B&W or Color.... and Why?

[furcafe]

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.

 

[Merkin]

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]

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]

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
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]

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]

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
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]

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]

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.

 

[peterm1]

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.

 

[Rayt]

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]

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?

 

[edodo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Nearly all of the film I shoot is b&w...mainly for the reason of being able to develop it myself.

 

[FA Limited]

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.

 

[phc]

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]

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]

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.