I'm making a big decision and I need some help from veterans

IdeaDog,

Agreed. Get on with it. Do something. If in the course of working, you find yourself changing directions, then it will be for a real reason, having come out of your own work.

Cheers,
Gary
 
I use color for 35mm, but in MF it is B&W.
You ask for reasons. Beyond aestetic concerns, a properly stored B&W negative is forever, while color is temporary.
Also, when and if the time comes that digital all but replaces film, you will always be able to proccess B&W at home, so film will be probably still available (if difficult to get) long after color is gone.
 
Roger,

And, the unlived life is not worth examining (don't know who said that).

The point is, it's easy to get bogged down trying to figure out what to do. Whereas, if one just starts with something (anything really) and examines/adjusts as they go, they will find their own way. Rather than the way of some stranger on the interent.

Cheers,
Gary
 
kevin m said:
True, but then there's Joseph Conrad. :)
Click to expand...
Dear Kevin,

Very true. And Samuel Beckett. And I don't know what Jamyang Norbu is like in Tibetan, but he's bloody good in English (The Mandala of Sherlock Holmes).

That's why I said one in 10,000,000 or so. Maybe I overstated and it's only 1 in 1,000,000. The argument still stands.

Cheers,

R.
 
bmattock said:
Heinlein said "Specialization is for insects." That kind of works for me. I like everything. Some things appeal to me more than others, and some work I like more than others, even though none of my photography resembles that.

As far as B&W goes, I love it. On the other hand, some photos would not make sense to me in B&W.

Taken this last weekend (B&W conversion):



Taken same day (no conversion):



There are things I choose to concentrate on from time to time, but as my desires change, so do my methods. If you feel you have to lock yourself into one form to achieve satisfaction, then so mote it be. Nothing wrong with it, IMHO, but it isn't my path.
Click to expand...
A good reason to carry color film.
 
gns said:
Roger,

And, the unlived life is not worth examining (don't know who said that).

The point is, it's easy to get bogged down trying to figure out what to do. Whereas, if one just starts with something (anything really) and examines/adjusts as they go, they will find their own way. Rather than the way of some stranger on the interent.

Cheers,
Gary
Click to expand...

Dear Gary,

Even more true!

There may be a balance between the two, but biasing it towards your suggestion is certainly the path I'd recommend.

Cheers,

R.
 
I find that photography can be truly beautiful either way, but definitely, while you can train yourself to "see" both in B&W and colour, the B&W process is giving you a chance to extract from the reality a more detached, dramatic and personal vision. I am not talking here about manipulated photography, but basically about what you can get from an image with classic darkroom or darkroom-like post processing. This makes for a result which will be seen as realistic, yet it can be interepreted more personally than colour, and eventually is more rewarding for the photographer and viewer.

1459265881_cada64dff6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Al Kaplan said:
The beauty of shooting B&W is that I can still make good qualty prints from negatives that I shot nearly 50 years ago. http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com/2006/07/joan-baez-and-bob-dylan-1964.html is a good example, and those old images are still putting money in my pocket.
Click to expand...

Dear Al,

No doubt you recall the reported conversation between George Bernard Shaw and Henry Ford, in which GBS said, "Ah, Mr. Ford, there is the difference between us. You think only about art, and I think only about money."

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Jan,

Not a precise parallel.

Very, very few people can write as elegantly in another language as in their mother tongue; most people who are bilingual are not artists in either language.

For that matter, there are few poets who are equally skilled in prose, and few novelists who are great poets, even in their mother tongue. Something similar is true of sculptors and painters, or footballers and cricket players.

I'd turn your advice around: spread yourself too thin at your peril. You may be the one in ten million who can write with equal elegance in French and English. Unless you are, you may do better to apply yourself with maximum diligence to a single art-form.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

Roger, that argument like all generalities it has a kernel of truth, however if you follow this observation what's the point in learning to speak another language?

I'd observe that this comment is intriguing coming from you especially since you are an anglophone living in France.
 
