Why is most street photography black and white?

[Andreas Timm Photography]

Cause it would just be a snapshot if it was in color.

Ha!!! This is kind of what I put as "Reason 3" in my blog post here: Why is most street photography black and white? - Andreas Timm Photography

So maybe a but radical view... but you just confirmed it... B/W is easier to make a photo look cool!

Cheers,
Andreas

 

[photoguy99]

Bad street, i.e. most of it, is b&w to make it feel more artsy.

Good street is a different thing, and needn't be b&w. But good street is partly good street because of its connection to and respect for tradition, it often is b&w.

 

[sashbar]

As for filthy streets, Trever is right. But sometimes you can have a go.

 

[pgriz]

To me, the issue is basic. Does colour contribute or detract from the subject being presented? It's like portraiture - sometimes the colour provides an additional depth to the image, and sometimes removing it helps convey the mood better. I think that colour in "street" is more difficult to shoot because it can make the picture more "pretty", whereas the photographer may be wanting it to be more "gritty" (as Trever1t noted).

 

[Andreas Timm Photography]

Bad street, i.e. most of it, is b&w to make it feel more artsy.

Hi photoguy99,

yup agree... this is what I said here: Why is most street photography black and white? - Andreas Timm Photography

Cheers and all the best,
Andreas

 

[Andreas Timm Photography]

As for filthy streets, Trever is right. But sometimes you can have a go.

View attachment 91496

LOVE IT!!

Thanks,

Cheers,
Andreas

 

[bribrius]

Cause it would just be a snapshot if it was in color.

too a large extent, yeah. I think people see colors first. you don't want them looking at the color of her jacket to distract, make bw. Want them reading the sign but not distracted by the sign color, make bw. want them to see what is in the guys hand not that red building behind him, make bw. Street photography, not that I know much, seems a fine line from a snapshot as it is subtle somewhat. So if the viewer doesn't see what you do, it is a snapshot. A really nice color street photo people probably call a portrait. But the colors are more to glorify the people, show in a certain character or create a mood. Not so much try to get any subtle message through.
The genres kind of blend with somewhat fuzzy lines at times, cityscape, street, street portrait, abstract. And a lot of people take snapshots and make them bw and call them "street". For a street photog, which I am not one, I don't think shooting in color or bw is a matter of how good they are. I just think that VERY few situations present themselves that would actually work as good in color getting through to the viewer. It would have to be a situation you are trying to get across that would not be detacted or distractable by color. One where the color doesn't distact but actually points the viewer easier to what you want them to see. and how many are them really..

don't know why everyone slams snapshots on here. I actually love snapshots.

 

[bribrius]

It is partly tradition/shooting style and partly an aesthetic preference. A lot of street photographers are inspired by old masters like HCB, who used to shoot b&w in the days when most photography was b&w as was the documentary. HCB said intelligent geometry and composition were almost a physical pleasure to him, and b&w helps that. These old photogs developed their concepts, that have been copied or followed since. Often b&w was a necessity due to a chaotic colour schemes of a street scene. Later many street photogs started to travel to places like Far East or Latin America and exploring the opportunities of colour, and now there are many who shoot in colour only. For some great masters, like Webb, colour is now the main language of a street photo. One can not say street photography is b&w only these days, quite contrary. But the problem of colour is that, though a powerful instrument, it makes it more difficult to shoot street. It is just another dimention that has to be right. Having said that, modern street gives more opportunities for "easy" colour shots, like the one you have posted. The colour scheme of a modern street in US and Europe is vastly different compared to 70-50 years ago. On the other hand modern cameras with fast focus and wide dynamic range allow for more difficult street exposures that work with colours, like edge lit compositions etc.
I love colour and almost never shoot street b&w.

good post. you have done your research it seems. I shouldn't have even posted you all have this covered I agree with all of you. lol.

 

[Andreas Timm Photography]

Cause it would just be a snapshot if it was in color.

too a large extent, yeah. I think people see colors first. you don't want them looking at the color of her jacket to distract, make bw. Want them reading the sign but not distracted by the sign color, make bw. want them to see what is in the guys hand not that red building behind him, make bw. Street photography, not that I know much, seems a fine line from a snapshot as it is subtle somewhat. So if the viewer doesn't see what you do, it is a snapshot. A really nice color street photo people probably call a portrait. But the colors are more to glorify the people, show in a certain character or create a mood. Not so much try to get any subtle message through.
The genres kind of blend with somewhat fuzzy lines at times, cityscape, street, street portrait, abstract. And a lot of people take snapshots and make them bw and call them "street". For a street photog, which I am not one, I don't think shooting in color or bw is a matter of how good they are. I just think that VERY few situations present themselves that would actually work as good in color getting through to the viewer. It would have to be a situation you are trying to get across that would not be detacted or distractable by color. One where the color doesn't distact but actually points the viewer easier to what you want them to see. and how many are them really..

don't know why everyone slams snapshots on here. I actually love snapshots.

Good point of view...

I like snapshots too! And the really good ones I call street photography!

 

[The_Traveler]

Unfortunately, there is always that group of shooters who will shoot meaningless pictures, convert them to BW, beat the crap out of them with software and declare them to be 'street.'

