italy74
Well-known
Hello everyone
I have a question which seems not so easy to reply nor even to pone.
Why do we use B/W instead of Colour or viceversa ? It's not about which we prefer (generally speaking - i.e. I usually shoot colour), rather which kind of language or meaning we attribute to one or the other medium.
Let me expand a bit more about this.
As I wrote, I usually shoot colour BECAUSE I love colourful subjects. The more colourful, the better. Markets, landscapes, showy dresses or simple stony buildings or different coloured houses in a row which make a picture nice to look at even before one realizes the subject, are my bread and butter. Namely for markets and fairs, I think life expresses through colours - but that's me.
B/W has for me a different usage - for some mooded or environmented portrait - or just because a Tri-X can be used up to 1600 iso and more and this means everywhere. Yet, I wouldn't use it everywhere. Representing reality in B/W is somehow that goes beyond my skills or vision of life. Master photographers are able to shoot greatly in b/w but I always missed "why" (latitude exposure, printing by oneself and tech specs aside). Why should I represent something around me in b/w instead of colour?
Of course once only b/w rolls were available but now isn't anymore like this. On these forums there's plenty of b/w pictures whose reason I've never got. Not that they are bad, just I don't get them.
Is there any background message passed by means of a b/w picture? What B/W expresses (more) that colour doesn't ?
Do you mind to share your opinion ?
Thanks.
I have a question which seems not so easy to reply nor even to pone.
Why do we use B/W instead of Colour or viceversa ? It's not about which we prefer (generally speaking - i.e. I usually shoot colour), rather which kind of language or meaning we attribute to one or the other medium.
Let me expand a bit more about this.
As I wrote, I usually shoot colour BECAUSE I love colourful subjects. The more colourful, the better. Markets, landscapes, showy dresses or simple stony buildings or different coloured houses in a row which make a picture nice to look at even before one realizes the subject, are my bread and butter. Namely for markets and fairs, I think life expresses through colours - but that's me.
B/W has for me a different usage - for some mooded or environmented portrait - or just because a Tri-X can be used up to 1600 iso and more and this means everywhere. Yet, I wouldn't use it everywhere. Representing reality in B/W is somehow that goes beyond my skills or vision of life. Master photographers are able to shoot greatly in b/w but I always missed "why" (latitude exposure, printing by oneself and tech specs aside). Why should I represent something around me in b/w instead of colour?
Of course once only b/w rolls were available but now isn't anymore like this. On these forums there's plenty of b/w pictures whose reason I've never got. Not that they are bad, just I don't get them.
Is there any background message passed by means of a b/w picture? What B/W expresses (more) that colour doesn't ?
Do you mind to share your opinion ?
Thanks.
Last edited:
haempe
Well-known
A simple answer:
I shoot only B/W because I´m not interested to develop color-films at home.
An other: I like B/W, for many reasons. At first: it´s the kind of fotografie I started with, 20 years ago.
I shoot only B/W because I´m not interested to develop color-films at home.
An other: I like B/W, for many reasons. At first: it´s the kind of fotografie I started with, 20 years ago.
capito
silver halide punk
B/W is excellent for portraits because it's so forgiving with blemishes. Similarily, color fringing isn't as apparent in B/W photos.
B/W emphasises the gestalt of the subject, so it's good for strong compositions.
I like it because it trains you to look at the gestalt of things, lights, shadows, shapes. And to second hampe, I can develop it at home.
Color is good for, well colors. I'd never think of shooting flowers in B/W. But color belongs in the digital domain, IMO.
B/W emphasises the gestalt of the subject, so it's good for strong compositions.
I like it because it trains you to look at the gestalt of things, lights, shadows, shapes. And to second hampe, I can develop it at home.
Color is good for, well colors. I'd never think of shooting flowers in B/W. But color belongs in the digital domain, IMO.
