Why B&W on vintage camera ?

[Dogman]

My feeling about these sorts of pronouncements is that they are the dogmatic beliefs of small-minded individuals (no matter how famous) who believe that their approach to photography is the only true and valid one. If HCB and Frank were unknown nobodies like us, posting these statements on RFF, they'd be shot down immediately instead of being quoted for such Pearls of Wisdom.

Even though it's right?



😉


........................................................

 

[Coldkennels]

Beat me to it, @Dogman. 😅

 

[Godfrey]

I am interested in vintage cameras, especially RF, and I found that there's a common practice for those reviewers to shoot B&W, why ? I eagerly wanted to see how those old lenses perform in full color, but rarely can I find such reviews. Why do most photographers "automatically switch to B&W mode" when shooting with vintage cameras, especially RF ? Colour film has been around for over 100yrs.

I haven't read the whole thread. Note that I have Way More Cameras than I can actually use often! And I have a few digital cameras which are definitely approaching Vintage class, like my Olympus E-1 (now 23 years old and still going strong...).

I personally shot a lot of color film only in the time period when I worked for a photofinishing lab and it didn't cost me much to process the film. Never got into processing chromes or color negs at home: too much fuss. And I like the abstraction of B&W photography over color work. Most of what I always loved was monochrome and that's continued through into the digital capture world. I am much more involved with my photo content and dynamics, long past the stuff of experimenting with how different color films render. (I still have a lot of ancient color neg film which I still use, but I just process it as black and white, and then scan it. My originals are now all digital when I sit down to render photographs...)

So I'd say, musing over the "why?" of what other people do is an interesting diversion, but don't waste too much time on it. It's much more to your benefit to just do what you like to, and see where you can go with it. Post your photos, if you like, and then see how others react ... that's the real fun, to me, once past the camera/lens/shooting fun.

G

On the Beach at Kihei Surfside Resort by Godfrey DiGiorgi, on Flickr

 

[Richard G]

Kodak Ektar 100 on Nickel Elmar 50, uncoated, and likely 1932 like the Leica II it is on. Kodak Ektar is itself a nostalgia, the passing of Kodachrome.

F1000018.jpg by Richard, on Flickr


Same lens. Tri-X


Bugatti and admirers by Richard, on Flickr

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

"I have never taken a colour photograph, nor have I ever felt the urge to do so. This may be due in part to my preference to drawings rather than paintings, my appreciation of line rather than colour. I am, however, convinced that black and whit photography affords wider and more interesting scope than colour, which by its very nature aims to reproduce exactly what is seen by the photgrapher."
- Wilfred Thesiger in Visions of a Nomad

I like color photography, I just don't like my color photography. For exactly this reason—when I take a color photo, I feel like I'm just reproducing the scene in front of me. It leaves nothing to the imagination, and I don't feel like I'm creating an image.

This is just how I think about my own photographic and creative process. I know a lot of other photographers are very creative with color photography, but it's just not how I see the world, or at least not how I'd like to express my vision of it.

And for me, this doesn't just apply to my "vintage" film cameras; most of what I shoot on my iPhone is either black and white from the start, using either a camera app like Argentum, Provoke, or Hipstamatic, or the Noir filter in the stock Apple Camera app. Even if I shoot a digital photo in color, it's usually with the specific intent to convert to black and white later.

 

[valdas]

Even though it's right?



😉


........................................................

How subjective can be right or wrong?

 

[neal3k]

I shoot and process about 200 rolls of film a year, with lots of color and maybe more black and white. Most of it is from vintage cameras, especially Barnacks. I heard once that "shoot color if color is the subject, otherwise shoot black and white." That sums it up for me and answers why I change many of my color film images to B&W in edit.

But, back to your question. Nothing wrong with color with vintage glass and many of my shots are color with 1930s lenses. I've also shot nice color with my 1898 Kodak box camera. This shot was with Kodak Gold 200.

Ford Model T shot with 1898 Kodak Box Camera by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

 

[Dayrell bishop]

Taken on Zeiss super Ikonta , over 30 years ago , kodak gold 200.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

How subjective can be right or wrong?

This question answers itself.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

"I have never taken a colour photograph, nor have I ever felt the urge to do so. This may be due in part to my preference to drawings rather than paintings, my appreciation of line rather than colour. I am, however, convinced that black and whit photography affords wider and more interesting scope than colour, which by its very nature aims to reproduce exactly what is seen by the photgrapher."
- Wilfred Thesiger in Visions of a Nomad

Thesiger (1910-2003) was very much a photographer of his time and place - and a good one.

