B&W or Color?

I like my b&w photos more than my color photos and some of my favourite photographers (Doisneau, HCB, Capa...) used it (I know they had no choice).
 
Toby-
A good point. This is an alternative I haven't been fortunate enough to explore yet. I'm very interested in this process!
 
Kodachroma and Agfa... were available before WWII. Lots of official photos of the Furheur were in colour and some survived. Kodachrome was a bit slow at 10ASA or less, it was always sharp, K25 was soft by comparison.

HCB was affluent enough to have shot in colour.

Noel
 
Bryce said:
I'll stand by my argument that digital still fails relative to film for B+W's, though. Not so much because of capture limitations; digital cameras are capable of 35mm level resolution and sharpness at the capture level, and without the hassle and lost resolution/ character of scanning. The trouble comes more in printing. Hold an all analog print on fiber paper next to anything made with an inkjet; the difference is hardly subtle! The traditional process print shows more tonal range, more subtle tones, pin sharp grain instead of soft and unnatural looking dithering patterns, and no scan lines. Add a larger than 35mm negative to the analog process print and the gap gets even larger.

No argument with that. Inkjet prints can look great, but traditional b&w prints done properly have a distinctive beauty to them, no question. Mind you, I don't print much nowadays.

Ian
 
A really good b&w photograph has a soul and it shares a bit of itself with the viewer.; that's what I'm after when I pick up my gear.

Really good colour photographs are like jelly beans, a few are a pleasant distraction but quickly lose their novelty and too many are a bore.

If you want the best of both worlds, there's always Marshall Oils. 🙂

Eli
 
Back
Top Bottom