rene
(K=237) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Different media, different aesthetics. Akin to the differences between drawing and colour paintings perhaps.
|
|
|
|
rene
(K=237) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Different media, different aesthetics. Akin to the differences between drawings and colour paintings perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
The B&W process is easiest at the beginning, but it continually grows in the number of challenges as one progesses with the art. The color process is more difficult at the beginning, but like the B&W process, offers numerous challenges as well.
I have not yet been able to put into words the reasons why B&W photography is so appealing to me. Shape, texture, line, emotion, situation, experience, and statement; all are manifested differently, and all are dependent on the type of media used. B&W and color are merely two different types of media.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
"Different media, different aesthetics."
Really? I thought the media was photography. If the aesthetics are different, what are the differences? I have worked for years on both black and white and color. For a long time I thought black and white was the only way to go. You know, abstracted the essence of the image without all the visual clutter of color messing up the message. Then I started photographing in color trying to deal with that problem (or asset) and now can't believe people want to work in black and white. Two years ago, I started a series of photographs of Avon Ladies. I have no doubt that the photographs would have worked really well in black and white. But, you know, there was just something about the orange tropical fish in the background at one place, and the pink doll on the chair at another place etc. etc.
When I went to photograph Old Faithful, there was this wonderful Menonite woman with the white crochetted hair covering, wearing a blue dress and white knee sox, camera to her eye - framed against the black crushed lava viewing area, blue sky and white clouds. Further away were the 2,000 multi-hued spectators ringing the edge of the walkway all watching some underground whale spout for 1-1/2 minutes. How do you make that work in black and white?
I sometimes print Ilfochromes for a photographer that has had a show at the Whitney museum and has had work shown world wide. He doubles everything he shoots in black and white and color. We both agree that for most of his subjects, the color works better. But, his gallery won't touch the color work because "people don't want to buy color." So, he is currently "stuck" with an interesting conundrum -- he really likes color but the gallery won't take it, because collectors don't want it. Different media? Different aesthetics? Or photographic bias?
|
|
|
|
Paul Eggerling-Boeck
(K=503) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
I've always thought it easier to make a snapshot type image more interesting by using black and white film. Having said that, I also think that it's harder to make an outstanding image in black and white because you can't wow your viewers with color. Compositions need to be a lot stronger in black and white to make great images.
|
|
|
|
Kenny Chiu
(K=164) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
It is hard to reproduce the skin tone in color and the light and shadow seems to be more dull and muted by the color based skin tone. There is no color reproduction problem in B&W. The light and shadow seems to be more vivid than that on a color photo. In general, a good photograph is determined by light and composition and has a little to do with the color.
|
|
|
|
Windsor
(K=30) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Are interesting, meaningful, color photographs easier or harder to make than interesting black-and-white photographs? Or, vice versa. Why?
I think "interesting" B&W photographs are easier to make. Since most images people see are in colour, they seem to dismiss them quite quickly. Unless it's a very good or unusual colour photograph, or a colour photograph which is personal to the viewer (family, wedding... whatever) many viewers simply are not interested. B&W being more abstract and much less common seem to have an initial advantage. People seem to spend more time with the image and appear to be more interested. Perhaps because they spend more time with the image it's easier to get them interested.
cheers,
|
|
|
|
Mike Dixon
(K=1387) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Color and b&w photography present different types of challenges to overcome in making good photos, so I suspect which is "harder" will vary with the individual based on their personal strengths and weaknesses. With color, if you see a scene that presents an interesting, meaningful image, the challenge is to get that scene onto film (and paper) in a way that preserves (or enhances) the impact of what you saw. With b&w, you need to disregard to impact of the colors and try to see how the tonal values of the scene relate in order to get a clear vision of how the final, b&w image will work (then record that on film and paper in a way that preserves or enhances the image).
[It's possible that one could just shoot the scene and worry later about how the colors and shadows values do or don't work--I've done my share of that. But then it becomes a question of "Are you luckier at getting good pictures in color or b&w?"]
At this point, I don't feel that one is harder than the other--the hard part is finding and successfully capturing the interesting, meaningful scenes.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Yeah, I hear you - as someone (famous?) once said "I'll take luck over talent any day. It's far more dependable."