He appears to have used at most three cameras in his long lifetime. At first a Kodak Brownie, then a 1930s Leica, ultimately a Leica SLR. A few filters, probably a lens hood. Only black-and-white film. Wth only this minimal gear he produced a body of work ranked among the finest done of the 'old' Arabia - that is, initially the pre-oil era Arabia, and after WW2 the slow developments that fora long time did not directly impact on the traditional lifestyles of the Arab tribes.

Some who read this will surely dislike it, but his 'vision' reminds me of some of HCB's early work

An online search will produce many examples of his superb work. As one such site has written, "...Thesiger’s images are at once down-to-earth and strikingly powerful. The black and white, contrasted portraits of the Bedouins and the unforgiving yet mesmerising dunes of the desert offers viewers a moving story of an idyllic past.".

In our increasingly sad digicrap visuals era, such photography is surely an inspiration to all.

He published at least one book of his excellent photography, which I have somewhere in my library at home. Also his autobiography. If only I could keep up to my books...

 

[mconnealy]

I read recently in Visions of a Nomad that he always used a yellow filter. The tonal balance of his images was always excellent even though he was nearly always shooting in bright sun.

 

[farlymac]

A lot of the old masters shot b&w film on their "vintage cameras" (which were actually new to them) because that was the film that was available at the time. So, as they built up a following of admirers, those folks wanted to emulate what their favorite master produced and thus chose to shoot in b&w exclusively. As stated in previous posts to this thread by many others, today there are a myriad of reasons to shoot b&w film, some of which have nothing to do with the aesthetics of the medium, or because someone they admire does so. To me, the biggest reason to shoot any kind of film in older cameras is the look you get from certain lenses more than anything else. What some refer to as a "glow" in old lenses may look more pleasing on b&w than in color. High contrast images look better in b&w. Some color films look somewhat "muddy" in the wrong light no matter what lens/camera combo was used.

PF

 

[CMur12]

Kodachrome was introduced in 1935, and, by the late 1940s, color slide film, from other brands too, had become very popular. So, color film has been popular for a long time.

- Murray

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Kodachrome was introduced in 1935, and, by the late 1940s, color slide film, from other brands too, had become very popular. So, color film has been popular for a long time.

- Murray

True, but until its adoption by a young avant-garde in the Seventies, it was disparaged even by Americans, still taking their cultural cues from Europe, as the domain of advertising, fashion, and amateurs. It was "vulgar" and not "serious". HCB's putdown of Eggleston's color work can well be viewed as the response of a threatened elitist; though both he and Eggleston came from money and privilege, Eggleston's social position was viewed as that of a nouveau-riche American upstart by the European HCB, and color was regarded as a vulgar, trashy medium for, well, vulgar Americans.
That attitude may contain a grain of truth. America, by the Seventies, was certainly not the Europe of moss-covered cobblestones and quaint country villages. It had become a loud, brash, candy-colored tangerine-flake chrome-plated fever dream. We needed Eggleston et al to show us to ourselves.

 

[Anthony Harvey]

Agree absolutely, Bolo. Thesiger was a great photographer and could write beautifully. His account of his crossings of the so called Empty Quarter in the Arabian peninsular is really fascinating. It impressed me greatly, so much so that I can still remember various scenes and incidents he describes some thirty years after reading them. I think it's a bit of reading that goes very well with Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Thesiger also wrote supremely well of various mountain ranges in Asia and about the Marsh Arabs of Iraq.

Many of his photos put me in mind of HCB, as they do for you, especially village scenes from the middle distance and his portraits, particularly in comparison with HCB's photos of India. I seem to remember Thesiger mentioning that on his travels he kept his camera and lenses in a bag made of camel skin!

 

[webouser2]

I have shot color film in a variety of older cameras. It works fine. I think that I shoot a lot more B&W as it is less expensive than color film. And simpler to develop at home.

 

[CMur12]

True, but until its adoption by a young avant-garde in the Seventies, it was disparaged even by Americans, still taking their cultural cues from Europe, as the domain of advertising, fashion, and amateurs. It was "vulgar" and not "serious". HCB's putdown of Eggleston's color work can well be viewed as the response of a threatened elitist; though both he and Eggleston came from money and privilege, Eggleston's social position was viewed as that of a nouveau-riche American upstart by the European HCB, and color was regarded as a vulgar, trashy medium for, well, vulgar Americans.
That attitude may contain a grain of truth. America, by the Seventies, was certainly not the Europe of moss-covered cobblestones and quaint country villages. It had become a loud, brash, candy-colored tangerine-flake chrome-plated fever dream. We needed Eggleston et al to show us to ourselves.

