The significance of B&W Photography?

[revi]

Kashifalijugnoo, Andre posted reasonable questions about B&W, and a number of us have tried to explain why and when we choose to use it

I fail to understand how your comment relates to Andre's question or informs any of us as to why you might use B&W.

Same here...

Actually, looking at Kashifalijugnoo's profile, I saw that he replied to several threads (5 today). I failed to find one post of his that was relevant to the material under discussion...

[dubaiphil]

I'm 100% with Chris on this. Converting to B&W helps to emphasise the subject and removes distractions in a lot of my street work.

One thing about the M-M though - "play with colour levels and hues to turn it into a different colour (something I rarely do)" - not possible on an M-M, of course.

I'll throw something different into the mix here. There are no distracting colours, only complementary colours or colours that add to the scene. However, because of the strong textures and tones in the image it works well on a different level in B&W:

[dabhand]

Andre - upfront I'll admit I favour B/W - but your question got me to trying to understand why - so when I thought about it I realised that in my formative years TV was B/W, films were B/W for even longer, colour photo film was on the whole far too expensive for the non-professional and in my early twenties I spent a serious amount of time interpreting B/W aerial photos to create maps.

So I guess rather than having to see a coloured world in B/W, I spent most of my time doing the reverse and all in all colour didn't play a big part.

As an amateur with no pretensions to doing 'serious' work, it still is generally irrelevant to me, contrast and structure being far more interesting, however, as with a previous poster, my wife is less understanding of B/W, so I still have to put some effort in with the coloured output. ;-)

[Loose Canon]

For me Andre you answered the question in your first post.

We see in color. If you can take away this “distraction” (color) and present a great photograph in mono, it causes a viewing experience that is unparalleled by anything color. It seems to reach right down to the very Soul, capture and keep your attention, and you take away from it something that you don’t always get with a color rendition. I wonder if this may be why you may be wondering. You must be seeing it too!

As a photographer I have great respect for the B&W gurus here and everywhere that “bring it home”. It represents an aspect of our Art that just not everyone is capable of because it takes a special vision to see it through. From visualizing the shot to final post production run for view.

[Manfred M]

I'd recommend reading Chapter Eight of Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, where he discusses some of the differences in how you "read" a color image vs. a B&W one. Color tends to break up or "tag" objects by color bounded-areas, while B&W more of the image has equal "weight", and you pay more attention to line, shape, intersection, etc. You simply respond to b&w differently than you do to color, even if it's the same image. Only Scott says it better.

I have often wondered if the reason we humans have no issues interpreting a B&W image comes about because the vast majority (95% - 97%, depending on the source) of the optical sensors in our eyes are B&W sensors (rods). Our colour vision comes from a small number of cone-shaped sensors that reaction to either red, blue or green wavelengths of light. The cones are not particularly sensitive, so our colour vision only works in brightly lit situations, but the rods work in dim light; so as light levels drop, we are creatures that rely on B&W vision.

This probably makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as predators preying on our ancestors would have hunted them at night, so seeing movement and catching a glimpse of dangerous animals was important for the survival of the human race. Colour vision would have been important for identifying foods the our ancestors would have gathered; being able to tell the difference between a ripe, red apple and an unripened green one, with lower nutritional value would have been important too.

I suspect our dual visual construction makes is easy for us modern photographers to be at ease with colour and monochrome images, just because we developed / evolved this way.

[Mike Buckley]

the vast majority (95% - 97%, depending on the source) of the optical sensors in our eyes are B&W sensors (rods). Our colour vision comes from a small number of cone-shaped sensors that reaction to either red, blue or green wavelengths of light. The cones are not particularly sensitive, so our colour vision only works in brightly lit situations, but the rods work in dim light; so as light levels drop, we are creatures that rely on B&W vision.

Very interesting! Thank you for expanding on a similar paragraph by Vincent Versace in his book, From Oz to Kansas.

