Why black and white?
bdcolen
Registered Users Posts: 3,804 Major grins
Some of you may be interested in this piece I wrote for the on-line photo magazine Theme.
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
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
0
Comments
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
(And Lensmole, not sure why your pic is posted here without relating it to the article. Generally not considered good form as it may hijack the thread from the OP.)
It is my way of responding to the question without having to use any words and not meant to hijack anyone's thread. I must have made a mistake thinking that the article was about B/W photography when it is really about his own personal creative choices.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
B.D. will agree that ambiguity is good, but responding with a photo to his article leaves me wondering what you are trying to say. And I suspect that no two people viewing it would have the same interpretation, which means the communication has failed.
Noted.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
Google didn't help me, but I'm wondering if you experts know of something. There doesn't seem to be much work done on the subject. Possible links:
* http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5884.00033/abstract "
* http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/Assets/71678.pdf
* http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6071
* http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=color-images-more-memorab
Most of these studies seem to suggest that color photographs are more memorable. That doesn't speak to their perceived credibility, however. These studies also seem to focus on photographs of objects or landscapes. I am wondering if photographs of people change the results. Age would be another interesting factor to look at. Do viewers over 50 have a different experience than a 18 year old?
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Rainbow, thank you.:-)
Lensmole, you we expecting formulae? At discussion about black and white and color is about personal creative choices. You don't like mine? Good for you.
Ryan, studies? Really? You want "studies" of color v black and white? Will those studies then govern your art? If so, it ceases to art, or very creative. Is there a difference between how over-50s and kids think about the question? Of course. Read, or re-read what I wrote; the only kids today who have even heard of, much less are familiar with the work of, the photographers I say influenced me are art students, or have taken a history of photography course. The vast majority of kids today don't even know what photography is - they think it's snapping their burrito with their iPhone, and posting it on Twitter with a "retro look" filter.
Finally, anyone who actually read the piece knows that I specifically said there is a place for color photography.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Ryan,
I am always impressed with your thoughtful and learning-forward contributions and responses in the Dgin forums. Thank-you for that.
OTOH - Mr. Colen's sneering response to your inquires reveal the thinly-veiled condescension expressed in his article when he referred to one of his students as a "bold fool" for asking a question.
Maybe this is an uber-academic "term-of-endearment" not known to us plebeian enthusiasts - so, it could be just me.
Mr. Colen's credentials and experience (apparently longevity confers Mastery) are acknowledged,
however, it is my perception that some of his on-line exchanges - as a designated AIR - are a symptom of the malady of apathy that has infected the Documentary forum.
These are, of course, just my opinions - but, I am prepared (again) to take my 10'er in the Forum Gulag for daring to Question Authority and not worship at the Altar of Orthodoxy - I guess I just don't fit into a world where all "wedding dresses are white"
my camera club's Competition Night. In that competition, there are three
catagories: A color, B color, and black and white. A member who is a
professional photographer or has won three monthly competitions in the
last 12 months must submit in the A color category. B Color and Black
and White are open to all the rest.
Overall, it was quite obvious that the majority of people who submitted
image has no concept of what "Street Photography" in the sense that it
is used in this group. Nor did the three judges.
In fact, the shot that beat out my color photo for first place was a
30 second exposure taken at night from a bridge showing light lines of
vehicle headlights! It was a great photograph, but about as much
"Street" as an osprey in flight over a street.
One of the judges was unavoidablely detained, and a photo-journalist sat in
for him to make comments on the images. The photo-journalist
was not part of the judging trio, though. (He snorted a lot when the
scores were announced)
There were more color shots including the A and B groups than there
were black and white shots by more than two to one. Many of the color
shots would have been better rendered in black and white in my opinion.
All this to say that what is approved of here, in this group, is not what
the general photographic community thinks of as "Street".
BD, incidently, would have had a mild fit had he been there that night.