I think you and I are talking about different types of photographers. You are referring to "serious photographers," while I'm referring to the average person with a camera.

In the late 1940s, my mother and a friend went to a summer school in Norway. They documented their visit with an Argus C3 and Anscochrome. They were not wealthy, and they would not have taken color slides if it were unreasonably expensive, as color prints would have been.

My father recorded family events and developments on Kodachrome with a Bolsey RF.

Snapshots for photo albums were usually B&W, because color prints were expensive. Color prints for family photo albums became widespread in the late 1960s and 1970s. Cameras from the 1970s are now considered "vintage."

I don't think these examples were uncommon.

- Murray

 

[Prest_400]

For me it's these twl points that Pan and Chris have written: Cost and Control plus a whole traditional workflow in BW.

For me, it is about cost. I would love to go back to shooting slides like I used to do back in the 1990s but for the cost of one roll of slide film plus developing, I can shoot 3 to 5 rolls of b+w film.

People who want to avoid all this cost and developing / scanning / printing hassle, switch to digital.

OTOH with black and white I am in more complete control.
When I wet print in the darkroom no computer time is required.

Chris

I have actually shifted my film shooting to be Medium format and it has a differentiated look due to its size and FL. I'd actually say that Color augmentates the shallow DoF of for example, the 90mm Fujinon of my 6x9. So up to your point that color "maximizes possibilities".

Interestingly in the Super Ikonta I have been doing more BW, more of a priming and period correct approach; mames your question quite good, as I assigned that camera more for color.

However, an incomplete control of my color workflow and costs do play a part. Oh those times of cheap abundant film!

When shooting BW I am doing often times an excercise to think how that frame will print, while am in the process of pressing the shutter. Anecdotically, after a month long trip to Asia with many rolls of film shot... I had a stronger assessment and appreciation for the BW work than color (processed locally). Although with time, I grew to appreciate and like the color I shot.

 

[Pioneer]

True, but until its adoption by a young avant-garde in the Seventies, it was disparaged even by Americans, still taking their cultural cues from Europe, as the domain of advertising, fashion, and amateurs. It was "vulgar" and not "serious". HCB's putdown of Eggleston's color work can well be viewed as the response of a threatened elitist; though both he and Eggleston came from money and privilege, Eggleston's social position was viewed as that of a nouveau-riche American upstart by the European HCB, and color was regarded as a vulgar, trashy medium for, well, vulgar Americans.
That attitude may contain a grain of truth. America, by the Seventies, was certainly not the Europe of moss-covered cobblestones and quaint country villages. It had become a loud, brash, candy-colored tangerine-flake chrome-plated fever dream. We needed Eggleston et al to show us to ourselves.

I am not sure that is absolutely true Retro. My mother, grandmother, aunts and uncles shot predominantly color photos back 40s, 50s and 60s. They had them developed at the drug store. Not many black & white photos. And they were using old Kodaks and Argus cameras. Even my old Argus C3 from the late 40s has a coated lens. Perhaps my family is odd but I remember a lot of people using color way back then. They weren't shooting hundreds of rolls every year but they took pictures at Christmas, Birthdays and vacations.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I am not sure that is absolutely true Retro. My mother, grandmother, aunts and uncles shot predominantly color photos back 40s, 50s and 60s. They had them developed at the drug store. Not many black & white photos. And they were using old Kodaks and Argus cameras. Even my old Argus C3 from the late 40s has a coated lens. Perhaps my family is odd but I remember a lot of people using color way back then. They weren't shooting hundreds of rolls every year but they took pictures at Christmas, Birthdays and vacations.

Not sure there's any conflict between your point and mine. As I said, "amateur" family snapshots (color or otherwise) were looked upon with disdain by the Arbiters of Taste. Both color photography and vernacular photography (which included family snaps) weren't afforded any critical attention until the Seventies, when Szarkowski blew the doors wide open by exhibiting folks like Eggleston in MOMA.
I was in "art school" as a Photography major in the early Seventies. One could shoot color and learn color processing in classes that had a strictly commercial orientation, but one did not use color for "personal artistic expression", whatever the hell that is. Ansel was God, and the Zone System was The Bible, and that was how you made Art!
Edit: I think this post is also a fair response to post #57 from CMur12. I think the tension that continues to exist between Fine Art photography and vernacular photography is a gold mine for theoreticians, and those photographers who like to stir the pot by creating work that explodes the distinction.