Last edited:
tlitody
Well-known
colour is about colour and colour contrasts when the subject has something to say. For example a field of red poppies would present a completely different emotional impact in colour than it would in black and white. Infact in black and white the same framing may look really boring. Many many landscape photographs in black and white are lifeless too but portraits can be as well. Black and white is a far greater abstraction from reality than colour is and you must be able to see your black and white subjects in black and white as they will appear in the print to be good at subject selection. The same is true with colour but it is easier because we see in colour. With black and white you need to consider shape and form and how they will be represented on paper and how you can isolate or emphasize elements using contrast. Also how you can show moods with high key or low key. It is similar with colour but the abstraction of black and white gives greater emphasis. And black and white removes the emotional impact of colour so blues, reds and yellows lose their normal meanings which isolates the actual subjects from contextual backgrounds or clothes. The subject then becomes minimalist but at the same time highly emphasised which is why, I think, black and white works so well for portraits. Not always, but mostly if the right contrasts are used. There is nothing worse than a low contrast portrait IMO but too high a contrast can be awful too. So you are looking for contrasts to empahasize shape, form, hardness or softness or gentleness or highlights or shadows. You are looking for mood or ambience. It is very different from working in colour IMO.
And landscape photography in black and white is the most difficult of all. A landscape scene with strong blue skies, saturated greens or deep cyan seas just don't automatically translate into good black and white. You need to look a lot deeper than just colour for elements of construction, contrast and emphasis. Subject selection and composition are everything in black and white.
And landscape photography in black and white is the most difficult of all. A landscape scene with strong blue skies, saturated greens or deep cyan seas just don't automatically translate into good black and white. You need to look a lot deeper than just colour for elements of construction, contrast and emphasis. Subject selection and composition are everything in black and white.
keepright
matthew
I primarily use B&W in the winter, when the city is grey anyway, and switch to colour when spring arrives. (Another two or three months from now, I think.) But of course there are always exceptions:
When I've been using one film for a while and want some variety, I'll often load my next roll in whichever one is different from the roll before. Alternatively, right now I have colour in my Ikon, and B&W in my Nikon, which gives me different treatments for different subjects.
When I'm using my GX680, I'll have backs loaded with colour and B&W film, and switch any time I need to. For this I'll often switch to B&W because the colour in the background will be distracting (i.e., construction signs in the distance) or switch to colour because there's not enough tonal separation for monochrome.
I like B&W for portraits of adults but not children, because the classic timelessness that works for adults makes children look dead. I like colour snapshots of people, but not B&W, because colour better captures the environment and clothing that makes today unique.
When I've been using one film for a while and want some variety, I'll often load my next roll in whichever one is different from the roll before. Alternatively, right now I have colour in my Ikon, and B&W in my Nikon, which gives me different treatments for different subjects.
When I'm using my GX680, I'll have backs loaded with colour and B&W film, and switch any time I need to. For this I'll often switch to B&W because the colour in the background will be distracting (i.e., construction signs in the distance) or switch to colour because there's not enough tonal separation for monochrome.
I like B&W for portraits of adults but not children, because the classic timelessness that works for adults makes children look dead. I like colour snapshots of people, but not B&W, because colour better captures the environment and clothing that makes today unique.
thegman
Veteran
Each for their own look, if you're somewhere tropical with beautiful colours, then colour just makes sense. If you're going for a certain look, where colour is not so important, BW.
peter_n
Veteran
For me color gets in the way. I like to look at B&W photographs and I got started with B&W and did my own processing. I still much prefer the look of B&W film over B&W digital; it is richer somehow. I do use color for family stuff, there's a lot of impatience to see results sometimes.
I use both... I don't see any reason not to. They both have their advantages in certain situations.
ChrisCummins
Couch Photographer.
This is a question I've struggled with for a while now. While I shoot exclusively on black and white negative films, many of my favourite photographers use colour film, and the results they get are very pleasing to me.
