The Wonderful World of Color

<p>In the recent "Less is only more when more is no good" thread, color was brought up toward the very end.</p>

<p>I hope Wes Stone doesn't mind my quoting a statement he made followed by my own thoughts which seemed better placed as a start to a new thread.</p>

<p>Here's part of what Wes contributed:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"For my own tastes I want to eliminate. I want to excise all of the elements that do not contribute to 'the story', many times including such 'distractions' as color." <strong>--Wes</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm aware that Wes put "distractions" in quotes which leaves a lot of room for interpreting his meaning. What I quote below (with a couple of minor changes for this new thread) is more about what Wes's statement stimulated <em>in me</em> than about being a directed response to Wes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have a particular sensitivity and am rarely pleased with the way color is talked about and would like to talk about it a lot more, because it would help me in my own approach to continue to fine tune my thoughts and feelings about it.</p>

<p>I prefer not to begin from a place of seeing it as an addition or a distraction. It's as if color, for some reason, has to prove itself in order to be acceptable in a photograph. What's different about color and shades of gray? Do we start out seeing all gray-tones as perhaps unnecessary, assuming that a graphic black and graphic white are the really pure elements, the non-distractions? And, in what way does color actually differ from focus, light, and composition. Why is it not a basic, the <em>removal</em> of which is actually the radical act?</p>

<p>Of course, my initial thought is that it's got nothing to do with color itself and a lot to do with the technology of photography. We started out, historically, not being able to process in color. It seems to me that goes a long way in defining our relationship to it. We got used to black and white being the starting point. I think that's dictated a lot.</p>

<p>Perhaps because I got into photography late in its short history and did not work in a darkroom where black and white was more accessible to most people who processed their own film, I am less prone to see color as an add-on or distraction. I tend to see in color and to consider color as a fundamental, a baseline, which I may strip out if I feel the need or desire, not something I hesitate to include with the assumption that it is prone to be "more" or even "too much." Even when I know a photo I'm taking will be converted to black and white, color plays a significant role in my seeing because the absorption and reflection of light and the black and white conversion are so dependent on the color that is there.</p>

<p>I am no more prone to saying that black and white is less distracting than color (or "less" than color) than I am to saying that a sharp focus is inherently less distracting than a soft or blurry one or that a dark and shadowy content is inherently less distracting than one with sunlight." <strong>--Fred Goldsmith</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does color generically give you a different overall feeling than black and white? Can you describe that difference? What's your perspective on color in terms of how you see it in photographs and also in terms of how and when you use it in your photographs? What else could be said about color in the context of photography?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 10, 2010; 12:51 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Does color generically give you a different overall feeling than black and white? Can you describe that difference?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes Fred, it does, and yes I can. I was brought up in the 1950's with B/W TV and movies. Color came is as "Disney's Wonderful World of Color", and Doris Day movies in Mike Todd's "Cinemascope". So I see Black and White photos as Richard Widmark stuff and color as a much happier presentation. So that's the basis for my feelings. I try not to let those biases get in the way, but you know how it is..... Johnny Staccato remembers........</p>

<p>Bill P.<em> </em></p>

<p>William, you and I are of the same generation and apparently the same mindset on color. My parents' photo album is mostly black and white only because color film and processing was so much more expensive in the 1940s through 1960s. Family snapshooters of the day had to choose black and white or color based on family economics. Even in my early days of photography, there are many black and white images that would have been color if only I had some more money to spend on them. Sometime in the 1970s, prices shifted completely in the other direction because so many more people were buying consumer 35mm cameras. Consumer demand drove color film and processing prices lower than black and white. And I was happy to see the shift.</p>

<p>During that time when consumer demand and pricing was doing the flip-flop I realized it was a new era. We don't <strong><em>have</em></strong> to shoot black and white anymore, and why should we? <em>(Wait -- that was a rhetorical question, not an invitation for attacks from all of those black and white fans out there.)</em> From a strictly consumer (family photo album) standpoint, good riddance to black and white. In my professional (publishing and academic) life I still had to occasionally shoot black and white or occasionally convert a color image to gray scale, but only when forced to. Any time I had the choice, it was color all the way. We live in a color world. You're not likely to see me converting my color images to black and white.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>Here's my perspective…<br />

