If all else fails, Make Mine Monochrome

[Thomaspin]

Thanks, all, for your comments on my 'Film is Dead' piece.

Here's an opportunity to consider another aspect of the great photography debate.

 

[Nikon Bob]

The stuff of heart attacks and hernias, I can see and hear it now. With these two pieces and I am sure others you invite overly passionate debate that really produces nothing because it does not stay sane long enough. It is not that it is unimportant or uninteresting but the lines in the sand have been drawn long ago and most people are too entrenched in their ideas of what is the best way. What an awful and limiting word best is. Personally I like colour but do use B&W on occasion. Hope this does not turn into another dung storm.

Bob

 

[dmr]

Thanks, all, for your comments on my 'Film is Dead' piece.

So you're the one who wrote those. 🙂

Here's an opportunity to consider another aspect of the great photography debate.

Actually, I enjoy reading things like that, and I even enjoy the controversies those raise, as long as all of us keep sane and respect each other and each others' opinions.

When I first got into photography, B&W was what I could afford and I shot Tri-X almost exclusively. As a high school and then college student, color was very expensive, in particular the prints. For a while I got on this kick of shooting slides and then printing those I really wanted prints of.

There was also the almost-instant gratification factor of B&W. B&W was next-day, or even same-day if your got it in early. Color was a few days for Berkey (who often did a yucky job on printing) or a week for Genuine Kodak<tm> processing, which was very consistently good but more ex$pen$ive!

I haven't shot real B&W for years. 20 at least, I don't really remember. Today the processing is opposite. Decent (usually) results in an hour for color. Quicker if you sweet-talk them into doing a DO-CD while you wait. B&W is at the indie lab and when I last checked they did a batch every few days. Yes, that's more expensive than color at Wally World.

I keep thinking of trying Tri-X again, but then I think of what you said about Photoshopping to monochrome. I can even play around with virtual color filters. Want more cloud and darker sky, go for the red. 🙂

Oh well, these threads are interesting, but I agree we need to resist the temptation to take things too seriously. 🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

I've brain farted on who here at RFF said it, but the best way of expressing it I've heard was "When I want to show you something, I use color. When I want to tell you something, I use black and white."

William

 

[Kin Lau]

We all have our reasons, and here's mine.

Like others, I started shooting B&W because it's cheap/cheaper. A roll of c41 + processing can easily cost 10x more per roll than b&w. C41 colour is also a bit of a joke at times. E6 colour is beautiful, but even more expensive, almost 20x more per roll vs b&w. Most of the time, I shoot digital if I want colour, only going with film for wide angles.

I still find a basic elegance and beauty to b&w, grain and all. It's also the only way I can keep shooting my old RF's, slr's with the cheap and beautiful old glass. I also find b&w less distracting... garbage and odd colours we find in the urban mess around us become less of a factor. Tri-X @ 1250 in Diafine is also a pretty good reason.

In short, I can afford colour, but it's really not very cost efficient. It's all about choice, and b&w is simply the better and preferred choice for me most of the time.

 

[phototone]

I shoot b/w because I like b/w. B/W is an abstraction, and a way of seeing. I often don't shoot a photo because I know it would not "read" well in b/w. There have been instances where I have shot color, and then converted to b/w because I liked the photo better in b/w and I felt that it "spoke" more eloquently. I have no aversion to shooting photos in color, and I have many examples of my color work (not in my RFF Gallery, though), and of course for scenics I often shoot color. My preference, though has always been b/w, and I feel that b/w is actually "harder" than color, as you have to see the shapes and lighting of the potential image, training your mind to see beyond the colors. All the great photos that have influenced my style and taste in photography have been b/w ones.

 

[phototone]

I would also like to add, that desaturating a color image does not make it identical to a b/w image, because each different b/w film has its own set of attributes, like grain structure, sharpness, tonal range, etc., and these can be influenced by your darkroom developing choices.

With color film, it is a fixed process, and there is little room for variance. Also I do not like the grain structure of small format color film when viewed as a b/w image, therefore all of my b/w "conversions" from color originals have been medium format, where grain is not a part of the picture.

 

[ray_g]

I've brain farted on who here at RFF said it, but the best way of expressing it I've heard was "When I want to show you something, I use color. When I want to tell you something, I use black and white."

