why is this image in color?

<p>

<p >J.Spirer: WHAT YOU SAID</p>

<p >"So only photographers can appreciate the medium? Does that mean that if you haven't used oil paint, you have no appreciation for oil paintings?</p>

<p >Quite frankly, the statement is nonsense. There is nothing to back it up, nothing to make it worth thinking about. It's not just nonsense, it's elitist nonsense - only the suffering artist who has paid his or her dues is worthy. Phooey! (And that's a philosophical phooey.)"</p>

<p >WHAT I SAID:</p>

<p >"I think that only until you have worked in black and white to the fullest, from the conception of an image in envisaged monochrome space, through to the manipulations of film development and printing, using all the means of tonal control, dodging, burning and post print development treatments, can you get a complete appreciation of the medium. </p>

<p >It doesn't require a lot of analysis to understand that the "medium" in my statement refers to black and white, not colour photography or everything else you can think of (why you should introduce oil painting you will have to explain....).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think your "rave" is way off base. If you read mine and the other posts above a bit more carefully you may realise that. B&W photographers are generally not elitists, and many, like myself take equal pleasure in colour. If you find anything at all elitist in that, please be my guest. </p>

<p > </p>

</p>

<p>"Stepping back a bit ... from that same standpoint, we should then ask "why..." about <em>every</em> facet of the image, not just decision to use colour."</p>

<p>Felix, I don't think the photographer <strong>should</strong> ask "why?". But yeah, it's certainly an option... Well, I think most of us can benefit from asking "why?" sometimes, if only to give our minds something to chew on, and/or our mouths something to waffle on about... :)</p>

<p>Having said that, there's clearly nothing wrong with just going along with your gut feeling and initial reaction, perhaps following a healthy dose of trial and error. No explicit reasoning necessary. For example, if you've just loaded a pic into Lightroom and you're playing around with a few colour presets, you may then happen to apply a B&W preset by complete accident and think "Hey, I like the look of that"... Job done... :)</p>

<p>Asking "why?" about any facet of an image can be interesting, and may well help certain photographers to achieve what they want to achieve (whatever that may be...). It's certainly not a necessity though.</p>

<p>Well, I can only speak from my own personal point of view, and there can be many reasons why I may choose to convert a pic to B&W. Sometimes these are aesthetic decisions, of course, and sometimes they're of a somewhat more technical nature. And well, sometimes I'm basically just having a laugh... :) For example, with this pic it just kinda amused me a little to take a shot of snowy scene and then be a bit brutal with the blacks:</p>

<p><img src="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/snow.jpg" alt="" width="699" height="418" /></p>

<p>And yeah, I quite liked the colour version of the pic, but it was less amusing to me, so B&W it is... :)</p>

<p>""Color is for the eyes, black and white is for the soul."<br /> <br /> That is one of the more inane statements anyone has ever made. In fact it is so inane it gives me the blues. But don't worry, I'll be back in the pink soon but not if I am made green with envy first or makes me so angry that I see red.<br /> <br /> In a photograph color is powerful because it is evokes emotional responses, and good color photogrpahers know that two of the most powerful colors in a photograph can be black and white: Black anchors other colors, while white leads our eye away from the color.<br /> <br /> As with Paul Wilkins snowscape, there are definitely photos I've made in color which end up working better in a monochrome scale of blacks,grays, & whites and there are others which lose all impact if you take the color out of them. there are no reasons to suspect that is not true of all of us.<br /> <br /> Can color be a crutch? Sure thing. Can color be a distraction? Sure thing.<br>

But color can also be a bearer of strong messages. Look at the work of documentary photogrpaher Alex Webb -- http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBoxInsertion.ViewBoxInsertion_VPage&R=2K7O3R1V024C&RP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxThumb_VPage&CT=Album&SP=Album -- now there's a guy who really knows how to work in both black & white and in color. Even more importantly he knows when to use one over the other.<br /> <br /> Returning to the OP, Brian started this discussion with a serious question: "<em>...now every time i see a color photograph i ask myself whether the color adds anything to the aesthetic value of the image and if not, why is this picture in color?</em> "<br /> <br /> Aesthetics is only one part of our response to a photograph. Our intellectual and emotional responses are at least as powerful if not more powerful than our aesthetic appreciation of a photo, but all three automatically work together, and if one part of that perceptual triad fails, the photograph fails.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p >Then for people working in B&W - it's first and foremost about black and white and grey... I believe most B&W photographers first and foremost think about what they're seeing in B&W before anything else - and it's their prime motivator for taking the picture. Period.</p>