<p>The vast majority of us see in colour and so it is integral to our everyday lives (humdrum or otherwise). With current technology, very few "snapshots" are taken in black and white, so monochrome (tinted or otherwise) is nowadays perceived as the more "artistic" medium (especially by those who were not restricted to B&W at the start of their photography!) This view is reinforced by some fashion and advertising photography, often by referring back to Hollywood screen icons or by imitating stylistic conventions of earlier times.<br />

<p>Emotionally, I find that colour can affect me positively or negatively, in addition to sometimes not really being important. It may be subtle, or not, but only rarely is it a distraction. The best [contemporary] black and white work somehow "speaks" to me differently because I am seeing an image with visual information stripped out, so the remaining elements have to be able to draw me in. Historical photographs are usually fascinating for other reasons, even when technically indifferent, and so must be considered separately.<br />

<p>Many "classic" photos from master photographers, as with other art forms, may be rooted in their own period but somehow transcend time and space to make that special connection with the viewer. The problem is, I can't be specific about the nature of the "special connection", even in my own case. Maybe, like love, you just "know it" when it happens and do the rationalising afterwards.<br />

<p>One of the photos I especially like is actually in colour, but at first glance appears to be monochrome. (It is an old DG record sleeve, but I don't have the details to hand.) This is a "naturalistic" photo and so doesn't "feel" like a monochrome one, but its memory has stayed with me clearly for over 30 years, which is quite an achievement. Because the information hasn't been stripped out artificially (but instead by clever composition and shooting) the effect is somehow very different to that of a true monochrome image.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Yes, there is a difference for me. <br>

I'm a bit younger than the first posters, so black and white TV only existed in a tiny bit of my life, and colour photography was already wide-spread too, I think. It's not a nostalgic link for me.</p>

<p>For a long time, I associated black and white with photos that did express something nostalgic, something "old" or to label it as such, though. But lately, I find I convert a lot of photos to black and white because it just seems better that way. It's usually a less-than-a-second realisation that such is the case too. And with that I found that a Ford Focus works in B&W just as well as a Model T. Some photos just do not need colour.</p>

<p>In short, I agree with the quote of Wes you start out with. Colour can be distracting, or not adding. The reverse is also sometimes the case, sometimes colour makes the picture. I don't think sunsets in B&W have the same effect as they have in colour.</p>

<p>In addition, while working on photos, I notice that B&W photos (at least, for my own attempts!) are more composition focussed, somehow more story-telling. They require to, because otherwise they only exist of subtleties of gray. So, to me, B&W seems to me more demanding on the "content" of the photo than many colour photos. That does not make colour photos less, though, just different. Clever use of colour can be equally interesting (who would want a B&W Mondriaan?).</p>

<p>So, horses for courses, for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=761193"><em>Will Daniel</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 10, 2010; 03:24 p.m.</em><br>

<em>We live in a color world. You're not likely to see me converting my color images to black and white.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's interesting, Will. I started converting back to B/W for the funk effect I associate with it. Kinda like a personal "retro" thing. Also, shooting color to get the B/W grittiness is an art in itself. That's for another thread, though.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>An interesting topic as always Fred, though I suspect my mind is already becoming a bit deranged, split between Why - More Less and colour.</p>

<p>I too have lived through the transition from B&W to colour and have a slightly different take on it, I am very mindful that there could be some sensitivies lurking in this issue and what I am about to say is not intended as any form of criticism of the people who favour B&W.</p>

<p>I think we have to look at what happens in the average person's mind when they see a newly created B&W picture these days - I suspect the first reaction is that a "this is art" warning bell goes off. Sub categories of this is, "Woah heavy" or "serious" because it automatically references the great early photographers and worst of all "just as I couldn't watch a B&W TV show I can't get excited about black and white photos, too nostalgic"</p>

<p>Of course there are other equally valid reactions, but I suspect these would all come from more "educated" people.</p>

