Do B&W photographers have to work harder than Color Photographers?

[Bosk]

Occasionally I post my images on flickr and I regularly trawl through my favourite Groups hoping to catch a glimpse of something special.

One thing I've noticed is that generally speaking, shots taken in color tend to get more of a reaction, more views/faves etc. than shots in B&W.
Often I find it's the B&W shots that are more meaningful and better composed than their color counterparts, yet maybe because they don't instantly draw attention to themselves they are sometimes overlooked.

This seems to be a trend in both the digital & analogue domains. Perhaps people are being conditioned as a result of advertising, movies, TV and magazines all being presented in colour to regard B&W as a secondary form of visual expression?


So the question arises, do B&W photographers have to work harder to get noticed than colour photographers?

 

[migtex]

Yes! 🙁
Got a friend photographer that try to sell stock in B&W. Almost no one want's it.😡

 

[iml]

Even fine art photography is mostly colour nowadays, and has been for the last 20 years or so. It's just the way it is.

Ian

 

[RML]

So the question arises, do B&W photographers have to work harder to get noticed than colour photographers?

Yes, of course! Serves them just right for refusing to use colour!


😀

 

[oftheherd]

Interesting question. My first reaction was no, it's the other way around. B/W forces one to see things that color often over rides. That means more chances to appreciate good composition, tonality, and contrast. I look at photos here and sometimes over at PopPhoto's forum. It is interesting how often b/w photos are complimented, even when put up together for comparison and a question of which is better. This from other, at least supposed, photographers.

Sometimes color is shot just for color's sake, and other considerations are forgotten. The color may indeed be good and contribute towards making a striking photo. But it often over powers other elements of a good photo, minimizing the need for attention to those details. Not that paying attention to that won't make a better photo, but that color often becomes the reason for the shot.

That was my first impression. After reading the other comments above, and thinking about it more; I don't know if I still want to defend my position or not. Perhaps. And maybe it just shows a personal bias on my part towards really good b/w photography.

Anxiously awaiting to see what others think. Good question btw.

 

[PHOTOEIL]

Yes, they do have!
The question remains, why they do...:bang:

 

[Finder]

No. Black and white photographers do not have to work harder. Black and white can also be an advantage as it is not as common and so stands out.

Why color is predominant is a harder question to answer. Naturally, color is more natural as that is the way we experience the world. Commercially, advertisers want their products reproduced to show the color. Also, red roses, for example, are not very saturated in black and white. Even other two-dimensional art such as painting, color is dominant.

The other question is why black and white is such a significant area of photography - in painting, black and white is a much smaller medium. This I think is a technical qwerk of history where color reproduction was harder to develop and so black and white was simply used as it was easier and less expensive. This in a way built a very strong B&W aesthetic that is still recognized in photography.

 

[Finder]

Of course black & white photographers don't have to worry about mis-spelling "colour"... 😀

Regards,

Bill

BTW, that is "blak and wyte."

 

[rogue_designer]

Yes! 🙁
Got a friend photographer that try to sell stock in B&W. Almost no one want's it.😡

The key to stock is flexibility. A company with tight art funds can always convert a color image to BW and use it in color elsewhere - you can't go back the other way.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

One thing I've noticed is that generally speaking, shots taken in color tend to get more of a reaction, more views/faves etc. than shots in B&W.
Often I find it's the B&W shots that are more meaningful and better composed than their color counterparts, yet maybe because they don't instantly draw attention to themselves they are sometimes overlooked.

This seems to be a trend in both the digital & analogue domains. Perhaps people are being conditioned as a result of advertising, movies, TV and magazines all being presented in colour to regard B&W as a secondary form of visual expression?


So the question arises, do B&W photographers have to work harder to get noticed than colour photographers?

In my experience it doesn't happen this way, most of my color shots are often ignored while BW is the most commented on. It may be the fact that BW shooters often develop thier own film, scan thier own film , etc.

I think BW often takes the guesswork (if you will ) out of shooting, instead of worrying about color and how it plays out, it's all shades of grey.

Todd

 

[oftheherd]

In my experience it doesn't happen this way, most of my color shots are often ignored while BW is the most commented on. It may be the fact that BW shooters often develop thier own film, scan thier own film , etc.

