Why do you shoot B&W instead of Colour?

[goo0h]

There's a raw, visceral quality to B&W. While I don't hate color, to be honest I tend to find it too distracting, especially when capturing images of people. I've just always felt more connected to B&W. It doesn't have anything to do with rangefinders, other than perhaps rangefinders tend to lend themselves well to photographing people.

 

[GeneW]

It depends on what I'm shooting. Most (not all) nature photography looks better in colour. I think street scenes and people are more interesting in B&W. As already mentioned, B&W is more abstract than colour and B&W film looks different (and better imo) than colour post-processed to B&W.

Each has its place, which is why many film shooters carry two bodies, one with B&W and one with col.

Gene

 

[Xmas]

If you buy a bulk length film is cheap, colour or monochrome.

It is possible to home process colour but more difficult.

A silver bromide print (mono) is timeless, and can be amazing.

Used to do cibachrome (colour prints) the chemicals are more carsionginic...

More fun, 2nd childhood, ...

Noel

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Because I want to.

 

[Crasis]

To take a quote from the movie Apocalypse Now, reformulated for my purposes.

I love the smell of fixer in the morning.

That's the only reason.

 

[Xmas]

Hey Step I left that one out

Noel

 

[Paul Connet]

It depends on what I'm shooting. Most (not all) nature photography looks better in colour. I think street scenes and people are more interesting in B&W. As already mentioned, B&W is more abstract than colour and B&W film looks different (and better imo) than colour post-processed to B&W.

Each has its place, which is why many film shooters carry two bodies, one with B&W and one with col.

Gene

I am pretty much color all the way, except that I will try post-processing color to B&W if it looks like it might be better. I have never really given B&W the effort it requires, (with home processing and such). Any attempts at B&W have been at the mercy of lab processing for me and the results have not been worth the cost. Some pics really do look better in B&W, and the power of the computer has been the enabler for me. The photoshop plug-ins for converting color to B&W give you lots of control over the final output.
(see attached example shot with M6, 35 Summicron in low light)

Regards, Paul C.

 

[MoTR]

Because its raw.
Emotional.
Perfect.
No distractions.

 

[ghost]

i shoot both. :angel:

 

[anaanda]

Why B&W film?

a) Easier to develop at home,
b) Easier to print at home,
c) Consider more 'artistic' and immediately implies you are more serious about photography,
d) Many RF photographers are into 'retro' and B&W film is as retro as it gets,
e) Many uses cameras where they guess exposure - many b&w films allow 2+ stops and can still deliver useful negatives,
f) Many RF/classic camera users have 'heroes' that produced the majority of their work in b&w - so it's understandable that the followers wants to do the same,
g) People likes how b&w images looks - and find colours 'distracting',
h) People like patterns, shadows, human expressions (and prefer b&w film to remove the colour from such scenes and hence just focus on what the subject 'should' be, and,
i) all of the above.

same........

 

[MelanieC]

I don't "see" as well in color as in black and white.

Of course, my eye is pretty limited anyway. Why handicap myself?

I'm getting more interested in color since I've been playing more with my (cough) dSLR though.

 

[telenous]

B&W photography strips a scene to its bare essentials. You have shapes, relations of space, light and the absence of it. It's inconceivable that one may take any of these properties away - can you imagine a scene with shapeless objects? Coloured photography adds a dimension that is strictly superfluous. That you can imagine a scene without colour is proved by the very existence of B&W!

 

[rool]

Coloured photography adds a dimension that is strictly superfluous.

I love a good B&W but...
...you're kidding, right?

 

[matt fury]

Underexposed color shots look far worse than underexposed b&w shots. And I tend to underexpose.

 

[telenous]

I love a good B&W but...
...you're kidding, right?

The argument is about colour being a secondary quality (in the sense that it can be abstracted away). Surely you do not disagree with as much (which is not very much by the way - everybody shoots colour for its aesthetic properties, whether or not it can be abstracted away).

 

[ghost]

superfluous...not quite the right word. maybe we need to pull out a thesaurus.

 

[Nachkebia]

Imagine how effective would be color picture for people who are color blind, and now imagine how effective would be black and white image if our eyes could only see in black and white.

 

[ghost]

matt, shame on you! underexposing bw should be a crime.

 

[rool]

Certainly my English, but not sure I totally understand...
Anyway, I think that color can't always be abstracted. I shoot mainly colour because it's easier for me but I shoot with colour in mind and a lot of my colour shots would look even more crappy than they already are if I abstracted this element...

Sorry if I'm off topic, as I said, not sure I fully understood.

 

[rool]

Imagine how effective would be color picture for people who are color blind, and now imagine how effective would be black and white image if our eyes could only see in black and white.

So b&w is the only way?