. In traditional Chinese culture, white is a mourning color (symbolizing death) & black doesn't have the evil overtones it has in the West (instead it's the color of heaven for Daoists), but I don't think either have any relation to the way folks perceive B&W photography. My mother once teased me, "why do you use B&W when they have color now? You must be trying to be artistic."
Should try this in Asia. Most (Chinese especially) view B&W as the past and associated with death.
99 percent of the shooting I do, both digital and with film, is black and white. the main reason for this, at the risk of sounding trite and cliched, is that I feel that with a color image, you are looking at what something looks like, but with black and white, you are looking at what something is. I also feel that because black and white is not the way we see the world, it forces people to consider the image more carefully, and pay more attention to the composition. I still find it too easy to dismiss a color photograph before i have studied it thoroughly because i get caught up looking at the color like a raccoon gets caught up with shiny objects.
ClaremontPhoto
12-06-2008, 05:44
A lot of photographers, serious photographers, choose B&W.
But most artists choose color whether they work in paint, or ceramics, or textiles or...
Why is that?
stefan_dinu
12-06-2008, 09:26
You compared photographers with other artists. But you are wrong. Most of today art photographers are working almost exclusively in color. Just look at the Magnum people of today: Alexx Web, Martin Parr, Alec Soth, Carl de Keyzer, Mark Power, Donovan Wylie, Harry Gruayert, Bruno Barbey, etc.
Look then at the most expensive photographs ever sold. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs)
First three are in color. Most of them are color. Actually all of newer ones, when color was available, are in color.
And the answer to your question. I think is easier to pretend you are doing art when you shoot in BW. Is different to most of the pictures taken nowadays by mobile phones and easier to stand out of the crowd. It is also easier to control in terms of the whole process. But that's what is making color even more rewarding. If you do all the process and you nail an ilfochrome print, the feeling is much more intense than in BW printing.
ClaremontPhoto
12-06-2008, 10:15
I think is easier to pretend you are doing art when you shoot in BW.
You are 100% correct, and say it much better that I did.
Thank you.
lawrence
12-06-2008, 13:01
You compared photographers with other artists. But you are wrong. Most of today art photographers are working almost exclusively in color. Just look at the Magnum people of today: Alexx Web, Martin Parr, Alec Soth, Carl de Keyzer, Mark Power, Donovan Wylie, Harry Gruayert, Bruno Barbey, etc.
Look then at the most expensive photographs ever sold. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs)
First three are in color. Most of them are color. Actually all of newer ones, when color was available, are in color.
And the answer to your question. I think is easier to pretend you are doing art when you shoot in BW. Is different to most of the pictures taken nowadays by mobile phones and easier to stand out of the crowd. It is also easier to control in terms of the whole process. But that's what is making color even more rewarding. If you do all the process and you nail an ilfochrome print, the feeling is much more intense than in BW printing.
"Most of today art photographers are working almost exclusively in color. Just look at the Magnum people...". To my knowledge 'Magnum people' are not mainly 'art photographers' but photojournalists. However, maybe you and I have a different definition of the term 'art photographer'.
"Look then at the most expensive photographs ever sold." Why? Who cares about the most expensive photogaphs? The reasons they are expensive could have little or nothing to do with their artistic content -- they could be expensive because of the fame of the photographer or the subject, the scarecity of photographic process used etc. It's about as logical as saying 'more photographs are taken in colour than black & white therefore colour is better'.
"I think is easier to pretend you are doing art when you shoot in BW." I can't see why shooting in b&w is any kind of reflection of the photogapher's artistic ambition -- some people just like the look of b&w. They like the simplicity and minimalism. They like subtlety and understatement. They like the emphasis on chiaroscuro. They like the different kinds of grain. They like working in a long tradition. They like messing around with different developers and processes. They find b&w more 'real' than the unrealistic colour of most colour photographs. And they are frequently proud to be called 'photographers' rather than 'artists'.