I think BW often takes the guesswork (if you will ) out of shooting, instead of worrying about color and how it plays out, it's all shades of grey.

Todd

But I think the original question remains: Do b/w photographers have to work harder. That is, if they are getting more comments, is it because they worked harder at getting composition and any other elements "right," instead of letting color be what "makes" the photo?

 

[Finder]

But I think the original question remains: Do b/w photographers have to work harder. That is, if they are getting more comments, is it because they worked harder at getting composition and any other elements "right," instead of letting color be what "makes" the photo?

As a person that works both in black and white and color, I do not think it is easier or requires more skill to shot one or the other. Actually, I find many folks commenting favorably on bad black and white images. Black and white almost seems a badge of being a "real' photographer.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

But I think the original question remains: Do b/w photographers have to work harder. That is, if they are getting more comments, is it because they worked harder at getting composition and any other elements "right," instead of letting color be what "makes" the photo?

I think when you take color out of the equation it simplifies the image.

Working harder during the image making process...no, during the developing process...yes, I guess 😉

Todd

 

[furcafe]

If you're talking about marketing photographs, yes B&W photographers have to work harder because they're selling a more abstract & less naturally-appealing product. It's no big mystery & shouldn't be a surprise, no more so than the fact that photos of hot girls & pretty landscapes get more views/comments than street shots & still lifes. As Finder noted, people see in color & once color photography became a mass market item, B&W was quickly relegated to the "art" niche (as w/movies & TV).

 

[migtex]

The key to stock is flexibility. A company with tight art funds can always convert a color image to BW and use it in color elsewhere - you can't go back the other way.

Agreed!
The drawback is that we have to use color film...and then convert. Or use B&W and get much harder to "sell" it.
At the same time the "effort" depends as well from the audiance. If they are more involved in photography the B&W gets a more fair chance. If not.... harder again.

 

[nikon_sam]

I understand this question to be asking "Does the B&W Photographer have to work harder while shooting to find the right subject, composition, lighting, etc...?"
That being the question I have to say "Yes"...
Take a color photo and (now with computer programs) switch it over to B&W...Does it work??? Does it have the same effect or emotion???
If a B&W photographer were to find a shot and shoot it in B&W and then just for the purpose of this question, shoot it in color...Does it work???
I find that when I shoot B&W I see in B&W...I'm not looking at colors but in tones and shapes...
My shooting style changes when going from one to the other and I often carry more than one camera and at least one of them will have B&W film...
Try it sometime...carry two cameras...one with color/colour film the other with B&W. You may find that you shoot them differently, that you see in B&W when shooting B&W...and the same with color/colour...

 

[Toby]

With the rise of Flickr and the web generally, I'd suggest that what really matters now is that a photo looks good as a thumbnail or a small preview, that's why a lot of monochrome or visually complex images simply get overlooked - they lack the 'click on me' factor.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I agree with nikon_sam above.

Almost all my photos are color and I look for splashes of color when I'm making photos. On the rare occasion I'm using mono I'm looking for shape, pattern and light. It's really quite different. I don't work harder in mono but I do see the photo in another way.

 

[shadowfox]

In Stock photography, YES, but their goal is different than most of ours'.

Colors grab attention way faster than black and white. Garish ones even faster, that's why the cops have those thing on top of their cruisers.

But a beauty is a beauty, everyone is designed to enjoy beauty. Colors or B/W.

I find that the key to enjoying B/W photos is patience. The more you're able to stop rushing by, the better you can enjoy it. I was hard for me, but now I am addicted. 🙂 and that's what I teach youngsters these days.

So does the B/W photographer need to work harder? no, the viewers do, but they will be rewarded more when they "get it".

 

[Roger Vadim]

well, my monitor has got 32 million colors... that is what people paid for - remember the green monochromic ones (I might want them back, but who else?)

I really think that you can't evaluate a B/W picture on a monitor. It needs to be printed (even a stupid newspaper print in B/W is somehow more interesting and tells its story/ narrative - from gutenberg to now - than any B/W scan on a screen)

Computers are contemporary media/ technology, and they work well with colors; because it's a virtual and simulative technology. So is certain photography.

B/W photography is a highly differnciated media (historywise), but somehow bound to paper.
Like books. (reading kafka on a screen would make sense, but this seems a bit too tautological 😉)

just ssome loose ideas...
michael