Yes it's all about one's style and vision and rules.
Don Craig
Established
Addy101
Well-known
To me, with colour street photography it is street photography in colour - the subject isn't the colour, the colour is used to convey the mood (dare I say essence?) of the scene. It is scene first, colour second. I see B&W street photography that would be much stronger in colour.
If colour would've been the subject, the white balance should be correct, the contrast should be just right and colors should not look too saturated or under saturated - however, there is no reason why that should be the same as the scene you've seen in reality... Indeed, there is a huge gap between "photography in color" and "color photography as a concept, an art form".
Back to the important bit: Pictures
Sony A900 | Minolta 17-35G | 20mm | f/4 | 1/500s | 160iso
If colour would've been the subject, the white balance should be correct, the contrast should be just right and colors should not look too saturated or under saturated - however, there is no reason why that should be the same as the scene you've seen in reality... Indeed, there is a huge gap between "photography in color" and "color photography as a concept, an art form".
Back to the important bit: Pictures
Sony A900 | Minolta 17-35G | 20mm | f/4 | 1/500s | 160iso
Out to Lunch
Ventor
<script async="" src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
kuuan
loves old lenses
rogazilla
Level 2 Newb
I can understand that. Grew up in south east Asia. A lot of pictures I saw here means something to me. I really appreciate them but when I show my wife who has never been, she has hard time understand the appeal.
Addy101
Well-known
Why this sudden south-Asian "nobody understand us" talk?
Anyway, here is a picture you guys must understand, it is from Myanmar - on lookers thought it was funy that I was taking this picture:
Sony A900 | Minolta 50/1.4 | f/5.6 | 1/80s | 160iso
Anyway, here is a picture you guys must understand, it is from Myanmar - on lookers thought it was funy that I was taking this picture:
Sony A900 | Minolta 50/1.4 | f/5.6 | 1/80s | 160iso
Taipei-metro
Veteran
not color street color street...
2,
3,
color intersection/ will work for food
taipeimetro
2,
3,
color intersection/ will work for food
taipeimetro
kuuan
loves old lenses
rogazilla thank you very much for recounting your experience!
you are right! Though for me this is an interesting and many facetted topic, and related to the other recent talk, I should not want to have that discussion here and therefore better had refrained. Just that much, it's much more broad issues than 'understanding us' and please consider that rogazilla's answer shows that the observation is founded
Maiko by Andreas, on Flickr, Pen-F Zuiko 1.4/40, NEX5n
Addy101
Well-known
No problem, but it just came out of nowhere - it is not like someone complained there were to many asian pictures. Anyway, pictures
Sony A900 | Minolta 50/1.4 | f/5.6 | 1/640s | 100iso
Sony A900 | Minolta 50/1.4 | f/5.6 | 1/640s | 100iso
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
You are echoing Sally Eauclaire's thesis in the '80s, although I have never heard the idea of color as the subject matter.
I can't really think of an example, or even imagine what that work would look like.
Examples we all know?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Fred Wouldn't Wynn Bullocks color work or maybe some of Eggleston's work and in painting the abstract expressionist Mark Rothko be examples?
Out to Lunch
Ventor
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
Wynn Bullock's "Color Light Abstractions" perhaps, but really a stretch to take it very seriously. Eggleston no they are just color, and Mark Rothko yes but they aren't photos.
Back to Eggleston -- read this http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/01/william-eggleston-sit-in-at-fotomat.html
Personally I never believed color was an aesthetic choice, since I was trained as a painter, and painting had been in color since the cave paintings in the Lascaux Caves.
To me black and white photos were like silent films, just a product of early [limited] technology, not an aesthetic choice. Paintings were in color, and plays had sound. However it seems B&W is now an aesthetic choice -- but silent films, not so much.
But the fact is that BW is an aesthetic choice, not a poorman's choice.
And color photography can be about Color as the main subject just as Infrared photography is much more about the infrared look than about the landscape. The infrared flavor stands on its own (although it can be a disaster more often than not).
Erik van Straten
Veteran
1024) {this.width=1024;this.alt='Click here to see a large version';}" onmouseover="if(this.alt) this.style.cursor='pointer';" onclick="if(this.alt) window.open('http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa331/rffphotos/_DSC9596_zpsvmevhmnf.jpg');" border="0">
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are echoing Sally Eauclaire's thesis in the '80s, although I have never heard the idea of color as the subject matter.
I can't really think of an example, or even imagine what that work would look like.
Examples we all know?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above picture is an example. It is a good color picture because the subject is the yellow of the umbrella, the light green of the painted house in the back and the dark green of the container. The photographer brought those colored spots together in a photograph. When this picture was made in B+W it wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is now. That is what I mean with "the color is the subject of the photograph".
Erik.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are echoing Sally Eauclaire's thesis in the '80s, although I have never heard the idea of color as the subject matter.
I can't really think of an example, or even imagine what that work would look like.
Examples we all know?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above picture is an example. It is a good color picture because the subject is the yellow of the umbrella, the light green of the painted house in the back and the dark green of the container. The photographer brought those colored spots together in a photograph. When this picture was made in B+W it wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is now. That is what I mean with "the color is the subject of the photograph".
Erik.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
As noted it is always a choice of some kind, hopefully aesthetic. However there is no way to judge monetary motive, unless the artist says something to the effect of "I chose B&W because that is what I could afford."
I have never heard B&W referred to as a poor man's choice, by any art writer, or anyone for that matter.
Personally I do ask myself the Tod Papageorge question in reverse these days, "why black and white," when I choose it, since it makes a statement, whereas color as choice is invisible aesthetically. Sometimes, if nothing else, it (BW) just "feels" right.
While there may be some "Minimalism" work out there is photography, it is seldom so obvious that color is the subject of photography. But of course we have all had the personal experience of shooting a photo, because we were attracted to some color, especially in nature.
Infrared does bring up the danger of technique over content, it is one of those things one tries like a deep red filter on B&W and the artist immediately wonders if there is value without it.
____________________________
On another note:
For those near the Met in NYC, there are four interesting photo shows up now, of special note is; "Grand Illusions
Staged Photography from the Met Collection." http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2015/grand-illusions
Also:
The Aftermath of Conflict: Jo Ractliffe's Photographs of Angola and South Africa. http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2015/jo-ractliffe
In and Out of the Studio Photographic Portraits from West Africa. http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2015/in-and-out-of-the-studio
Reconstructions: Recent Photographs and Video from the Met Collection. http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2015/reconstructions
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Wynn Bullock's "Color Light Abstractions" perhaps, but really a stretch to take it very seriously. Eggleston no they are just color, and Mark Rothko yes but they aren't photos.
Back to Eggleston -- read this http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/01/william-eggleston-sit-in-at-fotomat.html
Personally I never believed color was an aesthetic choice, since I was trained as a painter, and painting had been in color since the cave paintings in the Lascaux Caves.
To me black and white photos were like silent films, just a product of early [limited] technology, not an aesthetic choice. Paintings were in color, and plays had sound. However it seems B&W is now an aesthetic choice -- but silent films, not so much.
Thanks Fred....
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
You might look at the South African photos, your aesthetic is similar.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Thanks.
A great quote from Weston from the 1970s I think when a lot of B&W photographers, especially those from the west school (zone system) thought of color as a barbaric process because of the lack of control they had with the color process at the time.
"The prejudice many photographers have against colour photography comes from not thinking of colour as form. You can say things with colour that can’t be said in black and white… Those who say that colour will eventually replace black and white are talking nonsense. The two do not compete with each other. They are different means to different ends." - Edward Weston