"If you do all the process and you nail an ilfochrome print, the feeling is much more intense than in BW printing." Maybe for you but I can assure you that many b&w photographers experience the exact opposite. Some of the alternative b&w processes require as much or more technical expertise than colour printing, for example bromiol, salt printing, cyanotype and platinum printing. But of course the difficulty of the process has little to do with the 'artistic' content.
stefan_dinu
12-07-2008, 01:33
Don't get me wrong. I shoot and print BW all the time. In large format I use exclusively BW. I just answer to Claremont dilemma. Most of the serious art photography is made today in color. Just like painting and other visual arts. I saw more BW in amateur hoobist world. But as for today's artists, color is the king.
Let's forget about Magnum. Let's take Eggelstone, Ralph Gibson, Steichen. All of them started in BW but now they shoot in color.
What world of art are you pointing when you say tht a lot of photography art is made now in BW? I don't know many estabilshed art photographers that shoot mainly in BW. Can someone help us with some names?
infrequent
12-07-2008, 02:05
i was reading the latest issue of Amateur Photography (at my local library the "latest" usually is a few months behind) and it has a feature on saul leiter. i found his colour work really impressive..certainly the examples of his work in the article are wonderful. i am really keen on his book 'early color' now.
I have come to the realization that I am a black and white guy.
I think it is just that I have found it so much easier to take shots that capture that "something" in black and white. In color they are just pretty pictures.
Or to put it another way in color I can capture what a place looks like. In black and white I can capture what it feels like. And, well, its just easier to take black and white photos that feel like art , too. Here are some of my samples on Flickr. (OK shot with one SLR and an "honorary" rangefinder - the Panasonic L1.)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/sets/72157610362797162/
In color these would just be very ordinary, meaningless and in some cases ugly shots of the details of a place. Maybe they still are, but to me, they take on a look that transforms them beyond the mundane. In black and white they feel and look like they mean something.
I prefer b/w unless the color adds to the composition but usually color is more of a distraction to me. Also I feel I can do more to the picture in the darkroom but of course PS has given color photography more creative options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan_dinu
I think is easier to pretend you are doing art when you shoot in BW.
People say these things about Leica users in general that we think we are making high art because it was shot with a Summicron. So b/w is for phonies and pretenders now?
lawrence
12-07-2008, 04:46
What world of art are you pointing when you say tht a lot of photography art is made now in BW? I don't know many estabilshed art photographers that shoot mainly in BW. Can someone help us with some names?
If you can let me know what you mean by "art photographers" maybe I can help with the list. For example, is Robert Frank an "art photographer" and, if so, why?
Was said before and better than I do that BW supresses the attraction for color and contrasts letting us see the soul, the spirit behind the model's eyes. Works with people, but also for nostalgic places.
stefan_dinu
12-07-2008, 14:54
If you can let me know what you mean by "art photographers" maybe I can help with the list. For example, is Robert Frank an "art photographer" and, if so, why?
Of course he is. But I was talking about taking pictures now. About today's choices. Not about the history of photography. Do you think that someone that is painting like Carravagio, is taken serious as an artist?
But I do believe the argument could be narrowed down to what everyone is understanding when talking about art.
@rayt sayd: "So b/w is for phonies and pretenders now?"
Not everyone is like this. But there are a bunch of people that believe it is enough to shot it in BW to make it art. Just because that way does not look like a mobile phone picture. I do believe that from this point of view, BW is becoming mainstream for artists wannabies.
lawrence
12-07-2008, 15:39
Of course he is. But I was talking about taking pictures now. About today's choices. Not about the history of photography.
Oh dear, I seem to be getting a bit confused. In your earlier post you said "Let's take Eggelstone, Ralph Gibson, Steichen" so I figured that as Steichen died back in 1973 by mentioning Frank I was being relatively contemporary, Frank still being alive.
Do you think that someone that is painting like Carravagio, is taken serious as an artist?"
No they probably wouldn't be, given the popularity of people like Damian Hirst. But as far as I'm concerned that wouldn't stop his work from being great art.
But there are a bunch of people that believe it is enough to shot it in BW to make it art. Just because that way does not look like a mobile phone picture. I do believe that from this point of view, BW is becoming mainstream for artists wannabies.
I must try and avoid these people -- are they easy to spot? I mean, someone with an M8 clearly doesn't fall into this category whereas someone with an M6 might, depending on whether it's loaded with Tri-X or Velvia. I guess the only thing to do is to ask or look for the t-shirt.
