john_sidlo Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 This seems only tangentially related to the recent discussion of whether Street Photography is best done in black and white. My son posed this question to 3rd graders in his bilingual class at PS28 in Harlem: "Do you know what Manhattan was like 300 years ago?" A student answered authoritatively: "Back then, everything was in black and white." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 That's exactly why I have a problem with unnecessary use of B&W (I suppose sometimes its use can be justified). B&W photos are experienced differently from color ones in that the viewer relegates them to a bygone era, and in this way the reality depicted in the photos is perceived in a less immediate way, like it no longer matters anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 >>...unnecessary use of B&W<<< What is un/necessary? It's always a choice no? Besides colors don't depict reality exactly neither. Velvia and Kodachrome are/were not exactly natural yet they are quite popular to say the least. All photographs are only representation of reality. Lastly, third graders' reality probably isn't a good measure of reality even though they provide some pretty nifty alternative:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_elder1 Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I choose B+W for street photography because most of the time color would be a distraction to the elements of the picture I am emphasizing. The only time I shoot color (for myself) is when Color IS the subject of the photograph. Good examples, cotor as subject, were shown by Jeff Spirer in the related thread. Very few photographers have mastered Color Street photography, although it can be done as exhibited by Alex Webb. He does it great in color, but it is very unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orvillerobertson Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I sometimes see a potential image that gets passed up because it would not translate well into black & white. I wonder if color photographers do the same. I believe a lot of the thought process is the exact same whether you use color or black & white. What I look for in an image from another photographer is intelligence, a point of view, and, the seemingly rare trait, uniqueness. These can be expressed no matter what film or memory card you load in your camera. I'm not even sure if there's much of a need for discussion. A great image is a citizen of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 The kids weren't either exposed to proper images, it seems. The more digicam captures that get converted to "B&W", the more appealing the old images become. There are some cheerful exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpolaski Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Pretty much the reaction of the short-attention-span generation(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Good answer by your son's student, John. I imagine your son gets a kick -- although at times in the form of an overdose -- from the blunt pronouncements issued by his 3rd graders. :) That's an interesting generalization, Eugene, and not one I'd dismiss out of hand, but you and I are viewers as well. Do you relegate b & w photos to a bygone era and attach less immediacy to them ? I believe I don't do that. And I wonder if we move the 'test' age group up a bit, so they're older than John's son's 3rd graders, whether this loss of immediacy would be prevalent ? I don't know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 <p><i>What is un/necessary?</i></p> <p>Alright, this is very easy to define. The use of B&W is unnecessary when the photographer's reasoning behind rendering a photo in B&W is that a color version would not be exciting enough. This is especially significant to digital, although I imagine many film photographers think this way too. All other uses of B&W are necessary.</p> <p>Was this clear enough?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 <p><i>Besides colors don't depict reality exactly neither.</i></p> <p>It's not about something depicting reality or not. It's about what people perceive as more real (today it is color, while in 1960s it might have well been B&W) and less real.</p> <p><i>Velvia and Kodachrome are/were not exactly natural.</i></p> <p>Why bring up an extreme example all of a sudden? Try Portra or Pro 160s.</p> <p><i>All photographs are only representation of reality.</i></p> <p>Yes and no.</p> <p><i>Lastly, third graders' reality probably isn't a good measure of reality</i></p> <p>Au contraire, they are the perfect measure.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 I asked my son about his reaction to the student's comment. He said that he thought the answer was a good one, because he used something he did know: His experience with the past was mostly with old photos and movies which were always black and white. Since photographs are now in color, and from his 8-year-old's perspective cameras today faithfully capture reality in color, reality must have been black and white. Otherwise those 300 year old digital cameras would have been in color. A typical 8 year old has a tough time wrapping their mind around the idea of how things were 300 years ago. Or for that matter that a photograph is not necessarily a true representation of reality. I mean, that color photo of him, his mom and sister taken last Sunday seems pretty exact, right? Color, clothes, couch, grins and pouts, and everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 <p>Correction:<br/><i>Otherwise those 300 year old digital cameras would have been in color.</i></p> <p>Should have been:<br/> <i>Otherwise those 300 year old digital <b>images</b> would have been in color.</i> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucecahn Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 great story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 "Back then, everything was in black and white." Might have been. Who's around today to argue the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clive1 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 "Might have been. Who's around today to argue the point?" Colour paintings (a "what" not a "who"...I know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmen_loofah Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 categorising photography into black & white or colour seems to limit how we would interpret an image...it's just a choice made by the artist like the choice of paint an painter uses...I prefer to see it as just another creative choice rather than as representing something in itself which overpowers our understanding of the image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Wall Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 It's not black and white, it's shades of gray. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_smith6 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 If the photo isn't very good... put something red in it. If it still isn't very good... put it in a red frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_motskin Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 "It's about what people perceive as more real (today it is color, while in 1960s it might have well been B&W)and less real" That depends on the people. For some red or yellow and blue represent the reality but for many of us black and white will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now