Bums and the homeless were frequent subjects both in color and in b&w.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
Well, we've had the B&W v color argument over and over. I think the best observation came from seastack, who succinctly said, color is harder. The great photographers of the first half of the 20th century didn't have much choice--color sucked and was a huge hassle. Technology has made us luckier, so it becomes an aesthetic decision.
I agree with most of what BD had to say in his article, but the old saw “When you shoot a person in color, you see their clothes; when you shoot them in black and white, you see their souls" is catchy but utter nonsense, IMO. It makes me crazy whenever I read it. Ever see Annie Leibovitz's portrait of the Bush inner circle in Vanity Fair?
Would it have worked better in B&W? Why? It ain't broke.
OK, so that's just one example, but I'll repeat a point I have made before. Consider the history of art. The greatest portrait painters--Rafael, Rembrandt, Leonardo, Van Dyck, Velázquez, etc.--all could have painted in B&W but chose color. There was a reason for that, I suspect. Of course, as painters and not photographers, they had complete control of the palette, so color didn't have to be unruly, as it often is outside the studio. But don't give me any bullshit that soul was lacking in their work, or that somehow it would have been better in B&W.
and the color version
In the color version my eye takes in the color of the robes, the blue sky, etc which is exactly what I wasn't trying to capture. The B/W version draws my eye more to the runners faces and emotions. I hate to say it Richard but IMHO the B/W version gives you a glimpse into their souls.
When I shoot birds I'm going to go with color (birds ain't got no soul) but when I shoot people I'm going with B&W.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Richard - howdy! Yes, the Leibovitz would be better in black and white. First off, this really is a 'black and white' image, with som splotches of color, and what color there is is quite distracting. That damn red tie on Bush? It's what immediately grabs the eye. But the I am no fan of Leibovitz's commercial/editorial work. In fact, it took seeing that gigantic black and white book of her personal work to convince me that she really is quite special.
Hi, Tony - it sounds like the contest drew urban landscape photography, rather than "street photography," and it doesn't surprise me that there were a lot of "violations" of the "no bums rule," because most people seem to think that street photography men's photos of "bums." Also, given that shooting "bum" is like shooting he proverbial barreled fish, that's what I'd expect to see.;-)
And Eric, yes, your comments are quite daring and insightful, and quite clearly mark you as a trend-setting rebel. l:bigbs
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Yes. I would like to see some studies about the perceived effectiveness of black and white versus color photographs in various populations given various intentions. Let me try to explain why. Unlocking how our brains process and recall images is perhaps not interesting to everyone. I gathered it would be interesting to psychologists at least. Such information could give photographers additional insight in to how their work is actually processed by the viewer. This could then inform their future creative decisions. Not everything can be "studied" yet. We still lack a great deal of understanding about how our world works. It is in the trying that we improve. There is much room for improvement.
Calculating the qualities of general populations are often effective at removing preconceived notions. On occasion our self-measurements tell us something we weren't capable of perceiving before hand. This leads to an important question: Is our reaction to art a physical, measurable reaction? If so, why would our ability to create it also not be measurable? Given a sufficiently advanced ability to understand and recreate the physical processes involved, would it be possible for a machine to replace the photographer?
Imagine what Apple will be turning out in 500 years. Hold your iPhone 3000s randomly out in front of you as you walk down the street. Its on-board neocortex computer created by Intel waits until its AI "feels" it has found the decisive moment. Snap. Automatic upload to Instagram, including retro 2013 filter. Your friends' phones review the image automatically using their on-board processors. The phones decide for themselves if it is worthy of a "like." The owner no longer need even click on it. Is it still art if machines are creating art to be perceived by other machines? I realize this is perhaps a bit silly, I'm just having some fun with the idea. If creativity is a physical process then some day its mechanical properties might be understood, then duplicated. Those future iPhone owners might look back at this conversation and think: "How quaint. They were still shooting with non-holographic sensors then!"
Would reading such studies govern the decisions I make when engaging in some future creative venture? Without a doubt. Everything I read or experience affects my perception of the world in one way or another. It is the internalization, conceptualization, and reflection of that perception I call art. I'm no philosopher, however, so I'm not sure what "school" I am a part of. I seem to recall this is the fourth time this conversation has popped up on this forum. I usually offer a similar self-effacing statement each time: "Maybe I am just a bad artist."