Morca007
12-07-2008, 16:06
I shoot mainly in Black and White, in large part because it is so much cheaper, but also as an exercise in thinking.
It seems to easy to make a colour image that stands out. I don't mean it's magic, but when I show my photos to people, it's always the colour shots that get the most attention. I want my work to stand out because of its content, not the colours that the situation and film decided to show.
That said, I am in love with colour in MF, I just can't resist.
hamradio
12-07-2008, 16:16
Nearly all of the film I shoot is b&w...mainly for the reason of being able to develop it myself.
FA Limited
12-07-2008, 17:44
not sure if anyone subscribes to Reid Reviews on this thread, but there was a nice article on color vs b&w.
personally i like colour and so i like to take photos in colour. although i did shoot my first tri-x recently and really liked the results.
Black and white because it's the way I see the world. With a colour photograph, all you see is the colour.
Btw, this thread is practically unreadable for me due to the large posted image above which has stretched the comment column so far. Isn't there a limit to the size of posted pics? Surely half that size would be fine.
ClaremontPhoto
12-08-2008, 02:03
Btw, this thread is practically unreadable for me due to the large posted image above which has stretched the comment column so far. Isn't there a limit to the size of posted pics? Surely half that size would be fine.
I've been following this forum on my mobile phone. Ouch.
photorat
12-08-2008, 02:54
B&W. Because I can. Colour, on the other hand I cannot. I've been very impressed by some of the colour photographs I've seen lately, but to be honest, it is so much harder to produce a harmonious picture in colour and I have little success with it. I also feel that the reality represented imposes itself too much on the photograph in colour. B&W allows you, as photographer, to suggest relations in the scene (in terms of tonality, geometry, etc.) that might be too abstract to be seen in colour.
FA Limited
12-08-2008, 16:45
this thread's not as much fun w/o photos!
which one do you like better?
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/pf_k100d/RFF/BW%20or%20Color/87970029.jpg
quick and dirty
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/pf_k100d/RFF/BW%20or%20Color/87970029b.jpg
My eyes are immediately drawn to that "red cross" on the left side and unless that was the subject matter of your shot then it distracts from the real subject matter whatever it is.
it's funny... I think most "friends" who see my photography much prefer my color photos. They tend to be bright, and a little more light hearted. Somehow... when I shoot black and while I conjure up a more reserved, somber... darker side. I often prefer the latter.
I was looking at some color pictures (HDR ones, in fact) on Flickr earlier this week and my initial reaction on seeing them was "wow they look great" but on looking at them for a while longer and then thinking about them, I came to the veiw that they were like candy floss ....no substance. Bright picture post-card photos that are superficially stimulating but like fast food - little depth or complexity to them. I much prefer the somber darker side of black and white as you put it. Some how to me black and white strips a photo to its bare essentials and les you experience it not as a representaion of reality so much as a beautiful object in its own right. A true piece of art, in short.
this thread's not as much fun w/o photos!
which one do you like better?
The problem with doing a "which one" comparison is that the B&W is obviously not a B&W emulsion and regardless of the colour/B&W argument, a converted colour (slide/neg/digi) is very different from a traditional B&W emulsion.
...and I agree, the eye draw is towards the red cross :D
lawrence
12-09-2008, 02:38
With the colour version my eye is drawn to the umbrellas above the fast food stand. With the mono version my eye is drawn to the pedestrians on the left and the man walking up the steps to the right. So, in a sense, they have become two different photographs and I prefer the mono version, however I think it would benefit from increased shadow detail (which is there in the colour version).
stefan_dinu
12-09-2008, 06:33
I don't think the two pictures are relevant for the discution. There are some pictures that work in color, but it is not the case with the above example. To be true, I don't like the BW version either.
When using color, you have to pay more attention to the scene. the color has to add something, not to be a mess.
If you want a real test, take any well known color photography and strip the colors away to see what's left.
I give you a head start: here (http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb273/milobarron/eggleston_red_ceiling.jpg)
... In B&W, I'm forced to work harder to look at form, and what's interesting in the photo aside from some nice colors...
