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

[rpsawin]

Ultimately it is the end result, the "print" we are commenting on. In terms of traditional darkroom processing color photography has less options than in b&w processing...time/temp/chemicals, etc.. B&W darkroom work presents many more options and possibilities. That is not to say it is easier to produce a color print, rather the process has less options.

I think a well crafted print, color or b&w, will stand critical review. A bad color print is more noticable than a bad b&w print as most people are used to "seeing" in color. It takes experience and usually some training to "see" in b&w.

Good work will hold up and bad work won't as long as there is good work to set the standard.

Best regards,

Bob

 

[Finder]

Ultimately it is the end result, the "print" we are commenting on. In terms of traditional darkroom processing color photography has less options than in b&w processing...time/temp/chemicals, etc.. B&W darkroom work presents many more options and possibilities. That is not to say it is easier to produce a color print, rather the process has less options.

I have never noticed that. I do print both color and black and white.

 

[photophorous]

I've recently spent a lot of time thinking about why people seem to prefer dramatic over-saturated, heavily-processed, landscape photos to the more realistic type. I just think bright flashy colors catch the eye. So, not only do B&W photographers have to produce better work to be noticed, but so do color photographers who prefer to keep things more natural looking. I think someone called it the bling factor.

Not to digress too far, but I've noticed that my most viewed shots on flickr are the ones with a woman in them, regardless of how colorful or good the shot is.

Paul