What is it about Black and White?

<blockquote>

<p>B&W is not a universal preference. Whether it's even a common preference remains to be established. Probably anyone participating in this thread has already come here with a well defined preference. --Sarah</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Taste is the enemy of creativeness." --Picasso</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like any isolated quote, Picasso's is of limited value and doesn't apply in any absolute sense. But it's worth at least considering on some level. Do photographers and/or artists challenge their own assumptions and preferences? I think they surely can and have. I have often purposely explored stuff I didn't like, didn't feel comfortable with, didn't feel naturally inclined toward in the search for new ideas, new inspirations, new challenges. At the same time, I am often motivated by what I feel naturally passionate about. I love and appreciate that kind of tension. </p>

<p>Understanding our preferences is important but it's only one thing. Admitting room, not only for others but potentially for ourselves, for what we don't like is another.</p>

<p>I'm always exploring, Fred. I agree with you. The day I can figure out nothing new to do is the day I'll pack away my camera in a box. ;-)</p>

<p>Sarah, your post is fasinating. You would love "The Social Animal" by David Brooks. It's not political. It's a giant term paper on the current research on the conscious and unconscious mind.</p>

<p>I always miss color in any B&W picture. I like some B&W. I just prefer color. In the days of film, B&W accounted for less than 5% of film sales so color is the preference of a large majority of people. I think part of the preference for B&W vs color may be culture or subculture. To some degree we like what we're taught to like.</p>

<p>I've been doing street photography for 40+ years always in color.</p>

<p>Well, there's always an oddball somewhere! (Just kidding.)</p>

<p>There was certainly a preference for color when color film/processing became commonly available. B&W was "old fashioned." Then everyone had to have a color TV when those became available. It's taken a long time for "bad color" -- like back in the 1970's -- to become the "old fashioned" commodity and for the REALLY old B&W to be virtually forgotten.</p>

<p>While it's true that most film sales were color, most film usage was for general snapshots. If I were buying a roll of film to load up, and if I had no idea what I might be shooting, I'd definitely choose color too.</p>

<p>I agree with you that B&W vs. color is a cultural/subcultural thing. However, I truly believe that our cultural preferences are influenced by our neurobiological predispositions.</p>

<p>Getting back to my original query, what I discovered in myself (or THOUGHT I discovered) was a preference that was greater than the sum of its parts. Whenever I find something that appears to be greater than the sum of its parts, there's a little voice in my head that tells me to explore the issue further, because I might discover something interesting -- hence the post.</p>

<p>What I think I resolved in this post is that my B&W preference seems to be just for people shots (which really it is, for the most part), and that people recognition does not depend so strongly on color vision as recognition of other elements of our environment. Maybe this simply sets up the latitude for B&W vs. color preference for that particular subject matter, and then personal preferences come into play. That same latitude might not exists for food photography, for instance. Maybe that's where culture comes into play. Dunno.</p>

<p>To me, the preference for rendering an image in color or B/W is unique to the image. </p>

<p>The absence of color forces a viewer to interpret an image differently.</p>

<p>To communicate the pensiveness of a child for example, B/W allows that immediate connection as oppose to color where hue and saturation of her eyes, hair, skin tone and background might interfere. Example below:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4470014-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="451" /></p>

<p>On the other hand, certain attributes such as poise, grace, class, might be better communicated through color. Example:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3155222-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="800" /></p>

<p>Color adds a huge dimension to perception. I would akin the comparison to 2D vs. 3D architectural drawings in terms of content, but in photography where aesthetic is the primary goal, often less is more. </p>

<p>I'm drawn to black and white more and more these days. I wonder if some people are drawn to black and white because it is abstract, regardless of subject. We view the world in color, so color is normal. Black and white is not. Some people are more abstract minded than others. <br>

On the subject of food in color, think about Edward Weston's bell peppers in black and white. They are immediately identifiable as food/vegetable yet the black and white is removed from the reality of a bell pepper. Would those photos have the same impact in color? </p>

<p>I think that we're programmed to notice color probably because of early humans use of color to identify foods such as berries, fruits, and veggies. We associate color with mood. I'm feeling blue, or I'm in the pink. This could refer back to early humans search for food. We tend to eat a lot of red fruits and berries, but as George Carlin said, "There are no blue foods. There are blueberries, but they're purple". So red makes us feel good and blue doesn't. Or a cigar could just be a cigar.</p>

<p>Yes Weston's peppers are in B&W, but artists have been painting still lifes of food in color for centuries.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some people are more abstract minded than others. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. And many of these abstract-minded people can see photographic color as an abstraction. They are not distracted by color. Rather they are perceptive enough to relate to it photographically. It's similar to the way we view black and white, which is also to perceive it as an abstraction but not so much so that we can't still identify literal subjects. We know the black and white pepper is a pepper because black and white is not completely abstract. We relate to color abstractly because we are in tune with the fact that color plays a real world and also an abstract role.</p>