<p>So I think that it could be argued that B&W has changed from being the norm to something that carries some elitist connotations, in a way this is not a bad thing because it quickly establishes that you are the kind of photographer who will not go anywhere near the over the top cheap and nasty HDR landscapes on steriods.</p>

<p>Clive</p>

<p>For me, color isn't so much distracting as yet another element of an image to be considered. In other words, black and white images have less to analyze. However, the monochrome photographer opens him/herself up to increased scrutiny on the remaining elements of his/her composition.<br>

Yes, color can be downright distracting if it's done incorrectly. And, of course, there are those images which are at their core, an expression of color. But an image which happens to be representative of the subject and which is done well just is and doesn't distract at all. It simply adds extra dimensions which dilute, at least to some degree the other aspects of the image.<br>

For me personally, I struggle to strike that balance between an accurate/realistic and aesthetically pleasing representation of a scene's color. Based on others' critiques of my images, accuracy doesn't seem to pay off. Some images are panned as too drab while others (adjusted while actually looking at the very scene that I just photographed) come across as too saturated.<br>

So perhaps there's just no way to avoid making color a distraction or, at a minimum, having to mess with color for a given image, which makes for more opportunity to make it a distraction.<br>

That said, I have the utmost respect for those who can successfully work in the monochrome medium. I hope someday to venture into that domain.</p>

<p>Normal, everyday colors are <em>less</em> not more. You don't strip them <em>out</em>, you strip <em>in</em> black and white.</p>

<p>Normal everyday colors are invisible. The needle on your attention dial sits right on zero and that's a problem if you want people to look at your pictures. Black and white gets the atttention needle moving -- as does an unusual color combination or colors that are a unnatural (manipulated), unexpected or otherwise not normal. The best color photographers know this -- and they know just how to make your attention dial go bananas.<br>

　<br>

If you have a picture with great form, and/or line and/or everything else but it's immersed in completely normal unexciting colors, to the viewing public who are in a hurry (that's most people) it might as well be invisible.</p>

<p>==============================<br>

　<br>

I have an odd idea unrelated to the above that I've been thinking about since this thread was started. It occurs to me that because we don't see or at least notice (same thing) everyday colors, one of the things going on with black and white pictures may be <em>about</em> color; about the <em>precise </em>colors that are missing, not about the simple concept of not having any color. A B&W landscape may be (partially) about making your mind notice and therefore be aware of the very ordinary but now very absent greens, browns and blues that it paradoxically wasn't aware of when the colors were there. A B&W portrait may be about the sensation of missed fleshtones and hair tones and lip tones and eye tones. Your mind missing, wanting, making its own colors. Filling in. More colorful that a color picture. (I just made that up, but I think it's interesting ... )</p>

<p>

<p>I feel closer to the light in black and white. perhaps i do think of color as a distraction from the light. but a key consideration for conversion.<br>

and more intimate with my emotions when I express in b&w. I find I can tap into my deeper emotions, sense of self and humanity when I convert the color from a scene and relate to light as black to white gradations. For me as audience, b+w imbues more presence to my explorations and visual expressions. I often hear a contrasting opinion from in person viewers tho. The contrast often comes in the nature of difficulty relating to work in b&w. I think a large number of viewers have that same reaction to b&w photographs. <br>

I have seen too many exceptions to consider it a given that '... the soul is in black and white', (Scorsese paraphrase? life in color and the soul in black and white..? I don't remember.) But I do often subscribe to that notion. I have come across masters and beginners who easily prove to me that color photographs can reach me as viewer as deeply as b&w, just not as consistently and as often. I never measure good by color or b&w but I do wonder what I might find in the deepest recesses of my taste buds that makes me most often choose to use b+w. <br>

I think digital has been a great equalizer and now I am as likely to find a good color photograph-er as a good b&w or an equal opportunity shooter.</p>

</p>

<p>Julie, Marshal McLuhan talked about hot and cool media, the need in some media, the cool ones, to imaginatively fill in the blanks. Sounds rather kin to what you're saying.</p>

