Board index Photography Artistic Questions Is black & white more expressive than color?

Artistic Questions

Is black & white more expressive than color?

Discuss style and artistic aspects of photography
simplephotography
 
Posts: 491


Post Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:46 pm


Color has its purpose when shooting portraits or headshots, but I agree that in e.g. street photography, colors often distract. I do most of my street photography in b&w, but sometimes you can't possibly do without color.

Image


And sometimes you can't do without color, like here:

Image

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:59 pm


For me it's really a simple question on which way i go. Is the colour part of the reason for the shot in the first place. First and foremost photogrpahy is a study of form and i'll use (or at least try to) what serves the image best

jessica_me
 
Posts: 4


Post Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:15 pm


Black and white looks classic.....

Jessica
http://www.blogestates.com/blog/jacob

simplephotography
 
Posts: 491


Post Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:47 pm


jessica_me wrote:Black and white looks classic.....

Jessica
http://www.blogestates.com/blog/jacob


Really?

Image

gilp
 
Posts: 180


Post Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:25 pm


This is a similar debate as Painters would have when discussing OIL vs ACRYLIC... in the end, it's all about delivering an impactive visual message.


what I do find sad about Digital B&W is that it's because an easy exit for shots which are less than perfect as I often read: "my iso was high so the image is noisy...I'll convert it to B&W" . To me that signifies that there was never an actual intent in creating a B&W, and that is not right.

andrys
 
Posts: 2701


Post Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:57 am


gilp wrote:what I do find sad about Digital B&W is that it's because an easy exit for shots which are less than perfect as I often read: "my iso was high so the image is noisy...I'll convert it to B&W" . To me that signifies that there was never an actual intent in creating a B&W, and that is not right.


Wow, nothing like making limitations for others.

B&W is about form and composition, for the most part, with tonal range
important as well. If a photograph works that way, then it's "right," the
notion of purity of intention notwithstanding.

It's like telling a painter, before he exhibits, no, you can't go back and
change those colors or those strokes -- it wasn't your original intention, etc.

Many see a scene FOR its form, or don't notice the colors, but that's how
the camera sees.

Taking in color, in digital cameras, tends to be wiser because you gather
more channel information, with more to work with when you later mix the
tones of your final b&w.

jellophoto
 
Posts: 192


Post Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:31 am


I tend to agree Andrys. It does not matter how an image came to be. It could have been planned, or be a happy accident. Either way so long as the image works that is what matters.

Many of my own own favourite monochrome images started out as less than perfect colour images. That doesn't make them 'not right'.

Experimentation is a good thing, it is how new techniques and ideas develop.

Regards John

simplephotography
 
Posts: 491


Post Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:19 am


jellophoto wrote:I tend to agree Andrys. It does not matter how an image came to be. It could have been planned, or be a happy accident. Either way so long as the image works that is what matters.

Many of my own own favourite monochrome images started out as less than perfect colour images. That doesn't make them 'not right'.

Experimentation is a good thing, it is how new techniques and ideas develop.

Regards John


How true...
If everyone stuck perfectly to existing photographic rules, nothing would develop anymore. It would become static art. New revolutionary photography will become widespread because of people who step out of boundaries to experiment, sometimes maybe not even knowing what their goal exactly is.

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:21 pm


There were times when colour film was simply not an option for certain conditions as it was far too slow, this is especially true on the street. It's true that street photography on the hole has never really embraced colour for well documented reasons, much of the art world still shuns it.


The Photographers Eye by John Szarkowski does not contain a single colour photograph, then nor did the exhibition that the book was based upon. Colour is not even spoken of, yet the exhibition & book spans almost 150 years of photography. Colour was around in 64 but was not yet being taken seriously, it's doubtful Szarkowski ever did.