The closest that I have come to justifying B&W over colour is these two reasons:
1 - B&W photographs have a tendancy to strip a subject of it's sense in time, or even to push it's sense of time back (i.e. to make things look older). I have never had much of an interest in 'up to the minute' and this is reflected when I shoot. Compare the 80's work of Bruce Gilden vs Martin Parr. The biggest difference for me is the sense that Parr's work most definitely sits within the time frame of when it was shot, and I believe this is largely due to the use of bold colour. I do not want my photographs to have that effect, at least not at the moment.
2 - I like to focus on composition, and specifically repetition and contrast, within the urban 'jungle'. B&W is the best friend of compositional repetition, whereas colour is good for a situation where there is no compositional link between all the subjects.
Regards
Chris
The closest that I have come to justifying B&W over colour is these two reasons:
1 - B&W photographs have a tendancy to strip a subject of it's sense in time, or even to push it's sense of time back (i.e. to make things look older). I have never had much of an interest in 'up to the minute' and this is reflected when I shoot. Compare the 80's work of Bruce Gilden vs Martin Parr. The biggest difference for me is the sense that Parr's work most definitely sits within the time frame of when it was shot, and I believe this is largely due to the use of bold colour. I do not want my photographs to have that effect, at least not at the moment.
2 - I like to focus on composition, and specifically repetition and contrast, within the urban 'jungle'. B&W is the best friend of compositional repetition, whereas colour is good for a situation where there is no compositional link between all the subjects.
Regards
Chris
nakedcellist
Established
I do black & white because I suck at colour... colour is hard!
I can't agree with your accessment of color. There are plenty of situations where there is compostional repitition and the colors add to the image.
Just an example, but maybe not the best...
GSNfan
Well-known
My all time favorite photographs are b&w, and it was those b&w photos that got me interested in photography.
I like color, I can shoot in color as well but I find color photos superficial and shallow when it comes to content. Even if there is content in a color photo, the colors obscure everything.
I like color, I can shoot in color as well but I find color photos superficial and shallow when it comes to content. Even if there is content in a color photo, the colors obscure everything.
Really? Man, I just can't even think of that. Especially when looking at:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/
redisburning
Well-known
If something is going to very high contrast then I like b&w
If not I like portra NC. If that didnt exist, I would not shoot color.
btw I do not shoot colors or colorful things. I feel that strong colors destroy form which is why I like desaturated color films. it obscures just the right amount to me to look perfectly natural.
If not I like portra NC. If that didnt exist, I would not shoot color.
btw I do not shoot colors or colorful things. I feel that strong colors destroy form which is why I like desaturated color films. it obscures just the right amount to me to look perfectly natural.
Last edited:
tlitody
Well-known
I'm a fan of Michael Kennas work. Not all but a lot of it.
http://www.michaelkenna.net/gallery.php?id=22
to contrast I also like this guys landscape work in colour. Probably because of the subject matter but also because I think a lot of his images would work well in B+W too which is not often the case with landscape photography. i.e. he is looking for more than colour contrasts in his subjects. He is looking for shape, form and contrast and not just pretty scenes.
http://www.matheson-beaumont.com/
http://www.michaelkenna.net/gallery.php?id=22
to contrast I also like this guys landscape work in colour. Probably because of the subject matter but also because I think a lot of his images would work well in B+W too which is not often the case with landscape photography. i.e. he is looking for more than colour contrasts in his subjects. He is looking for shape, form and contrast and not just pretty scenes.
http://www.matheson-beaumont.com/
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I shoot B&W film because of economics. Because of lower costs, and because I can process at home, I can capture more images. I think shooting a lot makes me a better photographer, and I can see constant progress and growth.
This year I'm limiting myself further by mostly shooting Fuji Arcos at 100 ISO and developing with Diafine. Since the developer gets reused and does not need replenishment, my costs for developement is basically a few pennies worth of fixer. I can get Arcos in 120 for $2.69 a roll at Adorama, so basically I can blast away in MF for under $3.00 a roll.