Thank you Earache. Perhaps it is best that I am not BD's student. I perceive that I would absolutely fail his course. That wouldn't stop me from taking it, however. I'm entitled to my opinion as BD is entitled to his. I hope that we can rationally discuss ideas without resorting to name calling at all. The world would be a dull and dreary place if we always agreed. Quite frankly, I very much enjoy a contrary point of view. By hearing an alternate viewpoint I am able to re-examine my position and ask myself "Wait, do I _really_ think that?" I have found these types of conversations to be some of the most meaningful ones to engage in. I *like* being challenged.
I would hope I'm mature enough to admit that I may be the fool. And if I am, then I accept that it is okay to be one. Only by accepting such a position could I hope to change my point of view. If I wasn't willing to change, then I wouldn't have so much as clicked on this forum post to begin with.
I enjoy both versions as well. Great stuff Harry. It is a great photograph, color or b+w.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Well, different strokes I guess. For me, the red power tie is part of the story here, one that would be lost in B&W. The only other red tie is worn by Andrew Card, W's Chief of Staff, and it's noticeably (significantly?) more subdued. I chose this example not because I think it's a great color shot as such, but because when I saw an original print of it at a Leibovitz show, I was struck by how much arrogance and power the people projected. Color did not diminish that impression at all.
Nevertheless, I agree that color can be a distraction and, in fact, usually is on the street, where it's often jarring. But it's image specific; rules about clothes and souls are far too simplistic to be taken seriously.
Oh, finally, in belated response to the comments about my reference in the piece to a student as a fool. Of course I never would call a student in a class a fool, or anything of the sort. And given than my MIT course - filled with students all of whom, even the most foolish, are brighter than I - most recently had a student rating of 6.5 out of 7, and I had a rating as an instructor of 6.7 out of 7, my guess is that I'm doing something right. ;-)
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
JPEG compression came about after studying how the visual system interprets visual data and what data can be thrown away and still not fool the eye. (To me, JPG mostly succeeds at that goal.) MP3 compression came about after studying the auditory system and knowing what parts of a complex audio system can be thrown away and not affect the sound quality. (To me, it fails at what it tries to do. Sure it saves file space, but it drastically impacts the sound). And MP4 compression came about as a means of compressing video images rather than still images in such a manner as to save space but not be visually different. (As with JPG, I think MP4 mostly succeeds at its goal too).
So these subjective things, does the image look the same, does the music sound the same, does the video look the same, CAN be studied. And if you want to know if B&W is less distracting in some manner that COULD be studied. Perhaps not precisely, but studied to some degree sure.
Still its been an interesting read. I actually thought about my own racing photography from a few years back. While I dabbled a lot in B&W conversions I realized that in many cases the color versions are better. The green of the grass, the colors in the car bodies and the paint graphics, the color in helmets, etc. Color is part of the soul of a race car image.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Thank-you Ryan for taking the time to respond to all the contributors to this thread - as Richard noted it was probably time for the folks to mix-it-up a little bit.
Your viewpoints are detailed, outcome oriented, and gently expressed in your (self-described) self-effacing manner - probably a positive example for us curmudgeons.
I agree that viewpoint/challenge/debate/discussion are all desirable modes for learning and so, change - my point was, it can (should?) be done without in-civility and useless, rhetorical, non-responses.
To me, your focused, better technique illustrates my point.
Allowing for differences in communication styles, none of us must accept (I understand your willingness to do so as a function of learning modes) the label of Fool or (now for me) BS'er to contribute/benefit from these discussions.
I think it is a shame that such is passed-off as Authoritative and "Artistic" is this forum, however, I do recognize this is probably a classic example of a "personality conflict" - likely more unresolvable than Color vs. B&W... so, I yield and return to my cell.