William

That was Wayne Scott

 

[richard_l]

Sometimes artists make monochromatic pictures, using media like graphite, charcoal, pen and ink, or black and white film. Other times they work in color, using media like pastels, watercolor, oils, or color film. Both are legitimate. However, I think that whether a picture be monochrome or color should not be an afterthought.

The choice of medium should take into account the subject matter. For example, a scene in which there are various colors of approximately the same value may be suitable for a color photo but not black and white. Or, if it is desired to render the scene in black and white anyhow, then it may be advantageous to use a contrast filter in order to enhance value differences between different colors. The poorest way to make a black and white photo is simply to shoot the picture in color and then compare the color image to a desaturated one and choose that which looks best. This may occasionally work, but only if one is extremely lucky, because it leaves too much to chance. The medium should be determined in advance so that appropriate film and filters, among other things, may be selected in order to optimize the image.

Obviously whether to render a portrait in graphite or oils determines the choice of materials and techniques. Likewise whether to take a photo in black and white or color determines the choice of materials and techniques.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Thomas' little pieces of controversy are written in such a masterful way that any attempt at dismissing them is bound to fail.
Cheers
Vincent

 

[richard_l]

Thomas' little pieces of controversy are written in such a masterful way that any attempt at dismissing them is bound to fail.
Cheers
Vincent

His problem is essentially the straw man fallacy. He invents exclusive alternative statements, and then shoots down one of the alternatives, relying heavily on its exclusivity.

Example: Ultimately there must either be film or digital. Digital will obviously survive, therefore film is doomed. The fallacy is in interpreting "either...or" as exclusive: only one of the alternatives can win; there are only black hats and white hats. In fact it can be inclusive. I.e., it would be more correct to say that there must be either film or digital or both. Then the survival of digital implies nothing specific about film.

Likewise he is talking as if people should use either monochrome or color but not both. That's like telling an artist that he must use either watercolor or pen and ink but not both.

I gotta go now.

 

[vincentbenoit]

His problem is essentially the straw man fallacy. He invents exclusive alternative statements, and then shoots down one of the alternatives, relying heavily on its exclusivity.

No need to resort to the straw man fallacy when one can use irony...

 

[richard_l]

No need to resort to the straw man fallacy when one can use irony...

If irony it was, obviously it was lost on me. However, reading it again with that in mind, I think you're probably right. Aaaarrrggh! :bang:

 

[GeneW]

I shoot B&W and Col. Have I ever salvaged a shot that didn't make it in Col by converting it to B&W? Sure! Did I think of it as art because I did that? Not unless it was clearly an artistic image. Do I think, when I shoot in B&W, I do so because of a failed vision for Col? I really don't think so. Do I consider B&W artsier than Col? No, I never have. I find both media tasty and potentially artistic -- each with different strengths. Much depends on the characteristics of the image. I'm afraid the point of the blog entry is somewhat lost on me...

Gene

 

[zpuskas]

I agree. Making a good color photograph/image is more difficult than making a good B&W photograph. That's why I rarely do color. Color is too overpowering and sometimes the image is only about color, not a discernable subject. Color lends itself too much to the "postcard" images, when it has the ability to do much more.

 

[FrankS]

"Because Monochrome is for artistic simpletons. Two dimensional thinkers too constrained in their cages, too bound by convention, too attuned to mediocrity, to think that anything other than black and white, B&W, monochrome, sepia, platinum toning, etc., etc., can be Art."

If this piece was meant to be subtle sarcasm or irony like the film/digital peice, it seems too much to me like a "friend" punching you too hard and then claiming it was just a joke when you react. It's a cheap-shot. I think the world is struggling enough with man-made problems, I actively avoid peices written in this style.

 

[Trius]

I agree with phototone and Frank. I simply prefer monochrome for most of my shooting, but I do love colour and occasionally go on a colour "kick". I just scored a bunch of K64 at local drug stores that was selling for $1.68US per 24exp roll. I'll be buying more at that price!

Anyway, it depends on the subject and my mood. Since monochrome, as phototone points out, is an abstraction, it allows one to concentrate on other elements. The two are different.

BTW, I am NOT a simpleton!

Trius

 

[Peter]

I normally will not dive into a thread of such controversy buy the statement on B&W photographers are inaccurate and to a certain degree insulting! Every artists have their favourite medium. It is not the medium but rather the final expression that counts.