I guess I shouldn't have phrased the question as "harder," as there is a larger picture (ooh... I couldn't stand not making the pun)-- which is the bias that I alluded to earlier in which black and white is more often regarded as "art" while color photographs are regarded as reproductions of the physical world. It sort of has the "bastard child" attached to it by galleries, are critics etc. despite the incisive color work by many photographers. An earlier response got to part of issue with the insight that people see the world in color and when it is presented in black and white, they are stopped and forced to view what they are seeing differently and become involved with the photo.
What is that "extra step" that must be taken with a color photograph to get the same kind of attention?
|
|
|
|
Gerry Siegel
(K=927) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
I suspect the distinctions aren't really there. The world is surfeited by color gravure since 1950. Want to be arty, do b and w. Want to be arty and sentimental, add toner. Spielberg flatly rejected color for Schindler because he saw the world of that era in monochrome. It was. When I re-viewed Psycho,another good use of shadows, composition, deep focus, etc.etc. I didn't think' shucks I wish they would remake this in color.' Doesn't add to debate, sorry for that steve.
|
|
|
|
Patricia Lee
(K=336) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
I think they are both challenging and complex in their own ways and I won't add fuel to the fire on either side.
However, I'd like to add one comment pertaining to the perception that B&W is "artsy" (whatever that is) and color is not. Photographing a scene in B&W under the belief that it automatically makes an "artsy" picture is more of a crutch than taking a color picture of a colorful thing simply because you think the thing is beautiful for its color. A friend told me she watched another friend refuse to use color film on their tropical vacation; he claimed the photos would look more artistic because he was using B&W. I SAW their pictures. Believe me, the B&W ones were incredibly BORING because the guy had merely recorded the scene on color-less film, rather than exploiting what scene qualities might have been well translated in B&W. Yet I'm sure he thinks that the mere absence of color elevates his dull snapshots into beautiful images.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Gerry, I hear you talking. Does Ted Turner really need to colorize the Maltese Falcon to make it BETTER? How would film noire work in color? Can it work in color? Should we colorize Weston, Adams, or Strand photos to "improve them"? Now, that's an interesting, nasty little thought given the power of PhotoShop or Picture Publisher.
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
I don't think that B&W has more intrinsic artistic value than colour. But like Patricia, I've often heard comments to the effect that B&W is more 'artsy', usually made by people who don't really know what they are talking about.
Do they have different aesthetics? Yes, and I wish I knew (instinctively, rather than intellectually) what they were. I can't take a decent colour photo to save my life. I envy people who can. I see in B&W, I think in B&W, I work in B&W. My colour vision is fine, and I paint, and I know a lot about the theory of colour, but it doesn't work on film. When B&W film is in the camera, I see scenes differently.
Part of this is about control. I was taking photos tonight, very quickly, but found myself looking through the viewfinder and thinking 'I'll have to burn that shirt down a little'. Colour photography doesn't (yet) allow me that post-shoot control.
Putting colour film in my camera is like B&W film in Patricia's friend's camera: it just doesn't work.
But I see Steve's question was rather more general. 'Interesting, meaningful' photos are much easier for me in B&W. But is that generally the case? No, I don't believe so. Perhaps B&W has more immediate 'impact', due to the abstraction.
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Whether B&W or color results in the better photograph depends on many things, but the two most important are the subject, and what you the photographer want to say about it. I started out many years ago with B&W simply because I could buy outdated film and process it, not having money for color film or processing. I grew to love B&W, but I also learned that color was better for some things. For a long time I used to do all my photography using color reversal film, and when I looked at a slide and decided it would be better in B&W, I would make an internegative, and print it. The advantages of this are too many to discuss here, but I suggest you look at some color and see if some of it wouldn't be more effective in the somewhat "abstract" medium of B&W. You may find the results interesting.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
I think that it is just as some have alluded to already, if you see in black and white, you will make more effective images with b/w film, the same for color.
I feel the advantage (in my eyes anyway) that black and white has over color is the fact that I can manipulate the hell out of black and white and still come up with a "normal" looking image, in other words, the manipulations used to gain a certain look in b/w don't override the visual effect to the viewer. They don't look at the image and say,"wow, how did he/she get that effect?"They just enjoy the image. In color it is all too easy to let the effect override the intent of the image and it becomes nothing more than a "special effect" on paper. I am not saying that this is true in every case, its just something that one should look for in ones own work, of course there are pitfalls for the b/w shooter also.