<p >Are those statements true?</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >Yes. Period</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think SOME people use black and white as a crutch, because they're not very good photographers and black and white MAY look "artsy" even when it's not very good. But that's a very limited and superficial view.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think SOME people use black and white as a crutch, because they're not very good photographers and black and white MAY look "artsy" even when it's not very good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Heh, I've seen this.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't require a lot of analysis to understand that the "medium" in my statement refers to black and white</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was very clear. It's what you wrap around, the elitist attitude, that I was pointing out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that only until you have worked in black and white to the fullest, from the conception of an image in envisaged monochrome space, through to the manipulations of film development and printing, using all the means of tonal control, dodging, burning and post print development treatments, can you get a complete appreciation of the medium. No, on second thought, that is necssary, but it is not enough. You have to also make mistakes. Lots of them. You can then re-adapt your thinking and practices and go forward toproduce better work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And after you've done all of that and no longer find it the least bit challenging....? A comparison to poetry, to me, gives the best description of the difference between working in B&W and color.</p>

<p>In English poetry, iambic pentameter is often used as it can be either rhymed or unrhymed giving nearly inexhaustible variations. Compare that to haiku (hokku) which has a fixed structure in which the poet must work. Both types of poetry have their own unique challenges and are equally as creative. </p>

<p>Initially, English poets were dismissive of haiku because of its apparent simplicity of form - making it "easier" to write than traditional English style poetry. It was not until Yone Naguchi and Sadakichi Hartmann started publishing haiku in English that the haiku style had an effect on the Imagists / Modernists (Ezra Pound's "In a Station of the Metro" as an example).</p>

<p>So it is with B&W and color. Black and white (if done with film) has a wealth of controls available. From film choice, exposure and development, film developer choice, through application of filters and printing choices (contact prints, enlargements, Van Dyke prints, platinum, etc.). It is the iambic pentameter of photography. Thoroughly expressive with hundreds of variations and combinations that must be carefully chosen and controlled. </p>

<p>Contrast that with color that has a limited amount of controls available. Exposure is fixed with the film (or sensor's) inherent latitude. Little can be done for contrast control - there is no equivalent of "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." While you can use some types of filters, most (other than a polarizer) are blatanly obvious and lend little to final image. Likewise, printing choices are equally as limited. So, you have a haiku like photographic form in which you have a limited structure in which to work. </p>

<p>For some people (like with haiku poetry) the inherent limitations seemingly make it easier as you have a fairly fixed structure to work within. For others, making a successful photograph within that structure is the ultimate challenge specifically because the nearly unlimited controls that can be applied in B&W are not available - and you must think, create, and invent the image within the limitations. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then for people working in B&W - it's first and foremost about black and white and grey... I believe most B&W photographers first and foremost think about what they're seeing in B&W before anything else - and it's their prime motivator for taking the picture. Period.<br>

Are those statements true?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes. Period</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Self limitation by self-definition....</p>

<p>"I think SOME people use black and white as a crutch, because they're not very good photographers and black and white MAY look "artsy" even when it's not very good."</p>

<p>Haha, indeed Fred, and this is surely the single greatest benefit of B&W... :) People often seem to associate B&W images with "artsy", so it's fun to take advantage of that, of course, and turn colour crap into "artsy" crap... :) I'm sure many of us do that, to a lesser or greater degree. Sometimes it works a treat...</p>

<p>"But that's a very limited and superficial view."</p>

<p>Well yeah, but it's true... :)</p>

<p>Jeff: Your inference of my having an elitist attitude is absolute nonsense. If we cannot discuss the pros and cons of various mediums of photography without putting the contributors into a specific and unattractive category, are we really honouring the intent of this column?</p>

<p>I am off north for Christmas visits for about a week, so my very best wishes to all here for great renewals with family and friends within whatever festive holiday you may be celebrating (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, etc.). I much enjoy your ideas and your images. Thanks for that pleasure. And Jeff, you are a mean street photographer, very nice stuff. Keep your lens hot in 2009!</p>

