akk2
Established
it's more like pencil sketching compare to crayone.
majid
Fazal Majid
Art gallery curator snobbery, mostly. Color was not considered a valid artistic medium until Eggleston (at least in the US). Then again, neither was photography until the 20th Century.
andredossantos
Well-known
When I hear people state flat out that only B&W is art or somehow a more "true" form photography and color is simply for snapshooting and the general public it drives me crazy.
I can't help but think that photographers who sneer and denigrate color simply never learned to "see" in color or do not have the proclivity to make compelling color photos.
Of course I am not saying one cannot prefer to view or shoot b&w over color.
I can't help but think that photographers who sneer and denigrate color simply never learned to "see" in color or do not have the proclivity to make compelling color photos.
Of course I am not saying one cannot prefer to view or shoot b&w over color.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
What happens when color is central to the resolution of a dispute about evidence presented as a b&w photo?
ChrisN
Striving
Hmm, well, how can i say it, i guess just to say it, Its not!its the content or the message that is taken seriously. the Doug Moran contest this year was won by a colour photo, the Archibald might be more known to the general public (strictly a painting only comp though) but the Moran comp is both painting and photograph combined, B&W or colour and to many is considered the highest comp in Australia, this year a colour photo won above all else! I think they took it seriously
Hold on - the 2010 Moran Prize for Contemporary Photography was taken out by Dean Sewell for his photo titled "Cockatoo Island Ferry". That looks very B&W to me!
ashrafazlan
Established
I'm not even sure if people take photo's seriously anymore.
bizarrius
the great
Well, they always take pictures of something happening so its street photography. and street photography is black and white.
ther'yougo.
ther'yougo.
B&W is a novelty and Color is the norm for most people ...
Arjay
Time Traveller
It's a matter of cultural expectations: Photographs used to be BW in the beginning, because there were no color films. Consequently, the thought that a 'photograph' is black-and-white has become some sort of cultural stereotype. Now if you're trying to quickly convey an idea in any type of medium, the thought of using stereotypes is quite natural.
This also explains why it was so difficult for art photographers to establish color photographs as a medium of its own merit. Eggleston didn't just 'introduce' color film as a novelty in itself, he also had to come up with a novel concept of image aesthetics to have the art world buy into his picture ideas.
One of the problems for color film as an art medium was the pervasiveness of consumer color photography - color had first acquired some kind of bad reputation by exclusively being a sanctuary for snapshot photography.
This also explains why it was so difficult for art photographers to establish color photographs as a medium of its own merit. Eggleston didn't just 'introduce' color film as a novelty in itself, he also had to come up with a novel concept of image aesthetics to have the art world buy into his picture ideas.
One of the problems for color film as an art medium was the pervasiveness of consumer color photography - color had first acquired some kind of bad reputation by exclusively being a sanctuary for snapshot photography.
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
They have diff aesthetic value is the most I can say about it. In galleries I suppose B/W may be taken more seriously, unless color is well executed [ex: Webb. Eggleston, Christenberry].
sparrow6224
Well-known
TV shows are shallow and the art directors are shallow and it's shallow to think B&W means (sh-shuck) "photo" and B&W photos are "cool" like certain old men sitting on park benches with bull dogs are "cool." Basically, what Sig said, with the added caveat that the decision is being made by people with ZERO subtlety of mind. That said, there is plenty of color that is considered "art" by photo curators and the like. I think the prevailing sense of B&W as the terra firma of serious photography dates to our greatest phtographers, whom we still emulate. Guys like HCB and Gene Smith when assigned to do color did it but were never very good at it (whereas Garry Winogrand turned out to be terrific at it, in my opinion). Good color photographs are very very hard to print and I would say, though I don't have a feel for color, that in the end doing a great color photograph on film and printing it well is harder than doing the same in B&W. The form has a narrower band outside of which the image fails; black and white is more flexible. The kinds of large prints that make the highest impact on the viewer are a nightmare to produce in color (I'm talking traditional, not digital, printing). So I think there are more b&w "art" photographs around for that reason along with others.
I've printed B&W, C-Prints, and Cibachromes and I'm not sure why you think Color C-Prints are so much harder. Now Cibachromes, they were harder IMO.
Last edited:
Frontman
Well-known
Black and white can often bring out our emotions more than color. I could probably say that it is similar to reading a story from a book, and watching a film of the same story. In the book the details are filled in by our imaginations, whereas in the movie all the details are presented to us up front. Our imaginations are often more colorful than real life.
I remember my first trip to New Orleans many years ago. I arrived to New Orleans on a train headed to Los Angeles. I had to wait until the next day for a connecting train, so I spent the night at an old hotel on St Charles Street in the French Quarter.
Nighttime New Orleans is completely different from daytime New Orleans. At night it seems magical and mysterious, you can't see the cracks in the sidewalks, or the litttle bits of trash here and there, and the homeless people have gone off to wherever it is they go at night. Add the faint sounds of Dixieland jazz music from the occasional club drifting down the street, and you find yourself in a different world.