I think that there is plenty of creativity in the use of color, however there are those who will use the crutch of the color itself to help carry the picture (just like those who claim automatic "artsyness" via black and white will use that), there are guilty parties in both camps. These are tell tell signs for us to examine the motives of the photographer, someone who seems to obsess on equipment, film, etc., etc.; rather than concentrating on the message or vision.---just use the materials that help you to convey your images in the way you see fit, regardless of whether it is black and white film or color. Its fine and good to discuss these things on forums and the like, but when creating don't artificially confine yourself to one or the other. Just as the example above, using black and white even when the subject matter demands color---then shoot some color!!!--What the hell, you only live once.
I personally shoot 99.99% black and white, but I do manage to sneak some color with me just in case. My black and white eyes may never see it in color, but if I do, then perhaps I will be ready for it-- for all I know it may be my best image ever. Hey--even Ansel shot enough color to produce a book out of it!
BTW, I did want to mention that late last night when I was typing some other post responses (very late at night), that there is nothing quite as funny as looking down and seeing the words,expire my cookies.
Mark Lindsey
|
|
|
|
Meng Weng Wong
(K=32) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
|
|
|
|
rene
(K=237) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
May I humbly and respectfully beg to differ with my fellow photographer, mark lindsey. I aver that colour is not an effect much less a special effect but, at least in the colour photographic works that move me, colour in and of itself is often a SUBJECT of the photographs.
I offered my opinion (and it is nothing more than that) that the two media are different with different aesthetics because it requires me to be informed by a different aesthetic framework and sense to shoot in either B+W or Colour. It forces me to see differently depending on the medium. Perhaps it would help us to consider the problems facing painters in their use of colour in their works; how do they select their palette, how do they integrate colour in their works, how colour is used a subject, etc. I have found Josef Iytten's Art of Colour useful. I regret to say that after all my spouting and talking myself blue in the face my phtographs can nowhere be exhibited :( So much for my opinions.
P.S. Perhaps Patricia's friend's B+W pics are boring because he has not understood the aesthetics of B+W.
|
|
|
|
Gerry Siegel
(K=927) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
The salability or at least association of black and white as more objet d'artier than colour says little to me about its intrinsic qualities. I think most agree in their heart. The demonstration comes in many a color shot (or half color shot MWW, that is very spare in color and relies on other elements well known to painters. Other shots rely as much on color to make their statements. And there is lots of mr. inbetweens. Tentative conclusion in my book is that it both are separate tools in the kit, available as a choice and equal challenge. Let's carry the film analogy one step further Steve. Hitchcock in "Vertigo" has so much of the film noir quality (the tower scenes, the roof scene) and also marvelous use of colour ( the restaurant scene, the dream sequences) (Ya gotta catch the restored color wide version ). Another parallel in cinema- which is how the world has learned to see images it just so happens- not from collections of Ansel Adams btw,- is the way great cinematographers who grew up with 1:33 or 1:85 just naturally seemed to exploit the really wide screen look of 'scope. Lessers adapted to it. Arguable that color is a whole different thing, because we have these little receptors in our retina that dogs and birds lack? We also have abilities to conceptualize a Whole based on Minimal visual clues, and that may be even more important in the long run-- if I make my point) Last thought on the subject: I love black and white and I love good color maybe a little less, but I am not sure why. Probably cause most of the history of photography was maturation of the full potential of ye old gray scale,who knows.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
I find it interesting that 99% of the motion pictures released today are in color because the audience is used to seeing motion pictures (and television) entertainment as being color oriented and the studios won't take a chance on the audience being turned off by black and white. It takes a great director (Spielberg) using his reputation to be able to buck the studios and make a black and white feature motion picture.
Yet, one of the finest examples of cinematography that I have ever seen (and it still impresses me) is Paper Moon. Lazlo Kovacs' use of prime lenses (no zoom pushes & pulls to add "activity"); clean, spare framing; and gorgeous fat, fully exposed totally sharp front-to-back focus is just a joy to watch. I often do little visual experiments with color motion pictures that are nicely photographed, like say.. Fargo. I use a monochromatic viewing filter and watch parts of the movie to see if my impression of the movie or its content and effect are changed when I view it in black and white instead of color. Of course, we have Ted Turner for the opposite viewing experiment.
