B+W overused here?

[Andrew Sowerby]

Oh, I was comparing his work to colorists I like, such as Crewdson, LaChapelle and Tress.

Fair enough. Compared to LaChapelle, most colour photography is going to look muted.

I guess I was coming at your statement from the opposite direction. A lot of contemporary landscapey stuff has toned down colour compared to Eggleston. Some examples: link link and fellow RFFer Thorir Vidar.

 

[shadowfox]

The problem with the original question: "Is B+W overused here?" is that the observation initiating the question is based on the collective output of a group (RFF photographers), while the descision to use B+W (or colour) is an individual one. Know what I mean?

Frank, good point, however, those individuals who decided to use B&W obviously find RFF as a friendly place to showcase their photos and comment on others.

That's why I call RFF a safe haven for people who enjoys B&W photographs.

By the way, a few responders to this thread seem to think that a lot of RFFers either look down or disregard color photographs. I just don't see the indication let alone proofs of that.

Look around, there are plenty of beautiful color photos displayed in RFF threads and gallery. And I haven't seen a single post "attacking" color photos, I've seen one questioning the overusing of B&W photos 🙄

 

[hawkeye]

So if color pictures are "just" color is a photograph of a woman "just" a photograph of a woman. What does that mean. color is bad??? Colors are bad???

Black and white photos are of "something" sounds awfully subjective. Lots of the BW photos on RFF aren't about anything or I can't find the something they are about. In fact I'd propose that lots of photographs aren't about anything in particular or at least anything that most of us would care about..

Hawkeye

 

[Chris101]

Hawk, Steve: read Will's post directly above yours, as it answers your point exactly. There is no need to put a value judgment on the type of photograph (BW/Color, film/digital, dark room print/computer print, portrait/landscape, etc.) as these are all pictures, which is what the result of photography is. You can judge if a picture appeals to you or not, but to generalize and say that "color is bad" or "B&W is about something" just makes no sense.

It's all very personal.

 

[JoeV]

I read the premise of the OP as valid, if we were in the age when B/W film was dead, gone and buried, and all photographic style was via image manipulation in post; under those circumstances, applying a B/W filter to a file could be just as much "overused" as any other Photoshop manipulation.

But given that, with silver gelatin film, B/W imagery is intrinsic to the very chemistry of the medium, it CAN'T be overused. This is tantamount to saying that film itself is overused. I don't think that was the original intent of the post. Or was it?

~Joe

 

[ishpop]

Interesting thread.

Having started my photography with digital cameras about 8 years ago, then progressed into film (almost all color), I still feel immensely challenged to produce a quality black and white photo.

I need to read a book or something, as I have tried to "see" a potential photo in black and white, and just cannot find a way to do it. I think it shows in my black and white photos. lol.

I also cannot seem to get the results using black and white film that I see other get with the same film. My stuff always just looks boring. Either too flat, or too contrasty, always something.

Like that recent Turkey MP thread, good stuff, nothing I can seem to produce...

 

[benlees]

These days I mostly use b&w film for a few reasons:
a) almost instant gratification if you develop it yourself
b) much cheaper than colour film
c) scans much more quickly- even with manual dust removal
d) people think you are serious in an old fashioned-artful kind of way
e) Mom likes it better that way

I prefer colour most times but can't really afford the costs (almost 3x the cost of b&w, not including travel and wait times- which cost a lot!) of colour film. Every now and then I put some Reala in the camera just to keep it, you know, real.

 

[lawrence]

My stuff always just looks boring. Either too flat, or too contrasty, always something.

If you don't process your own film, you should, because you learn a lot about controlling contrast that way. And I know it sounds obvious but b&w needs a different way of seeing. Because you've eliminated the impact of colour, lighting in b&w is relatively more important. You need to attune to different types of lighting and the effect they have. Also look at the works of master b&w photographers like Atget, Weston, Evans & Frank -- the lighting in their photos is generally critical to their success.

 

[pmun]

One appeal of black and white photography is its quality of drawing attention to itself rather than the subject matter. We are accustomed to seeing colour, so when colours are removed, essentially a particular grasp on reality is removed and we become more aware of the new reality of the photograph.

With colour on the other hand, the photograph’s life like appearance is so familiar, the viewer is often distracted by the subject matter at the expense of the photograph. So both the photographer and viewer need an acute sense of colour to really make it work.

Another aspect is that it seems easier to find tonality and textures that work than

to find colours that do. Many colours within a scene jar.

Here’s a photo from www.urbanpaths.net in which I think I have used colour well.

 

[watchyourbackgrounds]

I shoot outdoorsy shots a lot, probably eighty percent. Most are in the local hills, which are green as green gets in the winter and spring, and light straw in the summer. The oak trees are always dark green. So if I shoot bw at green hills, everything is dark, not much contrast, and I kindly don't care what you say, a beautiful, rich, bursting-with-moisture emerald green hill is not best shown in bw.
On the other hand, the dry summer hills are improved by bw. The tall dry grasses are light, but the spaces between them are shadowed, and in color, you get this light straw-and-black shadow look, and it Don't Look Great. Shoot it in bw, and it becomes different shades of grey, much nicer.
I often shoot color and convert to bw in PS elements with one click, and it may be cheatin', but if often saves a lousy photograph.
I get color developed and scanned at Target. I'm going to learn bw myself this fall. That may shift me more to bw. But anyway, I like to overuse both!