New Orleans during the day is still beautiful in many ways, but when viewed with all of it's details there is a lot of ugliness to be seen. The daytime picture is obviously more accurate than the nighttime picture, but nowhere near as wonderful.
I remember my first trip to New Orleans many years ago. I arrived to New Orleans on a train headed to Los Angeles. I had to wait until the next day for a connecting train, so I spent the night at an old hotel on St Charles Street in the French Quarter.
Nighttime New Orleans is completely different from daytime New Orleans. At night it seems magical and mysterious, you can't see the cracks in the sidewalks, or the litttle bits of trash here and there, and the homeless people have gone off to wherever it is they go at night. Add the faint sounds of Dixieland jazz music from the occasional club drifting down the street, and you find yourself in a different world.
New Orleans during the day is still beautiful in many ways, but when viewed with all of it's details there is a lot of ugliness to be seen. The daytime picture is obviously more accurate than the nighttime picture, but nowhere near as wonderful.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
DNG
Film Friendly
I love the "MOOD" B&W can create more than Color can, in many cases.
Michael Markey
Veteran
People seem to have preconceived expectations of what an image should be like given its subject matter.
I do a lot of stuff for my local drag hunt.
It`s a drag hunt because hunting foxes with dogs is banned in the UK.
However the tradition prevails and the hunt and the hounds go back 200 years.
I turn up with either an old SLR or an M with black and white film and they love it.
This is despite the fact that I cannot easily compete with the rapid fire DSLR boys who take all the action shots.
Because of the subject matter and their innate sense of history black and white film seems the correct medium to the viewer.
I do a lot of stuff for my local drag hunt.
It`s a drag hunt because hunting foxes with dogs is banned in the UK.
However the tradition prevails and the hunt and the hounds go back 200 years.
I turn up with either an old SLR or an M with black and white film and they love it.
This is despite the fact that I cannot easily compete with the rapid fire DSLR boys who take all the action shots.
Because of the subject matter and their innate sense of history black and white film seems the correct medium to the viewer.
dovi
Well-known
a book on color
a book on color
This discussion refers back to the older discussions of the colorist vs the draftsman. There has been a centuries long discussion apparently, on the value of color, and its role in the arts.. Interesting to read this compilation of historic comments on color....
http://www.amazon.com/Colour-Docume...=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290116594&sr=1-4
I hope this is not too off topic...
a book on color
This discussion refers back to the older discussions of the colorist vs the draftsman. There has been a centuries long discussion apparently, on the value of color, and its role in the arts.. Interesting to read this compilation of historic comments on color....
http://www.amazon.com/Colour-Docume...=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290116594&sr=1-4
I hope this is not too off topic...
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't really think it's taken more seriously. The perception of b&w photography as being 'artistic' might have more to do with what b&w photography isn't than what it is. B&W is not the realm of the regular people who are not really interested in photography and only take pictures to capture the moment for memory's sake. Or, to use a loaded term, b&w is not usually associated with (contemporary) "vernacular" photography.
Consequently, anyone who shoots b&w is considered as someone who's concerned with the aesthetic qualities of his photographs.
As for contemporary art photography being almost exclusively in color, I don't think that's true at all. Granted, the bigger part of it is color but there are quite a few contemporary photographers who use b&w. Hiroshi Sugimoto uses b&w exclusively, part of Jeff Wall's work is b&w, sameg goes for Cindy Sherman, Alec Soth's recent book has lots of b&w in it, Gregory Crewdson's recent work is all b&w and the list goes on.
Consequently, anyone who shoots b&w is considered as someone who's concerned with the aesthetic qualities of his photographs.
As for contemporary art photography being almost exclusively in color, I don't think that's true at all. Granted, the bigger part of it is color but there are quite a few contemporary photographers who use b&w. Hiroshi Sugimoto uses b&w exclusively, part of Jeff Wall's work is b&w, sameg goes for Cindy Sherman, Alec Soth's recent book has lots of b&w in it, Gregory Crewdson's recent work is all b&w and the list goes on.
amateriat
We're all light!
Perhaps it's a regional thing, but I had a show two years back, here in Brooklyn (Red Hook, for you locals), which was all color. The only comments I got regarding this were compliments on the quality of the printing (I actually sold a few prints).
Funny note: Galfriend's older sister, currently living in Iceland, can't all see the point in black-and-white photography, and has often been confused when we'd send her photos I took over the years of her sister and nephews, in spite of the fact that the photos, if I do say so myself, were often quite striking. Some people simply regard photography in a perfunctory, for them, utilitarian manner: a mediocre quick snap in color trumps a more interesting image in b/w. (To paraphrase Elvis Costello, I used to be miffed by this, but now I just chuckle.)
- Barrett
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
What is depressing is when you show someone a photo you took that you're pretty proud of ... and they opine that it would have been really nice in colour!