Colour vs B&W question

PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
edited March 18, 2010 in Street and Documentary
I took some St. Paddy's Day photos today on the street. On a day like today where the colour your wearing is key to the reason for celebration and unusual dress, is the colour a necessary element in the photo or are straight B&W photos able to tell this particular story? Is there even a story worth telling here?

In #1, Intuitively I prefer the B&W version. I don't think the colour version is as strong but then the St. Pat's theme is lost. Not sure it really matters that much.

1.
Girlsinwigscolour-0042.jpg

Girlsinwigs-0042.jpg



In #2, I think the colour version is the better choice. Does it then become, as BD is known to say, all about the colour instead of the person?
2.
Greenfro-0062.jpg

GreenfroBW-0062.jpg

Opinions and C&C most welcome. How else will I learn? :dunno
The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
... I'm still peeling potatoes.

patti hinton photography

Comments

  • TonyCooperTonyCooper Registered Users Posts: 2,276 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2010
    I think color's the only way to go with these. They are not people in wigs. They are people in green wigs on St Patrick's Day.
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2010
    Thanks for weighing in Tony. It seems pretty hard to avoid colour on such a specific day and not lose some of the purpose in the photos.
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • thoththoth Registered Users Posts: 1,085 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2010
    I think I prefer with your intuition on these Patti. The first does lose some background from being B&W but I think it's the stronger photo. The second, however, is stronger in color.
    Travis
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2010
    thoth wrote:
    I think I prefer with your intuition on these Patti. The first does lose some background from being B&W but I think it's the stronger photo. The second, however, is stronger in color.

    Thanks for your thoughts Travis. So now my question is, if #2 must depend on it's colour to work, is it less of a photo? I know it is more of a plain old candid portrait than anything street per se.
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • thoththoth Registered Users Posts: 1,085 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2010
    Patti wrote:
    Thanks for your thoughts Travis. So now my question is, if #2 must depend on it's colour to work, is it less of a photo? I know it is more of a plain old candid portrait than anything street per se.
    To me, the B&W version of number two doesn't say much. It's a kid in a wig. But in the color version, it's a kid in a green wig and, though my seasonal expectations may be biasing me, I understand it. And yes, I would agree that it's a candid portrait rather than a 'street' shot. I would not say that it's inferior to the first as they aren't really the same style of shot.

    Number one has ambiguity and that makes it good. It has more ambiguity in the B&W version than the color (again, seasonal biases could be in play here) and so I like it more.
    Travis
  • thoththoth Registered Users Posts: 1,085 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2010
    Patti wrote:
    ... So now my question is, if #2 must depend on it's colour to work, is it less of a photo? ...
    To answer your question, which I clearly didn't (:D), I don't believe that makes it less of a shot. If the shot is about color, which it is in this case, it's bound to work better in color.
    Travis
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2010
    The story's in the color on these. Don't think twice.
    If not now, when?
  • bfjrbfjr Registered Users Posts: 10,980 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2010
    Color !
    Benjamin
    My Galleries
    Flicker
    G+
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,967 moderator
    edited March 18, 2010
    IMO, color works better in both. deal.gif
    My Pics
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2010
    Thanks for responding everyone. I really need to stop second guessing myself. I must say I find it tough to find sufficient edgy street subjects that so many are able to capture in the very large urban settings like NYC. I need to get into Toronto more. :D

    Did anyone think the sign in #1 said 'strobist' not 'strobies'? I can tell I'm in a non-flash forum here. Laughing.gif
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • WillCADWillCAD Registered Users Posts: 722 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2010
    I know my opinion will not be popular in the Street & PJ forum, but I have always thought that most pics work better in color than mono. Both of these photos, in particular, are all about the color, and to me they simply don't work at all in mono.

    The human eye sees in color by default. Removing the color makes the photo an artificial construct, making it more of an artistic expression than a true capture of a real-life subject. While such mods are not a bad thing, as long as they are not denied afterward, they are still modifications. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "nothing should ever be done to a pic after it leaves the camera" purists; I simply acknowledge that shooting in mono is as artifical a modification of an image as Photochoping or artifically blurring the background.

    I've seen the argument that a photo is somehow inferior if it "depends on color" to make its statement, and I don't buy it. Color is an inherent part of how humans perceive the universe, and taking color out of an image makes it an artificial construct that alters one's perception of the subject. If the photo depends on the artificial removal of color - or any other major alteration - to make its statement, to me, that's an inferior photo.
    What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
  • michswissmichswiss Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 2,235 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2010
    Well it certainly is an opinion. Sorry for the thread hijack Patti.
    WillCAD wrote:
    I've seen the argument that a photo is somehow inferior if it "depends on color" to make its statement, and I don't buy it. Color is an inherent part of how humans perceive the universe, and taking color out of an image makes it an artificial construct that alters one's perception of the subject. If the photo depends on the artificial removal of color - or any other major alteration - to make its statement, to me, that's an inferior photo.

    I haven't seen this argument at all. What I have seen are some saying that colour images are "all about the colour", not that they are inferior to B&W. I think it's worth stating and acknowledging that much of our photographic tradition is based on chemical processes whether B&W or colour. Different formulations and processing produced different characteristics resulting in different visual impact and experience. Momma, don't take my Kodachrome away or my Tri-X for that matter.

    Frankly, I don't see how this equation is any different today. The sensors in our fancy cameras capture huge amounts of data, but it's no more an image than before NASA processes data from Hubble of a far away galaxy. Every thing that happens to that data until it appears on a screen or printer is subjective.

    To continue the analogy, the way NASA decides to represent the data as an image is all about how to present findings clearly and beautifully. Representing meaning visually. NASA mainly uses false colour to achieve this. Does that make it wrong? Not in my opinion. Similarly, B&W is a good vehicle to find meaning in human interaction as it can modify the relative importance of other elements in the image depending on what story is being told.

    To Patti's question. In this case, Green Works! :D
  • bdcolenbdcolen Registered Users Posts: 3,804 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2010
    Patti wrote:
    I took some St. Paddy's Day photos today on the street. On a day like today where the colour your wearing is key to the reason for celebration and unusual dress, is the colour a necessary element in the photo or are straight B&W photos able to tell this particular story? Is there even a story worth telling here?

    Yes, in color these photos are definitely about the color - but that's all they really are about. The color versions are amusing St. Patrick's Day photos; the black and white photos are...not quite sure. Take the guy in the green fright wig for example. You note that in color it's about the color, which is absolutely right. But what is it about in black and white? Oh, here's a guy with ear buds and a wig. So? But a blast of green? Funny! And then one might ask - what in God's name compels anyone to make such an ass of themselves in public?

    Color! Definitely color! clap.gifclap.gifclap.gif
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2010
    MakeMeShutter wrote:
    It's like a light bulb just clicked on for me.

    Not sure if I can put this properly into words.
    If when converted to black and white the image speaks to us, then we have something.
    If not we know the color is the subject of the image and not the story behind the image.

    Does that make sense?
    Is that correct?

    I see your point but if a B&W photo (not these ones obviously) speaks to us, it doesn't speak about of that particular day unless there are easily identifiable symbols like shamrocks or text. The scene could be anywhere anytime. Maybe that's fine but if you're trying to convey something related to St. Patrick's Day, including the colour aids that. Can the scene still speak to us even though colour becomes an integral part of the story? Not sure I'm making my point very clearly. headscratch.gif
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • bdcolenbdcolen Registered Users Posts: 3,804 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2010
    MakeMeShutter wrote:
    It's like a light bulb just clicked on for me.

    Not sure if I can put this properly into words.
    If when converted to black and white the image speaks to us, then we have something.
    If not we know the color is the subject of the image and not the story behind the image.

    Does that make sense?
    Is that correct?

    Absolutely!! But...and this is really, really important, and I think being misunderstood by some...there is nothing wrong, invalid, lesser, etc., if an image is about the color. Some of the best photographers working today work in color, and color is their subject.

    Remember, there are some black and white images that are as much about tonality as pure color images are about color. But if you shoot in black and white - or convert to it - there better be something there that will mean something to the viewer, because there's no green fright wig to carry you. rolleyes1.gif
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2010
    Point taken.
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
Sign In or Register to comment.