You know BD, I'm beginning to get the impression that you really dislike working in color and don't care for anyone else's color work, either. Maybe that's a mistaken impression, but I'm only going by your posts in this thread.
I disagree with your assertion that color photos are more about the color than they are about the subject. Subject IS color; every object in the universe reflects various wavelengths of light, and the human eye can detect a wide range of those wavelengths. Color is an inherent and vital part of EVERY photographic subject, as much as a human subject's hair and clothing. [/IMG]
Not being a completely inflexible person (by about 1/2%, but still...), I have tried your suggestions. Any better? (keep in mind that I'm pretty ham-handed in Photoshop).
Good God, Tony. Do you just make this stuff up for the hell of it? Black and white has to be GRITTY? You consider the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson GRITTY? Karsh's portraits - (vastly overrated ) are GRITTY? Ansel Adams work is GRITTY?! Or how about Weston's work? GRITTY?!?
Yes, OK, then we agree--on this one . Color is an important element, but that doesn't mean that the pic is about color. A crude B&W conversion of it is still a good pic:
With apologies to William Eggleston
The hair is still there, as is the great composition--the shadow, the woman in the background. A pic to be proud of. What is missing is the golden light.
Thanks for the offer, but I'm more of a West Coast guy, so I think I'll wait for the GGB.
black mamba wrote:
That's quite a superior response Tony. I understood exactly what you meant when you used the term " gritty ". The conflict of interpretation does, however, highlight the nuances of semantics that play out in the written and spoken word. I am very surprised, though, that BD hasn't seen the works, of some of the artists he mentions, referred to as " gritty " before.
The question, Tom and Tony, was whether being black and white made something "gritty," not whether particular work of particular artists could be considered "gritty." The quickly Googled quotes aside, I stand by what I said.
Or imagine one of Smith or Salgado's images with a great big yellow sunflower in the middle of it.
I'm not disagreeing with B.D. on this but ... but ... I do think making street, p.j., documentary or whatever that style of humanistic photography you wish to call it, work in color is infinitely more difficult than black and white and it can be done... but many more planets have to come into alignment with both composition and color palette.
I keep working toward that 5 percent and man, it is breathtakingly difficult to try to compose in three dimensions on the fly with subtleties and energy and moments and juxtapositions on multiple layers and to achieve this while not having color work against the composition itself. Actually, I have yet to really do it to my satisfaction. To me at least, I enjoy the chase and even appreciate the failure and lessons learned from trying to do something so few have been able to effectively pull off.
Black and white is too easy ;-))) Lose the crutch B.D. ;-)))
Oh man, now I've done it ... all in good fun ...
... it is breathtakingly difficult to try to compose in three dimensions on the fly with subtleties and energy and moments and juxtapositions on multiple layers and to achieve this while not having color work against the composition itself.
black mamba wrote:
Now wait a minute, BD. Tony simply stated ( to paraphrase his words ) that being " gritty " was an important element of B&W photography. At which time you promptly hit him with your " Good God " remarks and, additionally, you mentioned several photographers....implying that it would be nigh on to blasphemy to consider their works to be gritty.
Tony was able to introduce evidence that some pretty influential sources also felt that the works of some B&W masters, at least one of which you had mentioned, were indeed considered to be gritty. I think Tony's position has been confirmed as appropriate. He is certainly not guilty of making things up.....as you accused him to be.
I personally feel that it was a little petty on your part to imply that his research was less valid than it should be because it was " quickly googled ".
Richard wrote: »
If you don't like color, you're probably really going to hate it when photography goes 3D. Think it's not going to happen? Wanna bet?