Limiting my ISO to 100 also has taken my shooting to the next level. High speed film can be a crutch that holds you back, especially forgiving films like HP5 that have great lattitude. Because my costs are so low, I can play around and experiment more in B&W. If I wanted to shoot color, I'd buy a M9 in a heart-beat, but I first cut my teeth on film decades ago.
Cal
This year I'm limiting myself further by mostly shooting Fuji Arcos at 100 ISO and developing with Diafine. Since the developer gets reused and does not need replenishment, my costs for developement is basically a few pennies worth of fixer. I can get Arcos in 120 for $2.69 a roll at Adorama, so basically I can blast away in MF for under $3.00 a roll.
Limiting my ISO to 100 also has taken my shooting to the next level. High speed film can be a crutch that holds you back, especially forgiving films like HP5 that have great lattitude. Because my costs are so low, I can play around and experiment more in B&W. If I wanted to shoot color, I'd buy a M9 in a heart-beat, but I first cut my teeth on film decades ago.
Cal
maclaine
Well-known
I'll echo what others have said in this thread. Part of why I shoot more B+W than color is I can process it at home easily. Aesthetically, I like how it is one step removed from reality, and therefore forces you to examine the subject with a slightly different point of view than if its representation was closer to what you saw with your own eyes. Also, the photogaphers whose work I find most inspiring shot mostly in black and white, and even though my sensibilities will never be exactly the same as theirs, I find myself chasing that look.
One last practical reason is that when I first began taking film photography seriously, I was in a band that was actively touring around the US. I thought someone needed to be documenting it, and it might as well be me. Much of the most interesting things that occur with bands generally happen indoors and at night, though, and while it's certainly possible to shoot color in those situations, grainy black and white images are more appealing to me than grainy color images with an odd color cast. As a result, I found I really only ever needed Tri-x 90% of the time, and haven't looked back since.
One last practical reason is that when I first began taking film photography seriously, I was in a band that was actively touring around the US. I thought someone needed to be documenting it, and it might as well be me. Much of the most interesting things that occur with bands generally happen indoors and at night, though, and while it's certainly possible to shoot color in those situations, grainy black and white images are more appealing to me than grainy color images with an odd color cast. As a result, I found I really only ever needed Tri-x 90% of the time, and haven't looked back since.
taskoni
Well-known
B&W is perfect for what I shoot. I have problem with colors since they add to much distraction to my shooting style. I like to bring out the important part of the shot and details with light, or at least I am trying to 
It makes my exposure more flexible if you know what I mean.
Regards,
b.
It makes my exposure more flexible if you know what I mean.
Regards,
b.
benlees
Well-known
I like both. But...I prefer using film cameras and colour film just adds levels of trouble (I am cheap and lazy!). I sometimes use colour film, but b&w is so easy!! Digital is great also, so I use that for colour.
healyzh
Well-known
I shoot both, yet I tend to have a far more positive reaction to the shots I've done in B&W than the ones in colour, especially when time has passed. I find that when you shoot colour the colour becomes much of what the photo is about, yet when you shoot B&W it's about the subject, and textures in the photograph.
I shoot B&W and Colour in both digital and film. When shooting with film, it has another advantage, I have full control over how the film is developed since I do it myself. When shooting Large Format, B&W is preferable for me, as then I can use the negatives for alternative process printing.
It isn't uncommon for me to look at a colour photograph that someone else took, and think, "this could be so much better in B&W"!
For colour I think my favorite way to capture the image would have to be slide film.
I shoot B&W and Colour in both digital and film. When shooting with film, it has another advantage, I have full control over how the film is developed since I do it myself. When shooting Large Format, B&W is preferable for me, as then I can use the negatives for alternative process printing.
It isn't uncommon for me to look at a colour photograph that someone else took, and think, "this could be so much better in B&W"!
For colour I think my favorite way to capture the image would have to be slide film.