Last edited:
jan normandale said:
Roger, that argument like all generalities it has a kernel of truth, however if you follow this observation what's the point in learning to speak another language?

I'd observe that this comment is intriguing coming from you especially since you are an anglophone living in France.
Click to expand...

Dear Jan,

I'm not against familiarity with other languages; I'm merely suggesting that it would take me the rest of my life to be as good in French as I am in English, and that as I earn a living writing in English, I literally cannot afford the time and effort it would take to reach the same standard. If, indeed, I could do it at all.

Again the parallel is not exact, because I am reasonably competent at the French language. Most of my French friends have a higher opinion of my abilities in French than I do, because our standards vary. They're talking about functional French (and English) because it's all they need: they're not earning a living from the language itself.

In photography, I suspect I'd be a better photographer if I confined myself to black and white, but I can't know that: as Eco said, all counterfactual conditionals are true. It may be just fantasy. I see it as the difference between 'functional' or 'competent' on the one hand, and 'good' on the other.

Without false modesty, I'm a very good writer -- good enough to earn a living at it for decades, which is better than most people -- and a competent photographer. I know others in the same line of business who are very good photographers, and competent writers. I can't think off hand of anyone who is brilliant at both, and if you aren't at least competent at one and good at the other, there's no living to be earned in my particular niche.

The parallel with (let us say) cricket and football, or sculpture and painting, may be more relevant: most people are better at one or the other, and I can't help suspecting that if they concentrate on one or the other, they will do better than if they spread their efforts between the two.

But I could be wrong.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Whew...a beautiful whirlwind of opinions here, and I feel my 2 cents' worth getting lost in the riptide...

I'm with Chris on the idea of simply having a decent, pocketable 35 loaded with whatever film type isn't in your main shootin' iron when you head out. Since Bill was channeling Heinlein here, I'll just say that I never grokked shooting both b/w and color, at the same time, side-by-side. I'f I'm out working with two identical cameras, they'll both be loaded with either b/w or color, not even varying in film speed except under certain conditions. But, I'll have the GR-1 tucked away somewhere with a different film altogether; if the Hexars have color in 'em, I'll have b/w in the Ricoh and vice-versa. That works for me in terms of mental clarity. It might work for you.

As for the Nike slogan: well, that's nice, but I prefer to think of a favorite Frank Zappa album's title: Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar. ;)


- Barrett
 
Confining your outlook for photography to one or the other (colour or black and white) is far too limiting IMO! If you're going to be genuinely creative in your work you have to keep both options open and readily available.
 
Well, I do enjoy b/w. There is something about a good b/w print. The search for the right tonality, emphasis on composition, no distraction from color, making you really concentrate on getting everything right.

But I could not give up color. There are some photos that will only work in color. Bill's shot of the tree and fire hydrant just wouldn't be the same in b/w. Sunsets or sunrises would never have the same impact in b/w as in color.

But all that is me only. Everyone has to do their own thing, and if they don't know what that is, they have to search for it. To the OP, go for b/w. Don't take any color film with you if you don't want to. If you find yourself missing some shots because they only work in color, well, you will have to make some changes.

Good luck.
 
This is a big decision because I severely limit my chances of making any money from photography, but that was not why i started photography... As of the foreseeable future I'm going to concentrate only on b&w (and of course film only). I actually feel really good about this decision because now I know exactly what I want and also the means that I will go after it.


What a turn around this has been. After so much time and thousands of pictures with digital, I'm back at square one and surprisingly it does not feel too bad. Digital was a great education and worth the money. I also sold one of my DSLRs and the other one I'll keep in storage.

Suddenly life is very simple!
 
at the risk of sounding like a simpleton ...

most decisions are not a life risking proposition.

we get an idea and think about acting on it.

i believe making a decision is easy because i know that i am rarely truly locked into it.

should i discover that a decision i have made is not giving the results i had hoped for, then i know that i can make another decision.

black and white or colour?
try only b&w and see what happens, if it does not give you the expected results, then re-evaluate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom