Black and White Street Photography.

I am just curious as to why street photos are so often B&W? Is there a

technical reason? Is it that colour becomes too distracting when a lot of

people are involved? Or is it simply an artist following the cliche?<br>

I haven't yet tried street photography so I'm not offering any opinion on this

but I am genuinely curious...

I'd say B&W in street photography is timeless, eternal, and more dramatic. On the other hand though one strong color like bright red among the crowd on a gray/cloudy/rainy day could also create a masterpiece.

I'd rather ask instead of above question: Is there any reason to use colour? It's just personal opinion, I think 99% of shots don't need colour.

 

Ivan

I find that the amount of black and white street photography that is shown makes the good color work really stand out.

If the definition of Street Photography includes "urban landscapes and architecture", I will most likely use color. For example in places like the Presidio district in Tucson, or the buildings and people in a market in Santa Fe.

The colours are often distracting from the point of interest, and for this reason it's harder to make colour work. Having said that, some people manage brilliantly. See www.in-public.com - Nick Turpin, for instance.

Many pictures don't need colors... and good color pictures are much more difficult to do!

I find Black and White or muted colours really works. But also with the Red, i think works as well. take at look at this which i took a few weeks ago:

 

<a href=" Here for the photo</a>

<BR>

<BR>

 

 

The Red really stands out against a washed out BW background

For the best street photos I've seen the issue of B&W vs. color isn't even apparent to me, at

least initially.

<p><i>(1) Is there a technical reason? (2) Is it that colour becomes too distracting when a

lot of people are involved? (3) Or is it simply an artist following the cliche?</i></p>

 

<p>Guys, a person is asking a question. Let's make it easy for him and actually answer it. It's

(3). There, fixed that for ya.</p>

I agree that it's (3), that's why I see good color street work being so much more interesting and challenging.

The colors tend to be too randon on the street, except possibly in some of the more tropical countries. In order to make a good painting or photo in color, you either have to understand color, neither common nor easy, or be lucky. And you must be able to control it.

<p>Bruce, while you have a point, I find that comments like these scare too many people,

especially students, from experimenting with color. In fact, some just get stuck forever in a

gray world with no hope of coming out.</p>

 

<p>Saying that "color has to be learned" should lead people to actually learning color instead

of shying away from it.</p>

I don't think it's a hard and fast rule. Black and White lends itself more to the dark and gritty. Color sometimes makes such scenes "too pretty." Just the opinion of an amateur.

Most early street photographers shot in b/w, even later on when color was becoming more practical. I suspect one of the main reasons was that most early street photographs were done with "pushed" film (shooting at a higher ISO than the film was rated, and compensating with developing techniques), harder to do with color film. I think many who study these early b/w images mistakenly conclude that street photographs "must" be b/w, and when they adopt this attitude are therefore are "following the cliche".

 

Over time, fast color film became more available, and now, of course, all digital images start out, at least, in color.

 

I occasionally convert a color image to b/w from color, but not often. Sometimes converting an image to b/w can eliminate a distracting color, which might otherwise direct the viewers attention differently. Sometimes color itself is an intrinsic element in the image, and many photographers are sensitive to, or actively seek out, scenes where color as a strong element. Sometimes a photo just looks better to me in b/w, for reasons I can't always immediately pin down. And sometimes color just has no particular relevance, one way or the other.

 

I've also seen arguments that b/w images themselves are more "abstract", due to the loss of the element of color we cannot automatically eliminate when seeing something with our eyes. Maybe - but a b/w image can be very different from a color version of the same scene, and sometimes better.

 

While it can be "interesting and challenging" to incorporate color well in a street photograph, it can also be interesting and challenging to create a striking image without the use of color.

Yeah, like HCB would ever leave his man card at the door and go out with a roll of Kodacolor

in his M...

<p>I shoot a lot of street and mix both colour and b+w, although never at the same time

- I decide in advance what I'm shooting and don't change my mind. I find b+w more

natural, and strangely I had to teach myself to see in colour photographically, which is odd

given that I'm not colour impaired in any way.</p>

 

<p>In my opinion using colour well demands more sophistication in composition, and is a

skill in itself. But using colour badly is easy to do. For which reason, I think, there's much

less decent colour street photography.</p>

 

<p>But at the end of the day it's just a case of different strokes for different folks. To

each their own. Try both, try neither. Whatever makes you happy.</p>

<i>The colors tend to be too randon on the street, except possibly in some of the more tropical countries. </i><p>Tropical countries like Italy?:<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/brella.jpg"><br><i>Umbrella, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer</i></center><p>

 

Tropical countries like the United States?:<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/semanasanta.jpg"><br><i>Semana Santa, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer</center></i><p>

 

Tropical countries like Spain?:<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/spain/people/images/badgirl.jpg"><br><i>Bad Girl, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer</center></i><p>

Maybe all countries are "tropical" from global warming?

Thanks folks I appreciate your well thought out answers.

PS: nice colour shots Jeff!

I don't think it's necessarily because of cliche', although that may be why some people do it.

Black and white eliminates color as a subject and tends to leave focus on issues like

gesture and interaction between people in the picture, and often communicates those things

more clearly.

I'm not sure there's just 3 possible answers. I mean as phrased I think the question is a bit of cliche. Why does the choice of color or B/W matter to the appreciation of good photography, street or otherwise. With all the color photo's I see nowadays everywhere, really makes good b/w street photo very interesting to see...or was it the inverse? I think there is a burden on b/w photography that it has to really do the things it does well, because you cannot use the warmth and coolness of colors as a crutch. Other facets of the photograph have to function well for it to work. Besides, I only shoot color in San Francisco. I didn't even think of taking color film to NY. What to shoot pavement??? But, look at a city like San Francisco, the place teems with strong color everywhere...why wouldn't you shoot color up there.

There is also a more pedestrian reason (pun not intended), which is, for those who still do it, b/w film is much easier to process and print in the darkroom than colour.

Barry, the choice of colour or b/w makes no difference at all to the appreciation of <u>good</u> photography. I was just asking people for their opinion of why it is so prevalent specifically in street photos.<br>

<p><i>� What to shoot, pavement??? </i></p>

 

<p>Why not?</p>