Finally, I find it a real dichotomy that on one hand you have galleries pushing black and white photos over color because their impression is that the audience (buyers) won't support color; and on the other side we have motion picture studios who aren't real interested in black and white releases for the same reasons.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
"May I humbly and respectfully beg to differ with my fellow photographer, mark lindsey. I aver that colour is not an effect much less a special effect but, at least in the colour photographic works that move me, colour in and of itself is often a SUBJECT of the photographs. "
--Rene, you misunderstood my statement. I was not talking about color in general, but more of the flexibility of b/w in development and printing when taking the desired effect to the limit, for example, making a b/w print that is far from the realism of the original scene, but the print still appears to be "normal" to the viewer who has no idea that this is not as it looked in real life. Color on the other hand, can only go so far before the effect begins to take over the image, because most deviations from the "normal" print begin to look unnatural.
As to the Gallery problem, I think that one of the biggest problems is the fact that color permanence is far inferior to the permanence of b/w materials, and I think that makes many collectors nervous, although I have seen plenty of color prints that sell for thousands of dollars, so things seem to be coming along.
I wonder what the permanence of a poloroid transfer is??
Mark Lindsey
|
|
|
|
rene
(K=15) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
Hello Mark, I stand corrected; too eager to make a point I have been remiss in not reading your post closely.
Steve, on the subject of Cinematography, perhaps we may add to the pantheon of directors who made their films recently in B+W, Woody Allen in 'Celebrity', beautifully shot by Sven Nykvist (Ingmar Bergman's old working partner). Are we about to see an onslaught of movies in B+W because now that Spielberg has done it, Allen has done it, it is ARTSY and COOL? I'm afraid that in LALALAND the same silliness that pervades the photography gallery world applies. In a self-deprecatory barb at himself, one of the memorable lines in the Allen's movie: one of those pretentious assholes who shoot in black and white.
|
|
|
|
Stephen Willard
(K=30) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
Perhaps a simple law of economics can provide an answer to why B&W sells as art and color does not. It is called the Law of Supply and Demand. If supply exceeds demand then prices fall. We have seen this with various food supplies such as when we have a bumper crop of tomatoes. The price of tomatoes will plumet.
I can find color photographs every where. No matter where I look there are color photographs. They are in magazines, on TV, on roadside bill boards... Yes, they are very common to our culture.
However, I cannot find real oil paintings every where. I cannot find bronze sculptures every where. This is also true for B&W photographs. Good B&W photography is rare.
Clearly no person who can appreciate real art would pay money for such a common thing as a color photograph. It is too common to be art. Real art is rare.
Now lets consider the converse. Suppose in 1910 an unknown artist walked off the street a hung a color photograph (produce with 1999 technology) in a gallery right next to one of MR. Adams photogrpahs. Whose photograph do you think would create a sensation? What do you think the value of that color photgraph would be? Whose photograph do you think would sell?
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
THAT is a very insightful thought. The ubiquity of color images makes color photos less valuable because people are so used to the color images. You might say they were color saturated. I haven't thought of it in that way. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
THAT is a very insightful thought. The ubiquity of color images makes color photos less valuable because people are so used to the color images. You might say they are color saturated. I haven't thought of it in that way. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
Please pardon the double post. I'm still trying to get used to the new hardware/software bundle that the MIS department just dumped on me. Training by pushing all the buttons.
|
|
|
|
Dan Smith
(K=1407) - Comment Date 1/29/1999
|
One other consideration in this topic is the life expectancy of the "fine print" in both color & B&W. Per Kodak's technical people, "if you want it to last, do it in silver". I might paraphrase and add platinum or carbon to the list to get it to last longer. No museum or gallery that cares for the art wants to sell you something that won't be on the paper in 10 or 20 years. We already have that with most color photography now, why perpetuate it? B&W and color speak a different though similar language. Actual images that have something to say in either are rare at best. With so much of what is passed off as art being printed so that it will fade away, maybe a lot of the 'artists' are actually doing us a favor in using a medium that is not archival. A fine print is a fine print, color or B&W, but the vision that sees the original is a bit different with the addition of color to the equation. If you print the excellent color work of Haas so it will last you have masterpieces worthy of viewing now and for centuries to come. Much of what we call art from the past is in color and we call it art simply because we still have it to look at. In centuries to come we may be surprised at what is referred to as art, simply because the images lasted rather than the fact that they are so good.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 1/29/1999
|
I see color prints all over the net and in most galleries that I visit and the prices are way out of my range. Most of them are very beautiful. The archival stability of Ilfochrome(formally Cibachrome) is very well known. A Christopher Burkett goes for $1500/16x20 and a Kim Weston is also in that range. As far as being, dare I say it,"art", it is a very beautiful medium IMHO. Most people are drawn to color very strongly. Look at what is on the walls of stores and homes. Most of it is in color. To we "decerning" members of the art community (sniff), maybe we don't see it as legitimate but it is none the less bought by the "decerning", "buying" public. If they buy my color inventory great. Whether it lasts for a minute or a thousand years I still think color materials are just as much "art" as any other medium.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
I thought about this one for several days, and in the end...I just don't know....I shoot something like 85 per cent in color...but I love B&W too...I just think fewer subjects really scream B&W..and for me B&W is tougher. I don't think one is better than the other...for some subjects...color is the only way to go, and for others B&W is the answer...I don't really see any difference...other than style and personal vision. Some of my favorite photographers shot/shoot in B&W and some in color...this is one case where I think the two are the opposite sides of the same coin.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
"Now lets consider the converse. Suppose in 1910 an unknown artist walked off the street a hung a color photograph (produce with 1999 technology) in a gallery right next to one of MR. Adams photographs. Whose photograph do you think would create a sensation? What do you think the value of that color photograph would be? Whose photograph do you think would sell? "
If this were the case, then why isn't color king now after it did come on the scene?
