My formative photography years were spent learning to shoot, develop and print black and white images. Color was too expensive, too complex to do on my own. I still spend time trying to make conversions from color digital raw files to monochrome to see if I can get close to the feel of the images we used to make on some of the premium papers (loved graded Ilfobrom paper) back in the days of the wet darkroom.
These two images are the same file but imagined in two different ways. I like the black and white better. But I think a propensity for liking one or the other is generational. And even within my generation there were those who were confirmed Kodachrome (color slide) shooters and the contingent of black and white shooters so there's also a divide there.
Curious how it breaks down amongst VSL readers. Anybody want to chime in? Which do you prefer and why?
31 comments:
B&W
I like the B&W beer- I think the subject matter is best suited to B&W. As for the color, I find the elements of color distracting.
Rick
I've exposed more than my share of black and white film over the years, but began shooting color slide film early on. In Miami, where I lived at the beginning of my interest in photography, a local chain called Eagle Army-Navy stores frequently had out-of-date Kodachrome at almost giveaway prices. Kodak processing was cheap in those days also, so I shot a lot of slides. The bulk, by far, of my professional and personal work from 1969 to 2003 was on color transparency film, from 35mm on up to 8x10. After making the transition to digital I found few occasions to convert the color files to black and white.
I respect black and white, but shoot color.
In my heart I’m a globe-trotting, black and white film, Leica-shooting photojournalist in the mold of Elliott Erwitt, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Josef Koudelka. But the bitter truth is that I am an autofocus, SLR, zoom lens, color photographer. That’s what I am, and I just have to deal with it.
Kt,
Black & White.
Texture, detail, composition, middle tones all look better in b&w. The eye is drawn too strongly to the color tiles disregarding more important aspects of the photo.
Jb
Hi Kirk,
In the colour photo I think the small strongly coloured squares draw too much attention, without them I'd probably prefer it because of the subtle colour shifts on the pillars and arches that give some extra life; as it is I prefer the black and white photo. If architecture is the subject I'd prefer the b&w in any case as it makes the shapes stand out better.
Depends on the photo. For the example shown, I’d take color. For the beautiful black and white imagery often appearing in LensWork, B&W.
Black & white for this one.
It's a hard call for this image! I have learned that some images need to be composed differently for B&W vs color. Sometimes by cropping differently. In this case, I think if the view were (not too much) wider angle, so that the color made up a smaller part of the whole, it would be better in color.
I'm older, but for this I prefer the color -- it adds a little something for me.
In my younger years in the film days I thought I was a B&W guy, but once Photoshop came along and I had the same kind of control in color I was used to in B&W I began to shift. Now I probably do somewhat more color and the only place I clearly prefer B&W is in studio portraits.
I am in my 60's and color is the reason that I got into photography. I am definitely a color junkie. But in this case, the little colored squares are distracting, so I prefer the black and white version.
I love colour. But the subtle contrast details in B&W photos always surprises me.
The colour shot is nice, for sure.
But the B&W one is almost 3D and reveals a lot more about the surface texture than the other.
Horses for courses, but I prefer the B&W one.
To me, the colored squares ARE the photo. Without the color, they are lost and the photo is cropped so tightly that the lines and texture of the building are less important. With a looser cropping the colored squares would recede and the B&W would be more interesting.
In other words, color vs B&W is not an absolute, but is very much a function of the subject of the photo.
The color is my preferred choice. The color tiles are the element that makes the photograph work. In the B&W version, the subtlety of the green tiles is lost, rendering them a less significant design detail of the columns.
The colored squares make the image, the values of the squares in BW are not interesting and the out of focus areas are muddy.
Without the redeeming pops of color the image is of no interest.
Just my opinion.
To me, black and white is timeless and imparts a feeling of naturalness (spell check says it's a word, so I'm a stickin' with it). The image could have been made yesterday or 100 years ago. Line, texture and tonality come to the fore. When I got back into photography 20 years ago, after a long hiatus, shooting and printing color images had become relatively easy and producing black and white prints was damn near impossible. Exactly opposite of how it had been when I first started shooting and developing in the 70's. The tools have improved to the point where it's now possible to print fine art black and white prints at home with a wide-range of pigment-ink printers and high-end papers.
Images can be in color on a screen. Photographs are in black and white and printed. Period.
So there.
Now, get off my lawn!
The photo is about shapes and texture. The color is noise (unnecessary information). Hence, B& W is the choice.