<p>Some good observations here. And a reasonable respect for others' choices or opinions, or beliefs. I never really gave it much thought, but I know it is essentially a choice of artistic merits that come from the gut more than the brain. Here is one story that comes to mind.<br>

When director Spielberg made his version of Thomas Keneally's powerful historical based " Schindler's List" he was big enough to call the shots, color would be the default by then, looking at greatest returns and audience expectations. He was urged,nay begged even to film in color and release in black and white. And he said No, or rather- NO! He even had to dig up enough correct monochrome film to do it and I understand that was not so simple. He said merely (paraphrasing Spielberg) " I see that period in black and white in my head." Strong willed director whether his films suit your taste or not.</p>

<p>I thought his cinematographer on "List ,"Janusz Kaminski did a brilliant job, and the few touches of color were even more profound in their way, like some of the color touches in photos we see here, but only a few now and then.</p>

<p>So, without making a case for the obvious, I personally believe it is an artistic choice, and the challenges for both are tough in their own way. In a world saturated with color gravure in mags, it is tough to make a really great standout color photo, and some of the best use color in a subtle and brilliant way. I guess if one is thinking monochrome vs color when you look at a picture,well, maybe the choice was wrong...</p>

 

<p>"ought we not be asking of ourselves and of the photographer, why is this image in color?"<br>

Brian-<br>

Back to the original post. You may be right about those images- they would look good in BW, but that is the photographers choice. Noticing things like this however only makes YOU a more informed photographer and more prepared for the time when you go to shoot. Is this moment going to be conveyed better in color or BW? But then again you also have pretty much no right to ask. It was the photographers choice- NOT YOURS. Maybe they were doing something that completely escapes you. Quite possibly they don't have the ability or availability to make BW photography. Maybe the client wanted it in BW. Maybe they don't like BW. Who cares- it was their choice and it has nothing to do with you. I know, we all are critics- myself included- but that is where it has to end, with us. Now focus on your own work and forget other people's aesthetic decisions- you'll be far better off.</p>

<p> "why is this image in color?" Because Ernst Haas showed how color photographs could create as much visual impact as black and white photographs. The photographic world has not been the same since. </p>

<p>Paul Wilkins: I don't, myself, think we should (or should not) ask why. My words "from that standpoint" meant that <em><strong>IF</strong> </em> one is asking "why?" from the point of view of colour <em><strong>THEN</strong> </em> it logically follows to ask "why?" about other picture components as well. Whether (or not) one actually asks (whether consciously or at a gut level) "why?"at all is a personal thing and there is, for me, no "should" or "should not" about it.</p>

<p>I know what you mean but i still think it is funny though because black and white are colors too,so it is all about colors really.<br />It's always about color something else is not possible.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Self limitation by self-definition....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”<br /> Ernst Haas.</p>

<p>Rio Branco</p>

<p>What a fantastic Photographer. Thanks, Jeff.</p>

<p>BW, colour, does it work? What else needs to be said.</p>

<p>Steve Swinehart's exhaustive post of Dec 23, 2008; 11:33 a.m. is important..very well thought out.</p>

<p>I do disagree with what appears to be his notion that color offers less opportunity for control than does B&W.</p>

<p>That might have been true for most photographers with wet labs (when contrast masking and other controls were rarely used and hardly anybody had the skills), but it's not true in our digital reality.</p>

<p>However, the way I read (misread? expand upon?) Steve's larger point, digital's unlimited set of manipulative tools does not necessarily offer more opportunity to create than darkroom B&W's smaller set of tools offers.</p>

<p>Maybe a haiku offers more creative opportunities than a sonnet, sometimes, or for some of us.</p>

<p>I hope Steve S will rejoin this thread and expand on his idea, perhaps correcting what I've said.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>thank you all. i do appreciate all the responses, even the smug condescending invective in opposition to the thought which motivated my original post. i'm going to upload some of my color work now, which it seems i have inappropriately shunned up to this point. </p>

<p>Oh Dear, Eye of the beholder.. If the photgrapher believes that the image is best presented as monochrome, surely this is right. Not a subject for the viewer to mutter and discuss but for the presenter to put into the public domain for its own merits.<br>

To resort to subterfuge in saying or intimating this would have been better or worse in colour only undermines the viewers inability to assess and determine the intentions of the photographer. All to often we rely on mediocre and inane comments sooner than appreciate the intent or openly admit a lack of understanding of the intent.</p>