<p>I was going to say black and white was more abstract, but I'm not sure there are degrees of abstractness. I agree that color can be perceived as abstract as well. I am wondering though if it is more likely than black and white to be seen as more "normal" by some brains. Sarah said that she was drawn to color as well as black and white but over the top color which may be more abstract than regular color.</p>

<p >I have assumed for some time that some images have a good combination of shapes or composition, and that colour distracts us from seeing that. Take out the colour and you have a stronger image. Whereas some images are all about colour combinations, take out the colour and you have nothing, or at any rate something so bland it amounts to nothing.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I began desaturating digital images when I wanted to check how subjects would turn out if I used black and white film, before actually wasting it. That's when I made the above observation. I had been looking to see how colours would appear in mono, and discovered there was a little more to it.</p>

<p >Others seem to have drawn similar conclusions, but I have never gone much into the reasons. I just used it as a practical observation which might guide my use of film.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I can't say I have a preference. I use B&W film because the process is simpler than colour, and I use colour digital because it is. But some images do just work better one way than the other.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>I think it is remotely possible that, in a world flooded with color, the eye settles on a monochrome image and 'finds itself at home '.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >we are influenced by the fact that early photographs were only done in black and white, so that takes on both a classic and nostalgic feel</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >I hadn't previously thought of that.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In fact many were very good quality B&W negatives made into toned or hand coloured prints, or appear vaguely sepia because of the process used. Many were shades of pink or purple, or deep browns, depending on the paper and process used. None of my own hand made prints have been black and white. They are either on POP, which is pink shades, or toned POP, or else Cyanotype, and hence shades of blue.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So I'm sometimes confused whether, when people refer to black and white, they actually mean that, or do they mean monochrome in general ? Or work that originates in B&W negatives ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have been told in the past that serious photography is done in black and white, which I now think very misguided and even snobbish. Also that your black and white is what you'll be remembered for, which I somewhat doubt. But perhaps those ideas did stem from the historical effect, especially from the proliferation of B&W in the 1930's and 40's, and perhaps that does affect attitudes and perception even now.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In classical Chines art, I think someone has commented already, monochrome painting, sometimes lightly tinted, was considered serious work, and colour, which was readily available, was considered decorative. So if we can see the value of mono work now ourselves, and if it was recognised in painting and drawing in different cultures long in the past, I don't think the influence of past photography, which is more of a modern cultural factor, is that significant, it is something to be aware of, but it is not the root cause of our appreciation of mono work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think it is remotely possible that, in a world flooded with color, the eye settles on a monochrome image and 'finds itself at home '.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmmm... Perhaps so! Or perhaps in a world flooded with color, the monochrome image screams for attention.</p>

<p>Physiologically, I wonder if a big, rectangular "hole" in color information somehow grabs the eye. Consider how it would be if the world were devoid of color, and one were to encounter a wall with color photographs hanging on it. That would certainly grab one's attention too, right? Maybe that's why over-the-top color grabs my attention just as much as a monochrome print. Maybe it's the difference from the ordinary that's the salient factor.</p>

<p>Russell, I think Weston's peppers (and other food items) have a somewhat abstract feel to them, and some are not immediately identifiable as peppers (while others are). I think in the case of those photos, a monochrome representation forces us to view the subject for its form. His peppers are reflective and seem to be more a study of surface and light.</p>

<p>Keith, I tend to view colorized B&W photos (almost all of them portraits) as a "grass is always greener" thing. People wanted color because they ordinarily couldn't have it. The higher-end studio photographer could give the customer color for a price -- that they were willing to pay. Perhaps it was a status thing. There's a VERY nicely done bridal portrait in our family with a few copies floating around. My stepdaughter wanted the colorized one. We greatly prefer the mono version. Perhaps its because the colors invariably seem "artificial" in those photographs, but to me the color definitely <em><strong>IS </strong></em>a distraction when used/applied that way. </p>

<p>We also have a very interesting portrait that was one of the very earliest true color photographs. It was done technicolor-fashion, with a couple of partially silvered mirrors, three lenses, three colored filters, and three pieces of B&W film. I'm sure it was very exciting at the time, and it's certainly an interesting photograph from a technical perspective. However, it's otherwise a rather boring image (as a photograph). I'm often tempted to do a monochrome copy of it! ;-)</p>

<p>One thing that seems to strike me about B&W -- and perhaps its just me -- is that I have an easier time seeing the textures. This is especially true when I can play with the contrast curves the way I like. If I were to apply the same curves to a color image, the colors would appear garish. I think color images really demand a bit less contrast than monochrome.</p>