<p>Colors always add a layer of compositional complexity, not always a good one. It's something else to think about. </p>

<p>I don't consider my photographs real unless I personally print them: A lovely, fully post-processed file is virtually nothing (for me). Therefore, since good color is easy and good B&W is hard (in my experience), there's a question: Was a print made in color simply because it was easier, taking less skill? <br>

What's wrong with "easy?" What's wrong with lack of skill? I think the answer will be the viewer's, more than the photographer's. We either ignore that question, accepting the luck of the draw...or we deal with it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rebecca - Marshall McLuhan now there's deja vu, the Medium is the Massage that's takes us back - still, a lot of it is still on the money.</p>

<p>John - In art it's never really mattered what the artist does to achieve their ends, its the end that counts. But printing photographs adds in another dimension to the thread, I remember seeing those b+w prints on real paper, with suede-like blacks that almost gave you goosebumps and you couldn't work out why it was getting you the way it was.</p>

<p>This guy <a href="http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.html">http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.html</a> does it big time the surfaces on the prints challenge Caravaggio, the images hold up under any circumstance but see one in the flesh and it is a whole new ball game.</p>

<p>Clive</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does color generically give you a different overall feeling than black and white? Can you describe that difference?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hard to describe, but for me the rough difference between color and black&white is that of reception <> perception. Of course both reception and perception are in play when it comes to seeing and being conscious, and so we are aware, as much by the things that we ( can't escape to ) take in as by how we project ourselves onto them ; it's a two way street.</p>

<p>But photographically I can differentiate color to be more about looking with the eye first, and the recognition for things that have a certain vibrancy. Black&white for me is perhaps seeing with the <em>I</em> first, for things that resonate.</p>

<p>This being said, in the end I view <em>photography</em> as the process, not black&white-photography or color-photography, just like a painter can view painting as the process, and not black&white painting or color painting, or is to be a black&white painter vs a color painter.</p>

<p>To answer the same question that Phylo quoted above, for me, color is "meaty," carnal; color has odors. It's sweaty; it wants to put its hands on you (with notable exceptions such as Eliot Porter's color work).</p>

<p>Color is promiscuous -- it leaks, bounces, reflects into/onto everything everywhere. Anywhere that the primary light is not strong enough to drown out this cacaphony, you get an orgy of color mixing going on.</p>

<p>Color is uncooperative. That ugly pink thing in your otherwise perfect scene is not going away. You can use all the tools of photography -- move yourself, change the light or wait for the light to change, change lens -- that thing is still going to be pink. Black and white, on the other hand, is wonderfully cooperative. It is luminence. Luminence can be worked with. This makes black and white wonderfully, deliciously malleable where color is ... not.</p>

<p>Imagine a sculptor who had parts of his stone that could not be worked. He'd have to conform what he was making to that unworkable area -- instead of making the <em>David,</em> Michelangelo might have had to make a buffalo ...</p>

<p>You have to work to/for/with color. It will not work to/for/with you (unless, of course, you get out your paint or dye or bazooka).</p>

<p>Juat a bit ago someone posted a link to color images taken in Russia the early 1900s<br>

<a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/transport.html">Link</a><br>

Looking at the photos it would be hard to say that they would have been better as black and white photos. It took a lot of work to capture and shot color image in the early 1900s but it sure is nice to have a few samples now to view. It reminds us that even though most of the photos from that time are devoid of color people at that time loved to have color in their lives. </p>

<p>

<p>I started out in photography shooting BW because that was all we could develop at our high school darkroom. BW was also very much like digital is now, very cheap to shoot the negatives and then only print out a couple of photos per roll. The SOP was to do a contact print of the whole roll and decide from that what to print larger.</p>

<p>Now some people view BW photograph as more artistic, and in some cases it may be but for me I like to have the color.</p>

</p>

<p>Colour is every day, black and white is a holiday. </p>

<p>I have to work hard at balancing colour in a colour image and few are successful for me (other than my nature and pictorial photographs, which speak more from the subject than from the photographer).</p>