Bnack, I think you explained a big reason in this statement you made. Black and white allows you to have less to worry about. It simplifies a picture and makes it immediately more abstract and formal. It becomes less about how we actually see and more like a drawing.
I'll go out on a limb here and generalize to make a point...Good art is where form and content are both exceptional and complimentary. One spot of misplaced colour can draw attention and ruin an otherwise great photo. A great colour photo has to have good form, content, and colour! In fact, I feel that a great "colour" photo has to be primarily about the colour, like Eggelston's were. In other words, a successful colour photograph is one that would be ruined by making it black and white.
A final point for consideration, where do you want your photos to end up? I contend that it is very difficult to successfully blend colour photographs with black and white in a book or exhibition. They do not sit well together. A book that is entirely black and white (or visa versa) has a beautiful purity and consistency of vision.
FA Limited
12-09-2008, 16:39
My eyes are immediately drawn to that "red cross" on the left side and unless that was the subject matter of your shot then it distracts from the real subject matter whatever it is.
i shouldn't have picked a photo with such a big distraction in it or maybe desaturated it. i forgot which store that was on Fifth that was.
The problem with doing a "which one" comparison is that the B&W is obviously not a B&W emulsion and regardless of the colour/B&W argument, a converted colour (slide/neg/digi) is very different from a traditional B&W emulsion.
hahaha pretend it's your favourite b&w film, it's supposed to be philosophical right :D
With the colour version my eye is drawn to the umbrellas above the fast food stand. With the mono version my eye is drawn to the pedestrians on the left and the man walking up the steps to the right. So, in a sense, they have become two different photographs and I prefer the mono version, however I think it would benefit from increased shadow detail (which is there in the colour version).
that's the same way i saw it. for me, the subject was the hot dog stand and so the color really brings it out. in b&w, i focus on the white jackets which to me wasn't as interesting.
I don't think the two pictures are relevant for the discution. There are some pictures that work in color, but it is not the case with the above example. To be true, I don't like the BW version either.
When using color, you have to pay more attention to the scene. the color has to add something, not to be a mess.
If you want a real test, take any well known color photography and strip the colors away to see what's left.
I give you a head start: here (http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb273/milobarron/eggleston_red_ceiling.jpg)
i don't like the BW version either. i thought the colour one was interesting, i wanted to get the hot dog stand.thanks for the link, the photo is a bit abstract for me, but interesting looking up eggleston's work
Its all about the subject. What is the main defining characteristic of the subject, is it color or form? If its form b&w and if its color then color.
But the question (impossible to answer) is how do you conclude what "is" the defining characteristic of the subject?
ClaremontPhoto
12-11-2008, 09:40
how do you conclude what "is" the defining characteristic of the subject?
Bill Cilnton said more or less the same.
lawrence
12-14-2008, 06:25
But the question (impossible to answer) is how do you conclude what "is" the defining characteristic of the subject?
True. I sometimes prefer colour when the range of colour is very limited, as with this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/3106832085_3750f3a859_o.jpg
The same applies to Eggleston's famous red ceiling linked to above. What doesn't normally appeal to me are the bright, eye-candy colours that Martin Parr uses, for example.
katgut@earthlink.net
12-24-2008, 13:17
In looking back at a couple of decades of both color and B&W published work, I would argue that color does not have the legs of B&W. Many of the color photos I see from years past, whether in wedding photos or books,
age poorly. Perhaps photos and book pages fade and the color balance changes. Perhaps our perception of what good color balance is has changed over the years. I find it likely that the photographers of the future may look back at the highly saturated colors of today and cringe.
An example: While I admired Galen Rowell's photography in the past, it is difficult to muster the same enthusiasm when looking at his work now--much of it simply looks dated.
However, my own perceptions of the work of my favorite B&W photographers--Elliot Erwitt, Henry Horenstein, David Plowden, Salgado, etc.--does not seem to change over time.
Hopscotch
12-27-2008, 20:45
Black and White, becasue it's art-ier!
Just kidding. It's purely financial. It's cheaper in this terrible buyer's market that film photography is.
Look then at the most expensive photographs ever sold.
Red Herring(appeal to authority).
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.