Changing it up: Color vs B&W for Street Photography

[Stelios]

Some of them have a wonderful feeling/atmosphere.

[Stelios]

Btw, if you manage to solve the colour clashes in a colour street photo, then I think it can be equally beautiful as a black and white one.

[Disaster_Area]

Originally Posted by Stelios

Sorry to hijack the thread but... what do you mean "toning"? Meaning, what do you do to the image? Is it colour balance, hue, white balance? I'm rubbish shooting digital colour...

Toning just refers to any global change in the hues of an image... you can do this by changing the white balance, toning controls in the raw converter or by applying digital photo filters that mimic warming or cooling filters.

[Stelios]

Cheers. Good to know the process, although I've never managed to do it myself successfully. I rely on film to do it for me. Can't do digital colour managing.

[ebolton]

I prefer the color shots. And I like the 'toning' you have selected.

Color for me is an important dimension of any scene. I like and appreciate B+W work too, but most of the time color makes the scene complete. That teal T-shirt on the blonde in the very first picture would have been pretty bland in B+W and the whole scene would have been dull and boring. The color of that T-shirt sort of sets the whole attitude of the picture for me. I'm probably not explaining myself well, because it's so basic with me I'm not sure how to explain it.
-Ed

[Disaster_Area]

I'm really encouraged by what I'm hearing so far. The majority seem to like the color edits... which is cool. And I'm even happy to hear that there are those that don't like them, finding the colors to "unnatural" or the color itself or sharpness breaking from some of the traditions of black and white street photography. I hope that means I'm starting to achieve what I'm going for.

As much as I love the street photography of the past, I'm trying to find a style of my own, learning from, instead of just aping what's been done before. Thanks for all the input.

[Stelios]

There's been plenty of colour street photography coming from the 70s onwards.

I find the pictures I liked the most, had a warm hue to them, probably reminding me cinematic frames (which is natural considering your background), that I really liked and wish I could achieve myself.

[mdarnton]

I've got real mixed feelings about them. On a gut level, I liked them, but then when I thought more about them and how much the artificial coloration shapes my reaction, I start to feel like I'm being manipulated in a way that's too similar to what advertising illustrations do.

Then my opinion dropped several levels as I started thinking they look too much like slick advertising illustrations, not enough like "real" photography. Additionally, it all seems like an evasion of dealing with the real colors in the subject material head-on, and becomes even more artificial, more distanced from what was really happening in front of the camera.

In the end, I guess I don't like them at all--they look too much like the kind of insubstantial fluffy stuff that ends up on Flicker's "explore" pages, or a "Travel Canada" brochure. You've found your own personal version of HDR: gold toning as a chintzy gimmick.

And it's not the pictures' fault--in black and white I'd like them all a lot better; there's nothing wrong at all with the photos, fundamentally, but the presentation ruins them.

How do they play out in straight color?

[Stelios]

I thought the colour vs b+w matter was solved years ago. What is "straight colour"? Is b+w more "truthfull"? Is it real? Straight even? I don't find colour wrong in any way. There is good use and bad use. That's all I can tell. And these ones (apart from the first one) appeal to me. May not appealing to everyone understandably, just don't let perceptions take away the enjoyment. Your gut liked them!

[BobYIL]

I know from the early stages of Magnum photo, Life magazine, etc., that street does not "go" well with color as it does with B&W. Color dictates its own rules to the photographer the way the chemical enginer behind had “determined” the colors; you are obliged to “see” the world in conformity with the spectrum the color film in your camera was pre-defined to express, not the way nature is seen in your eyes. Color, once out of control, can create way off psychology the end result was intended to accomplish whereas B&W by eliminating such adverse probability reduces everything into tones of gray, enabling to express the same however as an abstract essence, leaving the rest to the onlooker. It’s for this reason that one can rarely find color pictures from HCB, Salgado, Koudelka, Eisenstaedt and the likes while one of their contemporaries, Ernst Haas, had mastered color however by staying away from street.

