"Truth" in photography part two: B&W vs Color
- Thread starter Merkin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 49
- Views 6K
sjw617
Panoramist
True / real is what you see through the viewfinder not necessarily seen in the picture. You can change it with f stop and speed to change 'reality'. There is also no grain! If you do not see it then it should not be on the print.
If you are colorblind and see in B&W then you have a very different reality from the majority of people. But others say they 'see' in B&W when they are just looking at shapes and shadows which is not really seeing in B&W.
Chris101
summicronia
I'm colorblind (deuteranopic) and have a color continuum from rich browns, reds and yellows as well as blues. Greens, pinks and purples all blend together into an orangy mud color. B&W is very different. I describe the colors I see as mostly shades of brown.
notturtle
Well-known
There is no answer, only personal choices. I feel that monochrome can help focus both the eye and mind on what I want it to focus on without colour distractions and so is more 'real' i.e. true to my intent and the purpose of the image. Thats not faithful to the meaning of 'true' only true to my intent 😉
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I'm of the opinion that the only thing "true" about photography, if there can be anything "true" at all about the medium, is that light from an optical image waverfront exposed a piece of photographic emulsion. That's about it.
Pretending that the resulting image, whether B/W or color, represents something directly associated with objective reality is a mental construct that we erect. And, as Winogrand, Barthes, Sontag and others have pointed out numerous times, that is the power of the medium: its ability to mimic reality while remaining essentially entirely disconnected from it.
~Joe
Pretending that the resulting image, whether B/W or color, represents something directly associated with objective reality is a mental construct that we erect. And, as Winogrand, Barthes, Sontag and others have pointed out numerous times, that is the power of the medium: its ability to mimic reality while remaining essentially entirely disconnected from it.
~Joe
sjw617
Panoramist
JoeV,
Are you, "Winogrand, Barthes, Sontag and others" kidding me? A photo has very little to do with the subject taken? Absurd!
Steve
Are you, "Winogrand, Barthes, Sontag and others" kidding me? A photo has very little to do with the subject taken? Absurd!
Steve
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
A photograph is just a bit of paper with some chemicals on one side (or some pixels on a display). The relationship to the subject is a quirk of perception not a physical thing.
AgentX
Well-known
A photograph is more than just a piece of paper unless you're a chemist from Rochester (and one with no real human consciousness to boot). But to say a photo (B/W, color, whatever) has some sort of independent or inherent "meaning" or "truth" is to be a little more than just a little affected.
Any meaning is created by the viewer of the photo and is heavily dependent on what the viewer brings to the table. Take a Matthew Brady photo. A new photographer fresh from his freshman year intro to photo class sees a shutter speed, an aperture, and a composition judged according to the rule of thirds. A historian looking at the same photo doesn't see the object nature of the photograph itself and looks straight at the referent, trying to glean details about where/when/what and put it in a non-photographic context (unless the making of the photo itself has some historical significance to him...). A descendent of the man pictured in the photo sees his great-great-grandfather Jasper. A re-enactor, like the historian, sees only the referent, but is perhaps focused on a different set of information from the photo--the minutae of his kit and how he looks, and probably establishes a far more personal connection to the referent than a historian would. And, as noted, a chemist or photo-archivist sees paper, emulsion, chemistry, states of degradation, etc.
Point is that a photo is a means of communication, and asking whether b/w or color is more representative of reality is sort of asking like whether a paperback or a hardcover book better represents reality. You can do a lot of things with a photo, you can intend a lot of things for a photo, and ultimately your photo's "meaning" or "truth" is re-determined every time someone looks at it.
Any meaning is created by the viewer of the photo and is heavily dependent on what the viewer brings to the table. Take a Matthew Brady photo. A new photographer fresh from his freshman year intro to photo class sees a shutter speed, an aperture, and a composition judged according to the rule of thirds. A historian looking at the same photo doesn't see the object nature of the photograph itself and looks straight at the referent, trying to glean details about where/when/what and put it in a non-photographic context (unless the making of the photo itself has some historical significance to him...). A descendent of the man pictured in the photo sees his great-great-grandfather Jasper. A re-enactor, like the historian, sees only the referent, but is perhaps focused on a different set of information from the photo--the minutae of his kit and how he looks, and probably establishes a far more personal connection to the referent than a historian would. And, as noted, a chemist or photo-archivist sees paper, emulsion, chemistry, states of degradation, etc.
Point is that a photo is a means of communication, and asking whether b/w or color is more representative of reality is sort of asking like whether a paperback or a hardcover book better represents reality. You can do a lot of things with a photo, you can intend a lot of things for a photo, and ultimately your photo's "meaning" or "truth" is re-determined every time someone looks at it.
andrewteee
Established
Oh no, not another "truth" in photography commentary (see the Landscapist) 😉
I am naturally more drawn to B&W photography than to color. Every time I compare an image in color and B&W the color image looks technicolor to my eyes. It looks less truthful. It may just be how I see the world. Sometimes I believe that I can tweak an image in B&W to better portray the "truth" that I experienced that day, either there in the moment or in my minds eye.
Perhaps because you have a limited palette in B&W (a debatable assumption) you can get closer to the truth of the matter? Closer to its essence. Is that closer to truth?
I am naturally more drawn to B&W photography than to color. Every time I compare an image in color and B&W the color image looks technicolor to my eyes. It looks less truthful. It may just be how I see the world. Sometimes I believe that I can tweak an image in B&W to better portray the "truth" that I experienced that day, either there in the moment or in my minds eye.
Perhaps because you have a limited palette in B&W (a debatable assumption) you can get closer to the truth of the matter? Closer to its essence. Is that closer to truth?
jpmac55
Established
For me, this isn't a zen-like decision. Finding this site and rangefinders opened my eyes to the difference between color and b&w though. The quest for color is a great photograph whereas successful b&w results in a great work of art. My favorite medium was always pen and ink so this conviction isn't a stretch. What surprises me is what took me so long?