 

[sashbar]

My biggest problem with street photography is that I would love to develop a consistent style, that is recognisable and allows to create a coherent body of work, but I simply can not afford that luxury. Street photography is extremely time consuming, and with full time job and two kids there is simply no time left.
I simply can not afford to be too selective and I just shoot what I see on the street. I can not say "This is an interesting scene, but not what I am after". That is probably one of the reasons many casual street shooters go for B&W. They may claim this is more artsy, it is deeper, creative and blah blah.. but in reality (with some exceptions - dig Pascal Riben for some seriously good b&w street shooting. Then, again, he is not your typical Sunday shooter) it is just easier to have a more or less consistent/coherent B&W body of work, than if you use colour. All backgrounds in B&W all of a sudden start looking the same.
On the other hand street photography is such a broad genre, you can develop some colour sub-genres these days. A wall with people passing by such as the OP image is almost such a sub-genre, just like this:
Walls and People | Photography Forum
One thing is certain - never mix colour street shots with B&W. It does not look good or professional.

 

[pgriz]

Sashbar, I can echo your observations on the time it takes to do this well. When I joined my local photo club, we had an exhibition of "street" by one of our members. The images were, for the most part, B/W and looked like casual snapshots at first glance. The looking at them some more, we would become aware of how the various elements tied in together and made for a compelling coherent whole. After the presentation, there was a lot of interest in how the images were created, with some members opining that the photographer was just really lucky to be in the right place at the right time. He explained that in fact, the images were the result of at least several weeks of work, during which he scouted out the appropriate areas, hung around long enough to be accepted by the local street people, waited for the right weather and light, and then anticipated the "moment" when everything would come together. Plus additional post work to give the image the feeling he had when he took the image.

We've gone on some workshops where he was involved, and it became clear to us why his images were usually quite a bit better than ours. He took the time. Most of us didn't.

 

[sashbar]

Sashbar, I can echo your observations on the time it takes to do this well. When I joined my local photo club, we had an exhibition of "street" by one of our members. The images were, for the most part, B/W and looked like casual snapshots at first glance. The looking at them some more, we would become aware of how the various elements tied in together and made for a compelling coherent whole. After the presentation, there was a lot of interest in how the images were created, with some members opining that the photographer was just really lucky to be in the right place at the right time. He explained that in fact, the images were the result of at least several weeks of work, during which he scouted out the appropriate areas, hung around long enough to be accepted by the local street people, waited for the right weather and light, and then anticipated the "moment" when everything would come together. Plus additional post work to give the image the feeling he had when he took the image.

We've gone on some workshops where he was involved, and it became clear to us why his images were usually quite a bit better than ours. He took the time. Most of us didn't.

That's the difference between the guy who knows what he is doing and the one who is just wandering around with his camera and shooting people left and right hoping that some of it will come up interesting on his 'puter screen.

Luck is a factor in "street" though. It is hard to argue.

I would suggest a simple formula:

L = (T/365 - fcd) x V

Where L - luck, T - time spent on the street, fcd - wrong exposures, V - your vision

But it is like poker, the more you shoot, the less of a factor is luck.

 

[bribrius]

My biggest problem with street photography is that I would love to develop a consistent style, that is recognisable and allows to create a coherent body of work, but I simply can not afford that luxury. Street photography is extremely time consuming, and with full time job and two kids there is simply no time left.
I simply can not afford to be too selective and I just shoot what I see on the street. I can not say "This is an interesting scene, but not what I am after". That is probably one of the reasons many casual street shooters go for B&W. They may claim this is more artsy, it is deeper, creative and blah blah.. but in reality (with some exceptions - dig Pascal Riben for some seriously good b&w street shooting. Then, again, he is not your typical Sunday shooter) it is just easier to have a more or less consistent/coherent B&W body of work, than if you use colour. All backgrounds in B&W all of a sudden start looking the same.
On the other hand street photography is such a broad genre, you can develop some colour sub-genres these days. A wall with people passing by such as the OP image is almost such a sub-genre, just like this:
Walls and People | Photography Forum
One thing is certain - never mix colour street shots with B&W. It does not look good or professional.

i think you do pretty well.
i don't even try to shoot street. i just have a camera with me much of the time. i am at a store i see something, i shoot it. i am out to photograph some city building and see something, i shoot it. Like my coffee shot whatever that was. i was having lunch at a restaurant, i shot it. if i see it and i have a camera i may consider shooting it. I dont normally go out sitting or walking around looking for it. i don't have the time nor the wish to walk around or drive around looking for someone to take a photo of. i couldn't imagine being gone for a day and coming home and telling my wife i didnt come up with a single shot because i didnt see anything "street" worthy. Like there isn't more productive things to be done. Much rather explain i am going shooting for three hours to shoot x thing and have images usable when i get back. The guy with the umbrella in the snow storm, i was out taking storm pics anyway i just happened to see him. Totally accidental. And im not that good at this.

 

[Andreas Timm Photography]

Unfortunately, there is always that group of shooters who will shoot meaningless pictures, convert them to BW, beat the crap out of them with software and declare them to be 'street.'

Thats true! On the other hand: If then people like it... its fine. I guess it is just overall difficult to define what is "good" street photography and what is "bad" street photography. As it is difficult to articulate that for other photography genres.