 

[JohnTF]

As Pickett says, colour adds something else to consider in the mix.

And apart from that, developing and enlarging B&W is much easier than colour.

I may nit pick with you, respectfully of course, with RA4 and a nice slot processor, single wavelength safelights, and my Beseler with Minolta color head, it is pretty much a dead heat. ;-) Another thing is that it seems most films print with relatively close settings. I like the control of the Minolta head plus it is additive, if you want more red, add it, with a control to something like .01 cc. The Jobo slot processor is a gem.

But it may be similar to APS, they got it right just about too late. ;-)

You are spot on with the adding in something to the mix, I find what you leave out of an image to be very important, sometimes that is color.

Regards, John

 

[yanidel]

Interesting thread. There are indeed days when I look at the gallery and don't see a single color entry. Kind of strange, maybe RFF users are more B&W biased.
I started only B&W and only do colors for the last year. I just find it more interesting and challenging. A single Italian backpack (you know, the ones with the crazy colors) and the shot is ruined ... but when all planets align and colors work together well as well as composition, this is really rewarding.
I do agree with the comments made about colors taking over content in many cases, this is a trap to avoid, colors must be one element but the rest counts as much.
As for B&W, I just got tired of it, needed something more, even if 90% of my library is made of B&W artists.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

One appeal of black and white photography is its quality of drawing attention to itself rather than the subject matter. We are accustomed to seeing colour, so when colours are removed, essentially a particular grasp on reality is removed and we become more aware of the new reality of the photograph.

With colour on the other hand, the photograph’s life like appearance is so familiar, the viewer is often distracted by the subject matter at the expense of the photograph. So both the photographer and viewer need an acute sense of colour to really make it work.

Another aspect is that it seems easier to find tonality and textures that work than

to find colours that do. Many colours within a scene jar.

Here’s a photo from www.urbanpaths.net in which I think I have used colour well.

Sorry!...but this picture looks like a good argument against soft releases IMHO...you did accidentaly fire the shutter...did'nt you?
Regards, Dave.

 

[pmun]

Sorry!...but this picture looks like a good argument against soft releases IMHO...you did accidentaly fire the shutter...did'nt you?
Regards, Dave.

That's OK, do you not think the colours work well?

 

[Chris101]

That's OK, do you not think the colours work well?

Although I do like your series, I don't think that this shot has especially appealing color. I prefer color photography to punch me in the eye with outrageousness.

 

[bo_lorentzen]

This is interesting, I did not realize that so many people would pucker up about this B&W overuse though.

Personally I do not think B&W is "overused" how could it be.

But as I learned to photograph, way back, when film was in my case bought on spools and loaded at home at night... I was in the beginning very intimidated by color photography.

Basically I learned slowly to manage the shapes and textures of light vs darkness in black and white. but when adding color to the mix suddenly I the colors would take on separate shapes which would also influence my composition. as I was at that time mostly focused on B&W, I would often not recognize the problems with the color surfaces and elements in the image until later when I tried to print them.. ha ha.

Misunderstand me right now. I am in no way saying that B&W is a simpler medium than color, because it is not, but it IS different. I can easily understand any photographer who chose to focus on creating images in one or another style. I think the one thing I got away about color is "just because we can don't mean we have to" - B&W is brilliant at focusing attention on something and a truly artistic medium requiring years of experience to master. But as yanidel mentioned, when color comes together just right, it rocks the place. (BTW if you have not bookmarked his blog yet, this is a great time to do so.)

Bo

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

This is interesting, I did not realize that so many people would pucker up about this B&W overuse though.

Personally I do not think B&W is "overused" how could it be.

The main point of my O.P. - misunderstood by many, was that in my opinion black and white was often used when colour would be far more appropriate, or beneficial to the picture. again!....just my opinion! I too am surprised at the 'mileage' on this thread.
Dave.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Well, I really think the advantages of going digital for shooting colour are just overwhelming,

Yes, but colour film does offer a different pallette and look from digital. I use both, but Portra and Ektar both look different from the digital starting point. Of course having seen the film output it expands your horizons when it comes to working with the digital files.

Monochrome film certainly looks diffferent to digital files from my dslrs, both in tonality and image structure. There are some good emulators out there, but I've not gone down that path.

Mike

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Yes, but colour film does offer a different pallette and look from digital. I use both, but Portra and Ektar both look different from the digital starting point. Of course having seen the film output it expands your horizons when it comes to working with the digital files.

Monochrome film certainly looks diffferent to digital files from my dslrs, both in tonality and image structure. There are some good emulators out there, but I've not gone down that path.

Mike

I totaly agree, and to me - a lot of difference between 'noise' and grain!
Dave.

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Dave,

I deliberately avoided the "when color is appropriate" discussion. as I think that is purely an artistic choice.

Personally I think the choice of color vs B&W is a taste and preference for seeing the world. The only thing getting me into color when I started was being forced by clients to shoot color assignments, I would have been perfectly happy never venturing into color, and to be honest, I am not entirely sure my professional life might not have been as good without color as it have been with.

Bo