Robert Adams book for Aperture : Beauty in photography, has recently been reprinted. In the new forward he makes this statement

"Amongst the biggest shifts in photography since this book was written has been the move away from black and white to colour. Because there are no examples of colour or mention of its use readers have wondered whether i find it unimportant. To the contrary, any method by which form can effectively be recorded and meaning affirmed seems to me important, and if i were to write the book over i would try to include successful examples. If as a personal matter i have chosen not to make colour pictures, it is because i have remembered how hard it is to write good free verse, with which colour photography has some similarities, both being close to what occurs naturally"

Some feel (this may include Adams) that colour is too close to the reality, that it's not abstract enough from the actual to be different. That they are closer to photo records then art. We have to deal with reality every day, why see it in a photograph? It's an old question and each of us will have our own answer to it


I feel that What we chose should best represent the form meaning and feeling that led us to make the image.

By the way a simple tip for a visual aid for black and white is this. If you shoot Raw you can still pick black and white in the camera to view how the scene looks in black and white you can revert to colour later in lightroom if you so wish. The final output of an image can determine how it's shot. By that i mean that i've often got home and thought if that was going to remain colour i may have shot in a different way, i don't like getting home and then figuring out what i'm going do. By the time i've hit the shutter the shots not accidental

simplephotography
 
Posts: 491


Post Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:30 pm


I don't exactly determine if an image remains in color or not. I do have an idea, but if on the PC I see that b&w would make the image stronger, then I convert it. if not, I leave it in color. Some things are clear, like the example of the orange and green dogs I posted in the beginning of this page.

madlights
 
Posts: 914


Post Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:04 pm


simplephotography wrote:I don't exactly determine if an image remains in color or not. I do have an idea, but if on the PC I see that b&w would make the image stronger, then I convert it. if not, I leave it in color. Some things are clear, like the example of the orange and green dogs I posted in the beginning of this page.
Yep...some things are stronger one way...some another. My digicam lets me shoot RAW in B&W on the EVF which lets me see contrasts better (but actually saves the image in color), and in a way lets me "shoot" in B&W with the advantages of later being able to add filtering, or actually letting the color image stand. So in effect it's the opposite of some digitals I think (I know it's the opposite of my 10d which doesn't shoot in B&W)...I think it all depends on the image as you've said. You just see some that look better one way or another, and sometimes even equally well but give a different look or mood...just MHO

genghis45
 
Posts: 5154


Post Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:21 am


Here's an example which I posted at the Show & Tell which elicited a couple of opinions that this particular image would have more impact as a black and white. I knew at the time of the shooting however, that the existing scene and lighting conditions, would have rendered this picture in black and white too midtone heavy. So midtone dominant in fact, that it would look more nondescript than in color.

Image

jimcritchley
 
Posts: 324


Post Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:49 pm


Surely it depends on what you are trying to portray and the light that you are using. For example, the examples I have given below, my converted B&W photo of the street in Freetown doesn't work as the image was taken because of the orange light available which I feel complements the scene. However, the portrait shot of the man in B&W seems to bring out his character more somehow, maybe the lack of colour means you can focus more on the topic?

ImageImage

ImageImage

pikkabbu
 
Posts: 13


Post Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:17 pm


(1st of all with permission: Sheila, love this photo of yours, i'll go the your gallery when I send this reply).


I'm a black and white photographer, and when I take a one in clour (or process), it's really an exception.

I suppose they are 3 different reasons for this

- I'm colour blind (partial) and confuse colours in different degrees and situations.

- I had my own personal labo at home (very pro labo for a home one) during waow years ! And of course, it was a B&W one. Practice is a grade.

- I feel very attracted by composisition, lines, graphics, and B&W shows them more.

I'm not sure B&W to be more dramatic than colour, I know a lot of dramatic colours photos, but I have a different feeling with B&W, I ear them better.

Strange, isn't it ?

pik

steveengland
 
Posts: 173


Post Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:19 am


In my own mind this image would have only worked in B and W



Image

http://k41.pbase.com/o6/84/495284/1/81548226.9cEOgWO4.spaingun1752.jpg

PreviousNext

Board index Photography Artistic Questions Is black & white more expressive than color?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests