Portrait of man reading green news

[lovelife65]

That is interesting. Europe and North America tend to walk in tandem on things like this, but certainly it doesn't seem to be the case here. Maybe one is just catching up with the other.

I'm exhibiting in September with 7 other photographers under the auspices of Society of Scottish Landscape Photographers. Much to everyone else's horror and my delight, it was stipulated that everything in the exhibition had to be in B & W.

B&W works for your photography Donald. It adds to the emotional impact better than if it were in color. And it is fantastic.

[lovelife65]

Sharon - Some members will, especially if they are active in photo competitions and / or sell their work, especially in the fine art market. The other trend that was confirmed to me late last year is that the papers of choice in competitions seem to be the cotton rag papers and to some extent the baryta papers. The coated papers seem to be out of fashion as well.

Because photography is a creative endeavour, there will be trends and fashions, just like there are in architecture and in the fashion industry. There will be photographers at both ends of these trends; the leading edge will be criticized because the masses don't understand what they are doing and the trailing edge will be criticized because they are being recognized as working in genres that are no longer "in".

The Pictorialists (Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Steichen were leading photographers of that style) were the leading style of photography from the 1880s through to the 1920s when they were displaced by the Modernists (Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, etc.). A lot of photographers, especially B&W ones were heavily influenced by their work. By the mid-1970's post-Modernism was in fashion (Diane Arbus, Garry Winogrand, for example) and they have a very strong influence on today's street photographers. Photographers are exploring all these styles; both consciously and subconsciously.

So while not everyone may care, Antonio's work is definitely at a level where he might care. Even for those who are bucking the trend and trying to explore different paths, it is still interesting to understand where the photography world is heading.

I can understand what you are saying, and agree that his photography is that level of quality. I made an assumption that was probably false. Yet, I do believe there are still people drawn to B&W (myself included) and personally prefer it for this image. However, I'm just an amateur. What I think and prefer is pretty irrelevant.

[Donald]

What I think and prefer is pretty irrelevant.

No, because you, me and the great general public out there are the people we want to view our images. It's just that, according to Manfred's assessment, more of them think that colour is the way it should be and we are in the minority.

But never fear, Sharon. We shall man the defences and fight our corner until the last grey pixel falls and floats away in a river of our blood!!

[Manfred M]

I can understand what you are saying, and agree that his photography is that level of quality. I made an assumption that was probably false. Yet, I do believe there are still people drawn to B&W (myself included) and personally prefer it for this image. However, I'm just an amateur. What I think and prefer is pretty irrelevant.

Sharon - don't get me wrong. I teach B&W photography from capture to print at some of the photo clubs in town.

I have three objections to what I perceive as weaknesses in the way many people approach B&W:

1. B&W versus colour should be a deliberate decision made at the time the shot is taken, not when someone gets back to processing the image and looks at which version they like better. The choice of B&W or colour should be a key consideration when shooting. I will often frame an image differently when shooting outdoors, based on the colours in the scene and the tonal difference in the scene.

One question is dislike very much is asking an experienced photographer is along the lines of "can you turn that into a B&W?". I don't have a problem with people liking B&W as a photographic genre, but I do have an issue when people cannot provide a valid reason why their suggestion would end up with a stronger image than the one that the photographer has shown.

2. There is a very limited tonal range in a B&W image versus a colour one. If we end up with a jpeg image, there are only 256 different tones from pure black to pure white, whereas we can capture up to 16.8 million different colours. While not required in every image, most should show a full tonal range from 0 right through to 255. Exposure, tonal range and contrast are effectively the only variables that a photographer has to work with in a B&W image.

3. Computer screens do not do justice to B&W images. LCD screens don't do deep blacks particularly well and the white is just plain white. Until just a few years ago, ink jet printers could not do blacks as well as traditional silver papers, so there was no really good way to get a top quality B&W image in the digital world.

I am not a great fan of B&W digital images as viewed on a computer screen; many of the nuances in the shot are lost in the downsizing process. Give me a well done B&W digital print, done on a fine art paper and properly nuanced in post-processing and you will have a work you can be proud of.

[Manfred M]

No, because you, me and the great general public out there are the people we want to view our images. It's just that, according to Manfred's assessment, more of them think that colour is the way it should be and we are in the minority.

But never fear, Sharon. We shall man the defences and fight our corner until the last grey pixel falls and floats away in a river of our blood!!

I'm not sure if the "problem" starts with the general public or the curators that define the direction of the field. If you see the sophisticated and highly educated photography curators of great institutions like the National Gallery, the Tate or MoMA move in lock-step in a direction, the lesser lights at smaller galleries are sure to fall into line.

[Donald]

1. B&W versus colour should be a deliberate decision made at the time the shot is taken, not when someone gets back to processing the image and looks at which version they like better. The choice of B&W or colour should be a key consideration when shooting. I will often frame an image differently when shooting outdoors, based on the colours in the scene and the tonal difference in the scene.

Amen to that!

Which is why I reject all requests to "just show me what it would be like in colour". It wasn't shot to be shown in colour so therefore it is not and never will be seen as a colour image.

[Manfred M]

Amen to that!

Which is why I reject all requests to "just show me what it would be like in colour". It wasn't shot to be shown in colour so therefore it is not and never will be seen as a colour image.