<p>Somewhat along these lines, I know that the B&W films used in cinetography varied greatly in their contrast throughout the decades. Many of the directors complained that it was getting too contrasty towards the end of the B&W era. Perhaps this was all just driven by technology, or perhaps it was from changes in fashion. However, the dramatic cinematography we remember from the 30's and 40's was definitely more contrasty than the technicolor images that followed. The contrast had to be played down in early color cinematography, and to my eyes it wasn't even played down enough. It's the still-too-high contrast of early technicolor that looks a bit garish to my eye.</p>

<p>In short, I don't think there's as much latitude in contrast for a color image as there is for a monochromatic image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Physiologically, I wonder if a big, rectangular "hole" in color information somehow grabs the eye."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting observation. I've been conscious of that effect - and the opposite, a spot of color in a monochrome environment - when viewing from a distance. But I'm not usually consciously aware of it at normal viewing distance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...B&W films used in cinetography varied greatly in their contrast throughout the decades. Many of the directors complained that it was getting too contrasty towards the end of the B&W era."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know enough about the films and processing used in b&w movies to say. But there was a definite tendency toward stark contrast in b&w still photography by the late 1960s, and since. One reason was the re-rating of some films by the manufacturers - some film speeds were re-rated from, say, ASA 200 to 400. Another factor was the very different toe and shoulder of newer T-grain and epitaxial grain films. Yet another factor was variable contrast paper, which gave use much more convenient contrast control in the darkroom.</p>

<p>Perhaps the most significant factor was the desire to emulate the look of some street/candid photographers and other photographers who deliberately sought a stark, grainy, soot-and-chalk appearance. It was certainly a major influence on my own style for awhile. Subjectively speaking, over the past decade online, I've seen at least as many questions from new photographers asking how to push b&w film (underexpose with extended development) as from those who are interested in techniques that ensure full tonal range. That particular stark aesthetic has become its own standard, so I've tried to adjust my thinking away from a rigid perspective of "correct exposure and processing to ensure full tonal range" as opposed to everything else.</p>

<p>"<em>Physiologically, I wonder if a big, rectangular "hole" in color information somehow grabs the eye</em>."<br>

Sarah,<br>

That strikes me too as an interesting thought. We live in a world which increasingly shrieks at us in colour (advertising etc.) so, yes, there is to me something calming about black-and-white. This led me to think about the way we frame photographs and how that accentuates, or otherwise, our response to the photograph. There have been fashions in the framing and presentation of photographs, particularly monochrome photographs, in the same way that there have been fashions in monochrome style, the stark high contrast in the 1960s which Lex mentioned. (see for example David Bailey's photograph of the Kray Brothers.)</p>

I grew up under the gray skies of the industrial northeast and watched black and white television for a couple of

decades. I've had enough monochrome to last a lifetime. I prefer color.

 

 

But for people who have other experiences, especially younger people who have been exposed to color TV and color

computer monitors and color video games their whole lives, or people who grew up in sunny, colorful climates, or

people who admire old black and white movies, black and white photography is probably quite appealing. I like some

B&W work - there's a photo of Denali by Ansel Adams that blows me away - but mostly it looks dull and bleak and cold to me, like an overcast January morning in the Rust Belt. I'm not going to devote time and effort to capturing that look no matter how arty or trendy it may be perceived. It's like eating an unsweetened cupcake, diluted and devoid of the expected sensations.

<p>Dan, there's irony in your last name! </p>

<p>I grew up in the more colorful South. I suppose even West Texas (where I lived during my youth) was more colorful than your region. Skies were either blue, red, or brown (in the event of a dust storm). Grass was brown. Dirt was brown. Most of our trees were a typical dark green, but many were a brilliant lime green -- the mesquites. We would get nice splashes of color here and there with our wildflowers.</p>

<p>Of course it was also <strong>HOT</strong>. It was welcome relief whenever we would have a gray day, so to speak -- when the clouds would block out some of the relentless sun and HOPEFULLY shower us with some much needed rain. So gray wasn't a bad thing for us. ;-)</p>

<p>So maybe there's something to what you say.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I think of rather bold B&W statements like the film "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1962, shot in B&W). The film was directed by Robert Mulligan, who grew up in the Bronx.</p>

<p>Yes, Sarah, I think Texas must be very different from my hometown in Western Pennsylvania. Hot and dry! It was amazing to hear how many days in a row Dallas was up over 100 degrees this year.</p>

<p>In actuality, my region has some really beautiful light when conditions are right. But those long, drab, gray winters left their mark on my psyche, unfortunately. :-)</p>

<p>Good luck with your pursuit of B&W. I once shot a black tie wedding on B&W film, the results were exceeded all expectations. It's a uniquely beautiful medium.</p>

<p>FAIW, I lived in Ohio for a while, so I KNOW -- and can appreciate -- your gray skies! ;-)</p>

Something I'd never considered: how the colors in childhood physical environment affects an individual'sl photography. I've

often considered that my having grown up in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona is at least in part responsible for my fascination

with photographing water and wetlands.

