is black and white over rated?

bribrius · Jan 13, 2015

KenC said:
I didn't mean to imply that you are trying do that. It just seems that when this discussion comes up there are many who make generalizations that don't get us anywhere. If forum members in general are critiquing images the choice of B&W, color, or some hybrid is one of the factors we can address, and that is best done with regard to a particular image, not as a general pronouncement. I recently posted a partially desaturated color image and was told that it would be better in B&W, which was very good advice in that case.

Guess i read too much into that . Apologies. At the same time i am posting this i have been going through my own images. consider it a self reflection as well. wondering if i myself am over using bw. i think in my own case i am attracted to the simplicity of it. Even if much of my use of it would actually be better in color. color though is HARDER. For me at least. As things dont tend to stand out as well unless you are shooting a busy frame where the color helps separate the elements. It is/ makes it much more difficult to separate it from a "snap shot"

pgriz · Jan 13, 2015

There are images that communicate better in colour. Others in B/W. Form, texture, shape, and abstraction "usually" work better in B/W. Pictorial scenes usually work better with colour. There is no hard and fast rule that I am aware of that dictates one over the other.

Rick58 · Jan 13, 2015

Well said Paul, while 95% of my photography may be B&W, I also take very few sunsets, flower gardens or bright colored bathing suits. There needs to be a purpose for B&W to be affective.

Ysarex · Jan 13, 2015

The photographic fine art world actively and aggressively resisted color for a long time. The first commercially available color technology was released in 1907. The National Geographic was photo-mechanically printing color photos in the magazine before 1920. Costs played a dampening role for a long time but photographers like Elliot Porter who chose to work in color in the 1950s and 60s where actively shut out of the art world. Commercial "artists" like Irving Penn where only allowed to show their B&W work in the "tasteful" world of art. We had humans walking around on the f*ing moon nearly a decade before a color photographer managed to get a photo into a museum!!! I've met photo artists who to this day still think Szarkowski had gone dotty or was playing a mean joke by hanging those first color photos at MOMA in 1976. The sentiment I presented earlier so well expressed by W. Evans held on for a long time and traces of it are still with us.

Joe

SCraig · Jan 13, 2015

It is to me. I gave up B&W televisions back in the early 60's and B&W film back in the late 70's. I see in color, my world is in color. I see no point in changing that so when things got to the point that I could process C-41 in my darkroom I switched to color and have never looked back.

DevC · Jan 13, 2015

Strong Thread Title to Profile Picture

cynicaster · Jan 13, 2015

A well-executed B&W photo is hard to beat, IMO.

It seems that a lot of B&W detractors look at it like "the technology permits recording of vivid color, so willfully gimping the technology to ignore color is just stupid, period, end of discussion."

If it were all about pixels and bit-depth and technology, then yeah. But it's not.

baturn · Jan 13, 2015

What Scott said, Exactly! Except I don't have a darkroom.

Buckster · Jan 13, 2015

B&W is only worthwhile if it's used to make serious and true art.

A good solid example of that would be a black and white toned image of a baby with selective coloring of an enormously giant fake abnormally garish pink flower thing strapped to it's head, ideally, soft-blurred to hell and back, and possibly faux-HDR'd with tone-mapping to within an inch of it's life, which makes it worthwhile as serious art.

All the better if that serious art image of the baby starts out with real film shot using an antique camera using only natural light, by someone who knows that digital sucks. Only someone like that can truly appreciate the awesome value of B&W photography.

runnah · Jan 13, 2015

How 'bout them patriots?

pgriz · Jan 13, 2015

Buckster said:
B&W is only worthwhile if it's used to make serious and true art.

A good solid example of that would be a black and white toned image of a baby with selective coloring of an enormously giant fake abnormally garish pink flower thing strapped to it's head, ideally, soft-blurred to hell and back, and possibly faux-HDR'd with tone-mapping to within an inch of it's life, which makes it worthwhile as serious art.

All the better if that serious art image of the baby starts out with real film shot using an antique camera using only natural light, by someone who knows that digital sucks. Only someone like that can truly appreciate the awesome value of B&W photography.

Buckster, you've not following the rules. Heavy sarcasm is to be rendered in comic sans font with at least one emoticon for every five words. :allteeth:

otherprof · Jan 13, 2015

bribrius said:
pondering this. originally all they had was bw. It bothered them to they extent they would try to color the photos after the fact in many cases. To make them color. Now with the advances we clearly have color now. which back then they would have been thrilled at (considering the extents they went through trying to color them i am guessing). some how we still seem really stuck on making bw photographs though. when it seems many, who shot before color was introduced would have been thrilled to not have to make a bw photo. Are we stuck in the nostalgia aspect? Do we some how think if we make it bw it is now more artful?

Just wondering why painters aren't having this discussion too. Why aren't there people painting portraits or landscapes or street scenes in black and white? ( I'm leaving out abstract impressionism.) I write this because I agree about b&w photos having certain advantages over color photos in their ability to emphasize different aspects of the image. Black and white is not just a limitation on the options for representation; it is a different means of representation. Can we expect a neo-superrealism-retro movement soon?

KenC · Jan 13, 2015

Buckster said:
B&W is only worthwhile if it's used to make serious and true art.

A good solid example of that would be a black and white toned image of a baby with selective coloring of an enormously giant fake abnormally garish pink flower thing strapped to it's head, ideally, soft-blurred to hell and back, and possibly faux-HDR'd with tone-mapping to within an inch of it's life, which makes it worthwhile as serious art.

All the better if that serious art image of the baby starts out with real film shot using an antique camera using only natural light, by someone who knows that digital sucks. Only someone like that can truly appreciate the awesome value of B&W photography.

How about shooting it on a glass plate (coated by the photog) and developing it in a tent?

imagemaker46 · Jan 13, 2015

“When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!” - Ted Grant

limr · Jan 13, 2015

otherprof said:
bribrius said:

pondering this. originally all they had was bw. It bothered them to they extent they would try to color the photos after the fact in many cases. To make them color. Now with the advances we clearly have color now. which back then they would have been thrilled at (considering the extents they went through trying to color them i am guessing). some how we still seem really stuck on making bw photographs though. when it seems many, who shot before color was introduced would have been thrilled to not have to make a bw photo. Are we stuck in the nostalgia aspect? Do we some how think if we make it bw it is now more artful?

Click to expand...

Just wondering why painters aren't having this discussion too. Why aren't there people painting portraits or landscapes or street scenes in black and white? ( I'm leaving out abstract impressionism.) I write this because I agree about b&w photos having certain advantages over color photos in their ability to emphasize different aspects of the image. Black and white is not just a limitation on the options for representation; it is a different means of representation. Can we expect a neo-superrealism-retro movement soon?