And the opposite of that is true too. If it was shot to show colour it will (likely) never be seen as a B&W.

The only reason I hesitate to be absolute here is that there two occasions that I remember going back later and going the other way and liking it better (I seem to recall in one case it was a colour that I went B&W on and the other was a B&W that I went colour on). In both cases someone made a compelling argument that challenged my original position. That's not a lot considering when I look at my image counts, that's out of over 500,000 images.

[lovelife65]

No, because you, me and the great general public out there are the people we want to view our images. It's just that, according to Manfred's assessment, more of them think that colour is the way it should be and we are in the minority.

But never fear, Sharon. We shall man the defences and fight our corner until the last grey pixel falls and floats away in a river of our blood!!

Thanks for making me laugh today Donald

[lovelife65]

Sharon - don't get me wrong. I teach B&W photography from capture to print at some of the photo clubs in town.

I have three objections to what I perceive as weaknesses in the way many people approach B&W:

1. B&W versus colour should be a deliberate decision made at the time the shot is taken, not when someone gets back to processing the image and looks at which version they like better. The choice of B&W or colour should be a key consideration when shooting. I will often frame an image differently when shooting outdoors, based on the colours in the scene and the tonal difference in the scene.

One question is dislike very much is asking an experienced photographer is along the lines of "can you turn that into a B&W?". I don't have a problem with people liking B&W as a photographic genre, but I do have an issue when people cannot provide a valid reason why their suggestion would end up with a stronger image than the one that the photographer has shown.

2. There is a very limited tonal range in a B&W image versus a colour one. If we end up with a jpeg image, there are only 256 different tones from pure black to pure white, whereas we can capture up to 16.8 million different colours. While not required in every image, most should show a full tonal range from 0 right through to 255. Exposure, tonal range and contrast are effectively the only variables that a photographer has to work with in a B&W image.

3. Computer screens do not do justice to B&W images. LCD screens don't do deep blacks particularly well and the white is just plain white. Until just a few years ago, ink jet printers could not do blacks as well as traditional silver papers, so there was no really good way to get a top quality B&W image in the digital world.

I am not a great fan of B&W digital images as viewed on a computer screen; many of the nuances in the shot are lost in the downsizing process. Give me a well done B&W digital print, done on a fine art paper and properly nuanced in post-processing and you will have a work you can be proud of.

Thanks Manfred. I totally agree with your point about turning an image into something else. It's normally shot the way it is for a reason, so that point is well taken. In terms of tonal range, I understand your point here as well. However, some images do better with less... especially very minimalist landscapes in B&W. Donald does some of these, and I think the way he presents them is wonderful. In terms of computer screens, yes you are right. Maybe B&W are meant to be taken with film and printed

[Manfred M]

In terms of tonal range, I understand your point here as well. However, some images do better with less... especially very minimalist landscapes in B&W. Donald does some of these, and I think the way he presents them is wonderful.

The pictorialists from the late 19th and early 20th century shot this way and I suspect Donald is influenced by their style. Foggy and hazy scenes don't do well unless treated this way either. In general the modernist and post-modernist styles don't do this.

With those two exceptions (and I suspect there will be others too), that "rule" does not apply, but for most other images it does. Frankly, colour photography is quite similar too and in most cases a broad dynamic range in the final output tends to look better than a compressed on; if there are true whites and true blacks in the image, they generally do best looking white and black respectively, not light gray and dark gray. I do throw in my usual caveat; these rules usually apply, but there will always be exceptions; just not as many as most people think.

[lovelife65]

The pictorialists from the late 19th and early 20th century shot this way and I suspect Donald is influenced by their style. Foggy and hazy scenes don't do well unless treated this way either. In general the modernist and post-modernist styles don't do this.

With those two exceptions (and I suspect there will be others too), that "rule" does not apply, but for most other images it does. Frankly, colour photography is quite similar too and in most cases a broad dynamic range in the final output tends to look better than a compressed on; if there are true whites and true blacks in the image, they generally do best looking white and black respectively, not light gray and dark gray. I do throw in my usual caveat; these rules usually apply, but there will always be exceptions; just not as many as most people think.

There's always exceptions to the rules

[mugge]

Just my two cents worth. Some photos work better in black and white others look better in colour. The reason is simply 'because that is so.'
Cheers Ole

[Donald]

Just my two cents worth. Some photos work better in black and white others look better in colour. The reason is simply 'because that is so.'

A reasonable statement. However, to extend our knowledge and understanding of photography, to gain a better understanding of images and learn why something works and something doesn't and to teach students in the future, I think this maybe lacks a little academic rigour in its assessment and conclusion!!

[Manfred M]

Just my two cents worth. Some photos work better in black and white others look better in colour. The reason is simply 'because that is so.'
Cheers Ole

Ole if you had written "for me some photos work better in black and white others look better in colour", I would have no issues agreeing with you.

When you write "The reason is simply 'because that is so.'", that is no reason at all. What you are really telling us is that you are expressing an opinion based on your own taste, rather anything deeper and more universal. Everyone has different taste and will have a different opinion. When I compare Donald's work, I'm fairly certain that he gravitates to working in B&W whereas I tend to colour. I suspect that this would be true even if he and I were standing side by side, shooting the same subject.