Color vs. Black and White

<p>The color photos from the late 30s and 40s (see link in Kevin Cross' contribution) are quite fascinating. I think I'll return to color film.</p>

<p>Colour is prose, black and white is poetry.</p>

<p>At this point, aren't all photos nostalgic?<br>

I tend to go with B&W when I want to put a greater emphasis on the situation, or story, or when I just happen to screw up the color. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I understand the point being made, as I've been told the same thing about my B&W photos, and I'll admit to abusing sepia to evoke a historic sense, but the photo must still speak for itself in order to work. <br>

With such easy access to B&W, I think the generational perception will either fade, or not. Hopefully I'll improve enough to evoke nostalgia in my color shots as well. Doesn't everyone?</p>

<p>I am in love with b&w photography. But I'm happy that color exists, because if it didn't, there would be no point to photographing in b&w.</p>

<p>Everything is ultimately about relative perception.</p>

<p>sw or color..........nice vintage site for compare www.v-like-vintage.net</p>

<p>Has anybody seen a B&W painting in a museum ? I haven't.</p>

<p>Keith - your photo is very different in B&W.</p><div></div>

<p>Very odd. I like the B&W version better than the red one, and that is strange. W/ the color one I seemed to look mostly at that red, but w/ the B&W I start reading the signs, which draws me more into the photo. Or something.</p>

<p>James- "But I submit that black and white gives in instant historic archive value to an image capture that color does not."<br>

That sounds like a lame duck- so I'll shoot it down. Please, give history some credit. Nothing is black and white except for 180 years of photography. Do you look at Goya's paintings and say "if that was black and white it would give me a better perception of the actual history". Of course you don't. B&W actually removes much of the real history of the moment. WWII photographs might have less of a romantic appeal if they were in color- you know blood and guts- not grey stuff. And what about current events-they are in color right? I couldn't imagine 9/11 in B&W (unless originally photographed that way), or how about Obama's victory speech in Chicago? Quite simply, black and white will forever have a connotation of history, but specifically from a brief period of it, when the medium of photography and methods of reproducing it utilized B&W. Nowadays using B&W is purely an aesthetic choice and a rhetorical device, and we all know how well those things mix with photo-journalism. I'm not saying I don't like B&W- I love it, and have used it for decades, but seeing B&W versus color as a way of instant recognition of historic value is wrong. Anyway, color photography was invented in the 1860's.</p>

<p>both B&W and color are useful. but there's nothing like a portrait shot with a good medium format camera and real B&W film -- the way it renders subtle shadowing and skin tones in smooth gradation. there is no substitute for that. maybe it makes the images look antiquated, to some people. or maybe they're merely timeless?</p>

It's whatever looks better. No more complicated than that...

Too much emphasis on the nostalgic and historical. What if color had come before black & white? We're lucky to have black & white.

When I shoot black & white I never think of the nostalgic values. When I do shoot color and people view the images they tend to focus on

the colors, not the image itself. Same when people shop for a television, people want the colors to excite them. For myself, if I shoot color

I tend to see the image before taking a picture, later to discover the colors, sometimes disturbing. One or two color sessions and I'm right

back to black & white. Even flowers, there is much more to see than just their colors. I wonder if Michael Kenna shoots black & white for

nostalgic reasons.