The greatest contribution to the “street in color” came from the National Geographic first before the other magazines like Geo, Paris Match, Stern, etc. If we admire the works of Alex Webb, Raghubir Singh, David Alan Harvey, William Albert Allard or Steve McCurry then we partially owe them to such magazines for their standard based on color photography, not B&W.

For most photographers, even in the Vietnam war days or in today's photojournalism, color has more meaning on the street for "documentary" whereas B&W has always something to do with artistry and aesthetics... But again, it’s up to each one of us to inquire how many great street photographs we remember in color and how many in B&W.

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by mdarnton

I've got real mixed feelings about them. On a gut level, I liked them, but then when I thought more about them and how much the artificial coloration shapes my reaction, I start to feel like I'm being manipulated in a way that's too similar to what advertising illustrations do.

Then my opinion dropped several levels as I started thinking they look too much like slick advertising illustrations, not enough like "real" photography. Additionally, it all seems like an evasion of dealing with the real colors in the subject material head-on, and becomes even more artificial, more distanced from what was really happening in front of the camera.

In the end, I guess I don't like them at all--they look too much like the kind of insubstantial fluffy stuff that ends up on Flicker's "explore" pages, or a "Travel Canada" brochure. You've found your own personal version of HDR: gold toning as a chintzy gimmick.

And it's not the pictures' fault--in black and white I'd like them all a lot better; there's nothing wrong at all with the photos, fundamentally, but the presentation ruins them.

How do they play out in straight color?

Cannot agree more.

Some people say that a certain tone brings out the mood. Well, obviously the color wasn't there in reality so there was no "mood" to begin with. So in that sense, the viewers' feeling is indeed being manipulated to feel something that wasn't there to begin with.

[back alley]

i didn't care for colour in the street until i started to shoot with the rd1...i love those colours!!

[Disaster_Area]

Originally Posted by Araakii

Some people say that a certain tone brings out the mood. Well, obviously the color wasn't there in reality so there was no "mood" to begin with. So in that sense, the viewers' feeling is indeed being manipulated to feel something that wasn't there to begin with.

That's only true if color were the only way to convey mood. Sounds can produce a mood, temperature, the season... the mood of the photographer who took the shot... the city itself has a mood that has nothing to do with color or shape, it comes from a million different things all unique to it's place and time and people. You can't capture everything in a photo, but you can use color to reflect the moods you can't photograph.

I'm not saying I've got it right yet, or that you have to like it, but I reject the statement that just because a color wasn't there originally it can't reflect a mood that was. I agree, the additions of colors manipulate the viewer, but all photos manipulate the viewer. We can't see what happened just before a photo, or just after it... out of context no single frame accurately portrays the reality that created it... doesn't matter if it's black and white or color. Stripping out the color manipulates things just as much, as others have said, black and white gives any photo a more raw, gritty and stark feel than the same shot in color. Take a portrait on a bright sunny day... in black and white you have no idea as the viewer if the photo was taken during a warm spring sunrise or a cold winter sunset. The loss of that information changes how we might view the picture. I'm not saying it's right or wrong... but the removal of color is just as much a manipulation as adding it.

You're definitely right, I am trying to manipulate the viewer, I'm trying to get them to feel how I felt at the time I took the shot.

[Disaster_Area]

@Araakii

Also, how is toning a digital image any different that using different types or brands of film... or even expired film. I've been looking through your Flickr (Which is really quite good btw, I'm really enjoying it) and you often use slide film and expired film which both portray colors different than they appeared in reality. Photographers have been choosing one film over another for a certain job because of how it renders certain colors to add mood or feel to a photo.

These three shots for instance:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream

And this photo, which I love in part due to the manipulation, uses black and white to make the view feel more like it's an old photo of old timey girls, instead of a modern photos of costumes:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream

Everything we do as photographers is manipulation

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Disaster_Area

Stripping out the color manipulates things just as much, as others have said, black and white gives any photo a more raw, gritty and stark feel than the same shot in color. Take a portrait on a bright sunny day... in black and white you have no idea as the viewer if the photo was taken during a warm spring sunrise or a cold winter sunset. The loss of that information changes how we might view the picture. I'm not saying it's right or wrong... but the removal of color is just as much a manipulation as adding it.