[Brev00]

I think enjoying black and white might be a learned experience like enjoying caviar or fine wine. The first few exposures can lead to a quizzical response: What is the big deal about Bordeaux anyway? You can get cabernet from Chile that tastes fine and for a lot less. But, if you let yourself get exposed to fine Cabernet or good black and white photography, you may find yourself letting down your guard, the skepticism that greets the unknown. Especially if you have spent your life looking only at color images, it may take some unlearning, a putting aside of that way of seeing. I don't focus on it primarily. But, some images really do deliver in black and white. Sometimes, the color is just too much, as has been mentioned. Sometimes, there is a mood that is expressed or a set of lines that are unveiled. It is a different way of seeing, I think, and that new way might take some time to instill.

[AB26]

Hi,

Again I would like to thank everybody for your contribution.

What I have learned from this exercise is that it is not what you photograph but rather how you photograph it, that will make the image “speak” to the viewer. Showing the viewer a different point of view, from what we are used to, seems to be making a photograph have real impact.

B&W is so different (for most of us) from what we see every day, that when we see it, we look twice.

[jcuknz]

I never shoot in B&W since the recent arrival of digital but on looking at my photographs they frequently seem to be in B&W, well the ones which I think are my better ones
As for Kashi ... very true statements are not always appreciated, which these days causes me to not take a photo, such as the busker sleeping near me at SFO airport ... I had missed my flight, he perhaps had nowhere to go as he cradled his saxaphone in his lap.

[cienfuegos]

I was going through the Louvre this past June and was looking at all the paintings that were done in B&W. The great painters did not seem to like the idea of B&W over color. Ansel Adams took his photographs on color film. He printed them in B&W because 1. Museums would only accept B&W since color fades, and 2. B&W printing was the photoshop of that age. (Ansel Adams in Color. Little, Brown and Company, 1993).

I doubt many photographers wish they they were color blind.

I agree that some images beg for B&W, but I thought these facts get ignored in discussions like those in this forum.

[Mike Buckley]

Ansel Adams took his photographs on color film. He printed them in B&W because 1. Museums would only accept B&W since color fades, and 2. B&W printing was the photoshop of that age. (Ansel Adams in Color. Little, Brown and Company, 1993).

Please provide the exact quote from the book so we understand it in context.

I mention this because I'm inferring from your statement that Adams only used color films. It's well documented from his own writings that he used at least Kodak Super Panchro-Press, Kodak Tri X and Agfa Isopan. I'm not an Ansel Adams expert and it didn't take long to find the information about just those three black-and-white films that he used. Additionally, I have read so much about the filters he used that are designed for use with black-and-white films that I didn't even bother to look that stuff up.

[Donald]

I was going through the Louvre this past June and was looking at all the paintings that were done in B&W. The great painters did not seem to like the idea of B&W over color. Ansel Adams took his photographs on color film. He printed them in B&W because 1. Museums would only accept B&W since color fades, and 2. B&W printing was the photoshop of that age. (Ansel Adams in Color. Little, Brown and Company, 1993).

Like Mike, I am rather confused by this statement and can only feel that you have been misinformed. What you have written is wrong.

I doubt many photographers wish they they were color blind.

I'm not at all sure what relevance this has to the discussion. I write as someone who is colour blind.

I agree that some images beg for B&W, but I thought these facts get ignored in discussions like those in this forum.

For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure members who are new to photography are not misled, what you have written is not fact. It may be myth, but, if so, it's a myth I have never heard about.

[James G]

Cienfuegos, this thread was started by a member who was interested in why people generate monochrome images. The responses all addressed that question and as far as I can determine, did not suggest that b&w was better than colour, simply a difrent way of seeing or presenting the image.
It is true that the great artists worked in colour, but it is naive to suggest that this was their only medium for creating their works..

[Colin Southern]

Been wondering about this for some time now, why do some people prefer B&W photography in a world where colour can be rendered so accurately?

1.) What is special about B&W photography and do you prefer B&W to colour?
2.) What makes a B&W image really special and outstanding?

For me, the B&W (technically grayscale) images are generally reserved for times where the colour contained in the image distracts from the shot (perhaps 2 people with vastly different skin tones, or uncoordinated clothing colour) - or perhaps an overcast day when there's little colour anyway.

Some days I just feel like it.

[Manfred M]

I was going through the Louvre this past June and was looking at all the paintings that were done in B&W. The great painters did not seem to like the idea of B&W over color. Ansel Adams took his photographs on color film. He printed them in B&W because 1. Museums would only accept B&W since color fades, and 2. B&W printing was the photoshop of that age. (Ansel Adams in Color. Little, Brown and Company, 1993).