I think that you short-change the intelligence of people who lived during this time. A quality image stands on its own, color or black and white. I am sure that initially, the color image would have received more notice, but only for its uniqueness (basing this on the idea that being in color is the only outstanding thing about the image), in the end quality stands alone.
|
|
|
|
Jeff White
(K=154) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
I guess to answer the original question, doesn't that depend on the artist? I had the good fortune to meet Christopher Burkett in '89 when he was an assistant at a workshop, as I remember he was very knowledgeable about black and white but I don't recall seeing any of his B&W work. Eliot Porter I'll bet was a good black and white photographer. I think that is what I like about his work, he composes like the old B&W masters but uses the color medium. Ansel Adams did color photography, mainly because he was paid. We would not see any of his color photographs if it wasn't for the book published after his death. I recently learned from reading a biography on him that it was his expressed wish that those photographs never see the light of day.I think it depends on the artist, some work best in one medium while others in the other and some can move back and forth with equal success.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
Jeff,
Was this the Alinder Bio?
|
|
|
|
Jeff White
(K=154) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hawkins
(K=1508) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
Howard's post speaks my mind. Very well stated.
|
|
|
|
John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
Phew! I think I also agree with Howard. I shoot b&w occasionally, but mostly colour, although I have an equal fondness for both.
One thing that REALLY puzzles me is the lack of images of wildlife in b&w. Animals are every bit as "natural" as landscapes, or people, and many people shoot "arty" landscape and people images in b&w, and to great acclaim. Why do so few photogs shoot wildlife in b&w? There are some technical advantages in shooting wildlife subjects in b&w but few people seem to bother. I find this strange. Can someone tell me if I am missing out on some fine wildlife shooters who are producing stunning work? Or is no-one doing it? If not, why do you think this is? I think it would certainly be "challenging" - but is this another area where "market influences" as defined earlier by Steve and Stephen have dictated that the material is not wanted. Maybe I have just stumbled on the last great untapped b&w market :-) JOHN
|
|
|
|
Kim Critchfield
(K=2) - Comment Date 2/14/1999
|
Color is seeing the movie and Black and White is reading the book. There's certainly a place for both, but I feel I can say more in B&W.
|
|
|
|
John Rountree
(K=135) - Comment Date 2/14/1999
|
Somehow this thread has changed from, is it easier to take color or b&w, to which is "better". To get back to the original question,I think color is more difficult because colors in and of themselves have an impact on the viewer that can often mitigate the image. The psychological impact of color is well documented, just look at any intro level book on successful advertising. Unless you control every element in the photograph you have to take your chances with the effects of the colors. These effects occur and exist independently of the image content. With b&w, white, black, and various shades of gray work together to give the image interest and power, and they can be easily controlled in the darkroom. Because I can control the tonalities in my b&w prints I believe that makes it easier to make a good photograph than to "hope for the best" with a pallette colors that that have may or may not have anything to so with what I want to present.
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=1327) - Comment Date 5/31/1999
|
Because almost everything has color, I shoot mainly Black & White, but I will shoot color when the subject is virtually colorless. It seems only fair.
...and is it true that Ansel Adams was color blind? It seems like such a cheap shot that he could previsualize without the handicap of seeing colors.
I am almost deaf, but nonetheless I compose music. It is terrible, they tell me. So I do not fear becoming blind because I may appreciate my photography in the same way.
|
|
|
|
