Photograph what? Color or B&W?

[boojum]

I was recently reading that one of the famous street photographers was shooting in color and then switched to B&W for its art value. Then after a while he went back to color as he lived in a color world. HCB and Maier shot in B&W mostly as did many, many others. Could it be a hand-me-down style from a time before color film? We see B&W films only very rarely now. There was a French silent B&W that won an Academy Award a decade or so back but that was the exception.

I do mostly color as that is the world I see. I have shot both at the same time with an M8.2, color DNG and B&W JPEG. My new camera does color or B&W in DNG so I may be tempted into B&W. But on the whole I still incline toward color, again, because that is what I see.

So how do you on the board fell about this? Is B&W the correct style for art or "serious" photography or does color work?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I do both depending on how I want the photo to look. I've been a professional artist for nearly 30 years now. I've exhibited and sold both color and b&w prints and no one had ever questioned the artistic value of the color work I've done. In fact, this year I have sold 15 color prints for every b&w print I've sold.

 

[Fjäll]

I've been struggling with shooting b&w lately. I only shoot film so it's a commitment. Occasionally when I feel an image looks better in b&w I'll convert the color photograph digitally but it feels wrong for some reason. Color is much preferred.

 

[jsrockit]

Both are all over the art and photo book world. You need to look at a lot
more photography if you think only B&W sells. That said, very few people make a living off of print and book sales with any longevity.

 

[neal3k]

Depends on the subject for me. I always carry at least two Barnacks so I will be set for color or b&w. They are so small I can also carry one loaded for infrared in may small Domke bag. I mainly shoot just to amuse myself as I am a retired geezer.

 

[peterm1]

In my view there is no "correct" style. It depends entirely on the image and what your vision for it. I usually shoot digital these days which means it gives me the luxury of shooting in both color and black and white simultaneously. Some I present in color, Some I present in black and white. It depends on what works best from the point of view of it being an art object. Often the photo "tells" me which it will be. Some just "work" in color. Some just "work" in black and white.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Once upon a time, color photography was considered good for family snapshots and advertising, only. Serious photography or 'art' had to be in b&w. And then some rule-breakers like Saul Leiter, William Eggleston, Stephen Shore, and others came along to guide color into the art world. It is interesting and also amusing that in the RFF photo gallery, most photos are still presented in b&w. Cheers, OtL

 

[Dogman]

I don't have anything philosophical to say on the subject. My own process is almost totally B&W. I fell in love with the look in the early 1970s when I started using a camera seriously and printed in the darkroom. With digital, I shot Raw and mostly used color. That all eventually changed for me. My conscious decision was that, if I was indeed going to shoot B&W, it should be B&W from the start so I changed to JPEGs in B&W with no Plan B for going color if I found it worked better. It wasn't long until everything that I saw that was interesting was in tones of grey to my eyes...shadow, texture, geometry, et. al.

The vast majority of photography being done today is in color. I personally find most of it lacking in any value whatsoever. Very few people have managed to have a color vision like Ernst Haas, Saul Leiter, Bill Eggleston, Stephen Shore and a few other masters whose names I cannot recall. But B&W images attract me and I find a lot of them show a higher level of photographic skill and insight from various photographers. And, of course, that's just one old man's personal preference and prejudice.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Movies and still photography are totally different forms of art, but I like to see movies in color.

Photos on paper are another matter. It's very difficult to get long-lasting color photos on paper. The colors should last for several hundred years, like oil paintings and well-made watercolors. Unfortunately, this is not (yet) the case. However, people don't seem to worry about this at all.

Color photography today is mainly for digital devices, such as iPhones and desktop computers. Black and white photography is excellent for photo books and other artful printing.

Erik.

 

[mapgraphs]

If by "correct" you are speaking to what critics and curators promote to buyers and collectors, and what collectors (institutional and private) are currently buying, then you are talking to a state of the arts that is constantly changing.

One element of collecting has always been longevity. How long a physical image lasts. Stability of pigments and binder over time. How archival the object is. A silver haliade image on rag paper can get wet, be cleaned without affecting the emulsion or crystals. For a physical print, I don't think the same be said for inkjet images. At least with the research I did a few years back relating to archival requirements for public records (here in the USA). At least according to the Library of Congress which sets archival standards that both states and municipalities use as guidelines.

Doesn't mean that buyers and collectors will pay a premium for monochrome work over color but curators tend to play the long game which probably has an emphasis on archival. (Digital works for digital display are a different market segment. My digital imaging background is in run-time imaging, graphics and photo.)

Trend buying and selling is another market altogether though. A curator buying and selling trending work is looking to profit on a quick turnover of something with growing popularity - color or monochrome. It's where the scene is at the moment and where everyone is betting it's going to go. It used to be all about what gallery owners pushed. Even with today's online influencers, it probably still comes down to how well gallery owners can push something...

 

[ptpdprinter]

Is B&W the correct style for art or "serious" photography or does color work?

I think this was a hot topic 50-60 years ago. Today not so much.

 

[nikon_sam]

In my view there is no "correct" style. It depends entirely on the image and what your vision for it. I usually shoot digital these days which means it gives me the luxury of shooting in both color and black and white simultaneously. Some I present in color, Some I present in black and white. It depends on what works best from the point of view of it being an art object. Often the photo "tells" me which it will be. Some just "work" in color. Some just "work" in black and white.

I agree with Peter...many a time I will see something interesting and say..."I'm gonna shoot that in B&W" but while setting up and shooting it's just not working. Then I might try doing it in Color and it works...it goes both directions.
What I like in the end is all that matters...

 

[oldwino]

I mostly shoot color these days, as I am trying to reach myself to see color and color relationships. It is very specific.
Likewise, I shoot b&w when I am interested in exploring more about geometry, shapes and more abstract things.
I try to be specific in my goals. However, sometimes you just want to shoot a roll or two, and then I grab whatever feels right at the moment. I will inevitably have HP5 in the camera and come across scenes that would be great in color. Such is life.

 

[robert blu]

My photography is mainly done on projects, sometimes very simple projects. Of course when I start one I decide if B&W or color.

I do not think one is better than the other, or more "artistic". But lately my prefernce goes much more for B&W. Both film or digital. It is simply my taste 🙂

 

[CMur12]

There is a thread here somewhere on color street photography.

I really like HCB and Vivian Maier, because their images were graphically pleasing, they had good composition, and they managed to avoid cluttered backgrounds.

I might note that what I seek in photography is a visual experience for the eyes. I place graphics and composition ahead of content, in most cases.

I'm not generally a fan of street photography because I see a lot of photographers emphasizing content, with little regard for composition and a clean background. When the background is cluttered, which is often largely unavoidable in the city, color can break up some of the clutter by adding definition. I was surprised to discover this in the thread on color street photography.

B&W photography done really well is truly impressive. I like to see a full tonal range and decent contrast for definition. When it comes to a mediocre image, however, color trumps B&W every time for me.

- Murray

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I joined potn in 2009. It was no bw. I think most digital dominated foto forums are mostly color for very long time, if not from very beginning.
Obviously it is much more difficult on color with film and digital bw is still just meh.

 

[das]

For digital, shoot in color and convert if you want b&w. It's all just 1s and 0s anyway.

For film, just have color film loaded in some cameras, b&w in others. Just pick up what you feel like.

I go back and forth, some months all color others in b&w. As I get older, I'm just finally getting to understand that medium format is where b&w really shines. It's pretty much night and day even with the best 35mm b&w films and lenses.