I doubt many photographers wish they they were color blind.

I agree that some images beg for B&W, but I thought these facts get ignored in discussions like those in this forum.

I personally think you have either not read the responses in this thread or have chosen to ignore the points that were made.

The masters of the past were in the business to sell paintings and in general, the buying public wanted colour (take a look at the offerings that most portrait and wedding photographers show = colour). There may be the occasional B&W image for effect, but the current "fashion" is colour images. The impressionists started doing interesting things in their paintings after photography came out and the camera very much put the traditional portrait and landscape painters out of business.

When it comes to successful B&W masters, look up Albrecht Dürer. He was an excellent and well known painter, but most people know him through his wonderful, mass-market (for the day - early 1500's) B&W etchings; likely popularized by the rapid expansion of the use of the printing press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer

I think you should check up your facts on Ansel Adams; he partially shot B&W because it was the predominant medium of the day (cost and lack of permanance were downsides of colour). When I first got into photography as a teenager, I shot B&W because it was affordable and was something I could do myself in the darkroom, and one could say it was easier to do manipulations in the B&W darkroom than it ever was with the colour film / paper printing darkroom process.

You also misunderstand colour blindness. Very few colour blind people have monochrome vision; it's simply that they cannot detect certain colours (red / green is a common form of colour blindness).

I do feel that a number of responder did cover why some subjects seem to work better in black and white than in colour. On the other hand, one thing that was not covered is taste. As an art form, some people like specific approaches.

[AB26]

I was going through the Louvre this past June and was looking at all the paintings that were done in B&W. The great painters did not seem to like the idea of B&W over color. Ansel Adams took his photographs on color film. He printed them in B&W because 1. Museums would only accept B&W since color fades, and 2. B&W printing was the photoshop of that age. (Ansel Adams in Color. Little, Brown and Company, 1993).

I doubt many photographers wish they they were color blind.

I agree that some images beg for B&W, but I thought these facts get ignored in discussions like those in this forum.

Hi Cienfuegos,

Why I posted this thread is because I am trying to learn something. Photography to me is not about colour or B&W, nature or portraits, weddings or wildlife, it is about a complete package. Photography is about capturing images with impact that leaves a lasting impression.

Ansel Adams left the world with some of the best images ever captured – IN BLACK AND WHITE!

I am not particularly fond of B&W but there is no reason for me not to appreciate a good B&W image?

I doubt that any human being would wish to be colour blind. Colour blindness has nothing to do with B&W photography, it is merely another way of expressing oneself and giving a different impact to the captured image.

None of the facts are ignored or disregarded in discussions like this on this forum. Look at the images posted by many, whom have commented here, and see the work they do in colour and in B&W.

What is the significance of B&W photography? Maybe a little of the significance is illustrated in these two images. I am no good at B&W but at least I made an attempt.

Isn’t that what a forum like this is all about – learning?

[dabhand]

Andre - actually your 'attempt' pretty much exemplifies one thing B/W can do - it can be used to really change the point of focus in an image - (for me at least) in the colour version, the petals lead you into the filaments, in the B/W version - it's the filaments that really stand out and in a way take over the image.

[GrahamS]

Some may find this interesting and informative:
http://digital-photography-school.com/power-black-white

[LocalHero1953]

To generalise, I think great photographs tend to have simple concepts, compositions and structures, whether in B&W or colour. The trouble is, most photos are not great, and the added degrees of freedom that colour brings means that colour photos can be busy and confusing. So taking colour out of an image is a quick way of simplifying it, and so improving it. This is certainly what I do when I pick some of my photos (all shot in colour) for the monochrome treatment in Lightroom. IMHO it is therefore more difficult to take a good colour picture than a good B&W one, because you have more parameters to control, and many of us fail to do so!

[AB26]

IMHO it is therefore more difficult to take a good colour picture than a good B&W one, because you have more parameters to control, and many of us fail to do so!

Paul,
Perhaps that is why I mentioned, one thing I have learned from this post, it is not so much what you capture as it is how you capture it.