I agree completely... and have seen a few handfuls of people over the years that relied on B&W to mask mediocre images. Take any photograph and make one color and one B&W print. Now take those photos to the average person who's not into photograhy and they will pick the B&W image most times due to it being different than what they are used to.

[Disaster_Area]

True, black and white seems to have become the hallmark of "real" photography among non-photographers and I think it's mostly due to us photographers 90% of all the photo exhibits I've gone to in Ottawa by contemporary photographers have been in black and white, is it any wonder that the layman connects black and white with legitimate photography?

[Araakii]

Right. I think the boundary is when you use toning as part of your conceptualization and when you use toning to mask an otherwise mediocre picture.

Like someone said above, B&W is the same thing. A lot of people nowadays convert their color digital photos to B&W because they think that can fix an average color photo.

You are right that manipulation is part of photography to some degree. But it should not be an easy way out to enhance a shot that would otherwise be uninteresting.

So to sum it up, toning is a legit tool if that's part of your creative process. But hopefully you are doing that consciously, rather than trying to enhance your shots because the original files look flat, plain and boring to you at the first place.

Originally Posted by Disaster_Area

@Araakii

Also, how is toning a digital image any different that using different types or brands of film... or even expired film. I've been looking through your Flickr (Which is really quite good btw, I'm really enjoying it) and you often use slide film and expired film which both portray colors different than they appeared in reality. Photographers have been choosing one film over another for a certain job because of how it renders certain colors to add mood or feel to a photo.

These three shots for instance:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream

And this photo, which I love in part due to the manipulation, uses black and white to make the view feel more like it's an old photo of old timey girls, instead of a modern photos of costumes:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream

Everything we do as photographers is manipulation

[Araakii]

Sometimes I am guilty of the same issue though. It's very hard to avoid because you would want to "save" an average shot. Some of the stuff in my flickr stream suffer the same problem and I acknowledge it. I am trying to refrain from doing it as much as possible though.

Originally Posted by Disaster_Area

@Araakii

Also, how is toning a digital image any different that using different types or brands of film... or even expired film. I've been looking through your Flickr (Which is really quite good btw, I'm really enjoying it) and you often use slide film and expired film which both portray colors different than they appeared in reality. Photographers have been choosing one film over another for a certain job because of how it renders certain colors to add mood or feel to a photo.

These three shots for instance:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream

And this photo, which I love in part due to the manipulation, uses black and white to make the view feel more like it's an old photo of old timey girls, instead of a modern photos of costumes:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3476717...in/photostream

Everything we do as photographers is manipulation

[Disaster_Area]

Originally Posted by Araakii

Sometimes I am guilty of the same issue though. It's very hard to avoid because you would want to "save" an average shot. Some of the stuff in my flickr stream suffer the same problem and I acknowledge it. I am trying to refrain from doing it as much as possible though.

Oh I agree 100%, there's definitely shots that as a photographer you love, whether it's due to the subject, or how you felt that day or just the place it was taken, but as a photograph it's just plane mediocre or down right terrible

I'm definitely trying to use the toning to try and enhance the photo instead of elevating it past a mediocre shot (I hope)

That's one of the big reasons for me posting this thread... I wanted to show the photos in both black and white and color. If someone likes one version but not the other, that will help me decide what treatment works when. If someone likes both, then I know my overall subject matter and composition is working. And if people like neither version at least I know which ones are my mediocre shots that just appeal to me alone.

Overall though, I don't think either black and white or color is necessarily better, right tool for the right job and so forth. Your Flickr stream proves that, you've got stunning photos in both treatments.

[umcelinho]

these photos are really beautiful. i for one only shoot colour, and street. so pretty much all my stuff is colour street.

[johnwolf]

Just happened upon this Alex Webb video, which relates to our theme. Very nice color SP.

John

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by johnwolf

Just happened upon this Alex Webb video, which relates to our theme. Very nice color SP.

John

Except that Alex Webb finds mood on the street. He doesn't create a mood in post-processing after he has captured the moment.