There appears to be a bias for B&W... Why?

torags

It seems to me that there is a bias towards the use of B&W in street photography.

If that is true... Why?

Rags

bdcolen

torags wrote:

It seems to me that there is a bias towards the use of B&W in street photography.

If that is true... Why?

Rags

I believe there are two reasons:

The first is that the street photography tradition is so deeply anchored in black and white. The "old masters" - Gary Winogrand, Helen Leavitt, Lee Freidlander - to name a few - shot exclusively, or almost exclusively, in black and white. Certainly, there has been brilliant color street photography; Saul Leiter's recent book and show, Early Color absolutely blows me away. But the combination of the influence of the black and white tradition, and, I believe, the feeling that color both generally lacks the drama of black and white, and - with marked exception, distracts from the story of the image.

That said, I want to make it clear that I appreciate color, shoot color, and am not some old guy who simply thinks that whatever was should be.

Here are a few examples of images that I believe are much stronger in color than in black and white:













They are not all street photography by any means - but then I shoot everything from weddings, to famine, to my cat.

Richard

The pioneers and accepted masters of street photography shot B&W, so there's a natural tendency to follow in their footsteps. Unlike other forms of photography, street (PJ aside) is pretty much exclusively in the realm of fine arts if you want to sell it, and it wasn't until Eggleston that color photography started to gain acceptability with the museum crowd. So there's all this history.

While I'm not sure that I agree that B&W is inherently more dramatic or tells a story better, it does reduce one of the bigger problems on the street: ugly colors. Most commercial areas are filled with advertising signs and store marquees. These are designed to attract attention as much as possible, which is fine if you are the merchant but not so great if you are trying to capture a street scene in which "70% OFF" plays no part. Then there are also the ugly nylon jackets that are all but impossible to avoid. Of course, you still have to deal with ugliness in B&W, but I think it's a more tractable problem.

All that is not to say that you simply have to shoot street in B&W. In the best of cases, color can add a lot, and I sometimes wonder what HCB or Garry Winogrand would have used if they had had access to the technology we take for granted. If you prefer color, that's fine.

dustin32

bdcolen wrote:

I believe there are two reasons:

The first is that the street photography tradition is so deeply anchored in black and white. The "old masters" - Gary Winogrand, Helen Leavitt, Lee Freidlander - to name a few - shot exclusively, or almost exclusively, in black and white. Certainly, there has been brilliant color street photography; Saul Leiter's recent book and show, Early Color absolutely blows me away. But the combination of the influence of the black and white tradition, and, I believe, the feeling that color both generally lacks the drama of black and white, and - with marked exception, distracts from the story of the image.

That said, I want to make it clear that I appreciate color, shoot color, and am not some old guy who simply thinks that whatever was should be.

Here are a few examples of images that I believe are much stronger in color than in black and white:

The third shot from the bottom (outstretched hand one). Can't really put it into words, but it's a very powerful image! Brilliant shots!

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

The pioneers and accepted masters of street photography shot B&W, so there's a natural tendency to follow in their footsteps. Unlike other forms of photography, street (PJ aside) is pretty much exclusively in the realm of fine arts if you want to sell it, and it wasn't until Eggleston that color photography started to gain acceptability with the museum crowd. So there's all this history.

While I'm not sure that I agree that B&W is inherently more dramatic or tells a story better, it does reduce one of the bigger problems on the street: ugly colors. Most commercial areas are filled with advertising signs and store marquees. These are designed to attract attention as much as possible, which is fine if you are the merchant but not so great if you are trying to capture a street scene in which "70% OFF" plays no part. Then there are also the ugly nylon jackets that are all but impossible to avoid. Of course, you still have to deal with ugliness in B&W, but I think it's a more tractable problem.

All that is not to say that you simply have to shoot street in B&W. In the best of cases, color can add a lot, and I sometimes wonder what HCB or Garry Winogrand would have used if they had had access to the technology we take for granted. If you prefer color, that's fine.

----

You make an excellent point with your question about what HCB and Winogrand would be doing today if they had our technology. Saul Leiter, whom I pointed to, is best known for his black and white work. But it turns out he did some early color street work in the 50s that is just spectacular. I've often said that had he lived long enough, Ansell Adams would be the Photoshop guru. I won't be on whether he'd be doing color or black and white photography, but I have no doubt he would have jumped into the digital pool with both feet.

bdcolen

dustin32 wrote:

The third shot from the bottom (outstretched hand one). Can't really put it into words, but it's a very powerful image! Brilliant shots!

Thanks so much.

torags

Great shots BD, all powerful and dramatic... Very impressive work

It seems to me, that B&W displays the city grunge factor more suitably than color. I may be crazy but a happy subject displays better in color IMHO.

The retro aspect of the B&W use is interesting. Ansel Adams et al of landscape photography didn't enjoy that kind of broad retro appeal.