Actually, the best thing about this thread is the opportunity to see Harry's unparallelled B&W image of the Masaai - WOW, again.
Not only could they have painted in monochrome, Richard, they actually did, occasionally. One term for the technique is Grisaille.
I first came across the term, grisaille, at the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art , which displays several grisailles of C M Russell.
"Color kills shape", as J Maisel used to say.
Interesting discussion in this thread.
I do find I agree with the thread of BD's article, concerning monochrome versus color photography, which is well worth reflecting on. Maybe because I used to buy my Tri-X in 100 foot rolls too...
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Well, yeah, but grisaille is little more than a footnote in the history of painting. A renaissance court painter would have quickly lost his job if he presented one to his patron. Mostly, it was an academic exercise for students. Interestingly, if you read the Wiki link and think about it, sometimes it was actually used much in the same way Dan Margulis uses B&W in his picture perfect workflow.
That's not to say that monochrome has no place in painting. Picasso's Guernica is one of the most powerful images ever; it's pure greyscale and part of its impact comes from that. Still, most of the photorealist painters working today do color, not monochrome.
Just to be clear: I love B&W and use it all the time. I only object to giving some transcendental value to it. Historically, it was simply a necessity, as was the use of prime lenses as opposed to zooms, which weren't very good until relatively recently. Sometimes it's the right choice, but it's just ridiculous to be dismissive about color. I know full well that BD is not dismissive about color, but the clothes/soul quote he cited is, and that's what set me off here.
And therefore it belongs in images of auto racing.:D
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I appreciate the wealth of knowledge that you have gain over the years and your ability to cut through the crap. No, I was not looking for a formula but rather some consistency. I do understand that cameras are simply designed to capture light. However, when you add colored filters in the process you are also adding noise to the image and less dynamic range...but now with the ability to convert your image back to a B/W with all those fancy hue adjustments, which you would not be able to do without the colored filters. Now, if you were still shooting your Tri X you would have had to add the filters to your lens beforehand, depending on your own creative choices. This is a totally different way of shooting and thinking when it comes to making B/W images. The cameras processing software that produces color images has more to do with the quality than the sensor, but the key here is processing software in the camera. B.D you are still allowing your students to use processing software and when you convert images "you" are using processing software. Do you consider it B/W photography when you and your students convert images using in camera processing software? I just thought I would mention some of the liabilities.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Why not three different cameras for creative choices one for color,monochrome and just for fun infrared.
Personally I would rather choke myself to death than ever process a color picture especially in lightroom. Color has never looked real to me. I have tried it but I actually feel kind of sick just looking at it.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
You're not going to get me to bite, Mole
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Oh and no offense to Harry but I prefer the color version... shrug.. I think it a spectacular shot and I honestly went right to the eyes on both of them. I'd wager that A well printed version would be sublime and somewhat breathtaking. 2 cents..
One of these days I'll have to figure out what my "style" is..
Clarity of what? When to use black and white and when to use color?
It's simple. With a DSLR, when the image opens, it will be in color unless you have
your camera set to black and white.
Step 1: You look at the image.
Step 2: You process it in color.
Step 3: You think it might look more interesting in black and white,
so you process it in black and white.
Step 4. You decide which one you like. The digital workflow allows you
to save both.
Forget "soul" and all that stuff. Go with the one you like.
There is a step 5: You link to it here and then read the comments
about how people would like to see the color version if you posted
it in black and white, or they would like to see the black and white
version if you posted it in color.
Posting a link to both is wimpy.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
First "rule," superduckz - there are no "rules."
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
thanks.
One of these days I'll have to figure out what my "style" is..
No offense taken Steve. Its OK that you like the color version better. You're wrong of course because you don't agree with me.
There never will be clarity on the B&W v. color discussion. Its in the eye of the individual photographer. The picture I posted was a real moment for me. My buddy, Andy, and I laid down on the course and shot while the Maasai warriors raced around and over us, covering us with dust and dirt (that's one of the reasons for their smiles). I recall that moment often and when I recall it, its in black and white.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"