But if you cropped it to retain the capitals but leave out most of the rest, the color would be the story — hence color would be best. And that might be a more interesting photo.
Do I want to watch movies or tv in black and white? No. Is my world black and white? No. Can changing a colored object from color to black and white make it "better". I don't think so. I like the color in the world.
Sorry, Kirk! I should have read your post more carefully before launching into a personal philosophical statement re: color or black and white.
As to the question as asked, the black and white rendition is preferable because the colored squares make themselves the subject of the photo, rather than the architectural forms.
The truth is: both are quite nice, each in a distinct - and distinctly separate - way. The color has a certain whimsical charm - possibly having to do with the almost ice-cream-like palette of different small colored squares - that contrasts cleverly and strikingly with the classic simplicity of the rest of the image. But the black and white rendition .... damn, it's got something much more special - almost a je-ne-sais-quoi - which makes it lovely to my eyes. It feels almost timeless - it could be from today or it could be from half a century ago. And though it doesn't have the seeming 'richness' of the colors - it has a subtle something, almost elegance, which I prefer.
Damn. Who knew that two versions of the same image could be so different?
You knew, obviously. (grin) And now I do, too.
Thanks for the exercise, Kirk.
Personal note: I've been shooting with the younger APS-C twin brother of the K-1 - the KP - and it too possesses certain characteristics which really, for want of a better term, enhance the shooting - and image-making - experience. I also suspect though this may be pure photographer's myth, that Pentax engineers have ways of coaxing their sensors - and their often superb glass - into special combinations which appeal to us not because of their razor sharpness or pixel count, but for other harder to quantify and more subjective reasons. What do you think?
Color. Without the color squares, the picture simply does not work for me.
Ken
In this instance, the black and white seems more informative of the forms and tones, the colour is a bit nondescript in comparison.
The fact that the colored squares come out as different greys in the b&w is probably not something I would have noticed without the color version to compare with.
I think it detracts from the b&w version, though. I like to imagine that my unconscious would have noticed, and subtracted points for it, but who knows for sure? I always prefer the b&w of anything, though.
I normally love black and white but in this case I prefer the colour, it's more interesting to me
B&W
We were, are, never worried about letting the shadows in B&W got to black.
Look at the metal grill bars on the right of the image: much better in B&W.
I imagine that if I would have shot this image, it would have been for the coloured tiles.
But I also like the B/W version because it defines the composition more.
So, the answer to your question: I like both.
Thanks for asking.
Henk
B&W. No question.
I think that both are good in their own ways. I don't have a preference.
In my own shooting, I have a strong preference for black and white. It's still surprising to me how many images that work really in black and white are complete messes in color.
However, a few years ago I realized that I was avoiding shooting in color because I found it to be such a challenge. I had a weekly event that I was shooting and the client preferred color. So, I spent a few years working in color trying to wrap my head around the challenges.
These days, I shoot in color by default but I find myself deciding before I take a shot, or as I am looking through the viewfinder, "This one is a black and white."
This comes as a complete surprise to me, but I'm for once not alone. I prefer the one with color, I find it in no way noise, bet rather a surprise that sets it aside from the usual.
But understand, I have always prefered color. Being just a little older than you, I started out shooting B&W tri-X in college. I fooled around with different emulsions, panatomic X just didn't work for me no matter how hard I tried, and the Fuji B&W that sold for just a couple of dollars at a local camera store was my favorite, it look B&W, not too grainy, and budget friendly.
What I later realized was I needed a bigger format to come to grips with it. I tried several TLR's, but they didn't do it, but when I got a Hasselblad, all was well. I shot almost all B&W, and I shot Plus-X. I found it by far the best ever, and I still don't understand why more didn't use it. When it was available, I used Verichrome Pan, which was, I think, the best B&W film ever made.
But all in all, I like coor. I shoot alot of street, and never in B&#. I respect the fact that you present most of your street work in color,avoiding the compulsive need to do a B&W conversion.FEar not color!
Bill Pearce, not the famous one.
The character of the colums are the color tiles. In the rest, color ads nothing. So I would rather use a mixed rendering -something that technology allow us this days. I would render the scene in black and White, and the tiles in color.
Alfonso
I think the B/W image works better. This probably because it was shot with an eye for tone and form, particularly the arches. I think it would work well as a color image if cropped more tightly on the tiles, with brightness and perhaps saturation increased.
I like the B&W ! It seems me more "classic" and more idoneous for this subject. Just my taste and my idea :-)
Post a Comment