 

But it's deeper than that: the colors of the desert are subtle with brilliant exceptions of flowering cacti. Sage, mesquite,

cactus, tumbleweeds, browns, and beiges, often everything with a layer of dust. It's very colorful within limited tonal ranges,

you have to look for it, and be sensitive to it. In my pictures I still prefer subtle colors, even in the water pictures.

 

Off the topic of b&w, though. . .

 

Thanks for the interesting discussion. --Sally

<blockquote>

<p>I lived in Ohio for a while, so I KNOW -- and can appreciate -- your gray skies! ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, yeah! You really DO know what I'm talkin' about!</p>

<p>:-D</p>

<p>I think the mere simplicity of b&w has a calming affect on me. I start to get lost in the tones of gray and almost fail to notice the "picture". I find myself investigating the details more in a b&w photograph whereas color photo's I tend to view as a whole. Make any sense?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Make any sense?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Tim, it makes sense that you, personally, would react that way. I'll offer some alternatives, however.</p>

<p>Many black and white photos are agitating: <a href="http://www.dismuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/daido-moriyama-5.jpg">Daido Moriyama</a>, <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg">Nick Ut</a></p>

<p>And many color photos are quite calming, IMO: <a href="http://keithgreenough.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/dijkstra_rineke_w01.jpg">Rineke Dijkstra</a>, <a href="http://kallischmetzer.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/meyerowitz_joel-meyerowitz-tuscany_may.jpg">Joel Meyerowitz</a></p>

<p>Now it may be that we find the most detail in the Moriyama but we can certainly find detail in the others, depending on how we look.</p>

<p>I think the calming or agitating effect of a photo has much to do with subject matter, light, perspective, the way elements and qualities are combined, including black and white or color, rather than the use of one particular element. In this <a href="http://www.recalcitrante.org/wp/wp-content/gallery/nan-goldin/nan_goldin10.jpg">Nan Goldin</a> photo, for example, I think the blue and the subject matter have a calming effect and the lighting has quite an agitating effect, even in the same photo.</p>

<p>I think the Meyerowitz and Dijkstra photos show that color photos often have simplicity.</p>

<p>Interesting. Fred, you definitely have a point, but the agitating Nick Ut is actually visually simple for me. I find the Dijkstra image in its subject matter, and I find the colors pleasing, but I am more interested in the girl. The colors are a very mildly frustrating distraction in that regard (to me). The photo is definitely very calming in its simplicity and mood, but (for me) the color doesn't help it to be so.</p>

<p>So I'm wondering, Tim, are you another ADD sort of person like me? I've looked at your portfolio, as I've looked at the portfolios of other contributors, and I note a tendancy towards very simple images, often refined down to just the essential. The very best description I've ever heard of ADD is the condition in which all things are equally important (whether it's what the teacher is saying, or whether it's the color of the eyes of a fly that's buzzing around). It is very important for an ADD person that stimuli be simplified to just the essential, and I think that's something that greatly influences my photography. I gravitate towards simple images and will sometimes even PS away things that are nonessential. Often the color is nonessential, so away it goes. The "calming" effect you describe could be an ADD thing. Too complicated an environment can be agitating to someone with ADD. Does this describe you at all?</p>

<p>A related question for you, though: If you do like simple images, as you appear to, then why the fascination also with HDR? I find a well detailed HDR image quite agitating. Maybe my ADD is why.</p>

<p>Finally, to conclude this post, I just got finished scrutinizing my own portfolio, looking to see how I've simplified. I came across two photos I did on the same day of the same subject -- Lower Yosemite Falls. I did one in B&W, and so as not to appear like an Ansel Adams imposter, I also did a color to incorporate the colors in the water at the bottom. I greatly, greatly prefer the B&W, which is about the water and the moisture sheen on the chiseled rock surfaces, forming a nice symmetry. The color photo is about the entire scene and has not been refined to the essential:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phloweryosemitefalls01sm.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phloweryosemitefalls02sm.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /></p>

<p>BTW, while the B&W might look like an Adams ripoff, Adams actually never took this photo, and I've not seen it done this way by anyone else, except a Japanese amateur who was there when there was way too much water for the scene, obscuring the detail in the rocks. I would like to think Adams would have taken this shot if he could. There was simply too much water spray in the air for anyone reasonably to set up a tripod and LF camera and get a shot. The B&W image was framed and shot within the course of literally a couple of seconds, while I teetered on a slippery rock over the stream. Exposure was pre-set from a distance. ;-) </p>