<p>Black and white is abstract. We don't see that way in life. That for one keeps me from switching completely from photography to painting. Having said that, a photograph that explores the concept of details in photography (the power of more) resolves for me some of the problems of the oft-viewed kaleidoscope of colour in much photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We live in a color world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speak for yourself. I live in a colour world!</p>

<p><strong>Bill</strong>, thanks for talking about how some of our preconceptions get formed. I have some of the same black&white/color experiences as you from those early films, though there's always Capra's <em>It's A Wonderful Life</em> and Fischer's <em>The Curse of Frankenstein</em> to offer counterexamples of black and white as the happier presentation.</p>

<p><strong>Will</strong>, economics as well as history likely do have an effect on the usage and, therefore, our perceptions of black and white and color. Very keen observations. Like you, I think there's something to be said for the world being in color yet, in my own approach to photography that world is often only a starting point.</p>

<p><strong>Peter</strong>, I have also noticed a predisposition for people to think of black and white photos as "art." That can work both ways, of course. If there's a perception by the viewer that a photo is "too artsy," it could be a turn-off. In addition, I often spot lousy photos that it seems were converted to black and white to try to raise them a notch higher in the mind of the photographer. It's usually an unsuccessful ploy. You seem to be approaching the emotional effects of black&white and color non-competitively when you say "colour can affect me positively or negatively", which is the way I try to do it as well. My question was not "which is better" though some have chosen to answer that question, and those answers do give interesting insights as well.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>, sure, go ahead, rub your youth in our old, wrinkled faces :) Just kidding . . . the generational perspective on this is obviously significant. Actually, others of my own generation have told me that the nostalgic feel comes from other elements rather than black&white when they talk about films or TV shows. For me, I would say black&white probably has a little more tendency to evoke nostalgia but looking at those originally-vibrant but now somewhat washed-out colors of fifties films and sixties family snap shots does tug at those nostalgic heartstrings. Interesting that you mention sunsets. The one sunset I've taken that I consider among my first tier of photographs is black and white. I would probably find it harder to create a photograph I cared about of a sunset in color. It's usually the color of sunset photographs that, for me, emphasize negative aspects of what can so easily be a cliché.</p>

<p><strong>Clive</strong>, the more deranged the better, as far as I'm concerned! I think a "this is art" predilection associated with black and white can work both ways. For some, "art" will connote something positive and for others it will be a warning bell or a negative.</p>

<p><strong>Lee</strong>, I appreciate the point that more elements don't necessarily yield "distraction." I often come back to baroque. There's lots of elements telling lots of sometimes dizzying stories, in a wonderful way. I don't find that a distraction, but rather a fullness. Nevertheless, as Josh says in this thread, there is something special about the relationship between photography and light and I can understand why someone might be more prone to find color a distraction in this particular medium. I, myself, don't, though when color is badly used it sure does seem to stand out.</p>

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, it's interesting that everyday colors might be considered by some to be invisible, more part of the landscape. Great to hear how that works for you. I try never to be in a hurry when viewing photos, so color itself doesn't make me brush by anything. For me, color is another expressive element at my disposal as a photographer and to be appreciated as a viewer. I often like to think about what's not included in the frame when I'm looking through my lens. I appreciate when a photograph gets me to move outside the frame as well. Your description of missing colors puts me in a similar frame of mind.</p>

<p><strong>Josh</strong>, I admit a predisposition to disagree with anyone who might make the claim that color is a distraction. But your emphasis on light gives me pause and seems very <em>apropos</em>. I wonder what that thing in your deep recesses might be as well. Your reaction seems strong and personal and the emotional qualities of light and particularly the significance of <em>gradation</em> comes through profoundly in my experience of your photos.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca</strong>, In what way would the layer of complexity added by color differ from the layers of complexity added by varieties of tonal variations? Yes, it is clearly an element to be reckoned with. How do you reckon?</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, thanks for talking about the significance printmaking has for you. I respond emotionally when skill is apparent, more often tied to a complete body of work than to individual works within that body. Though I am moved when skill is evident, I paradoxically like some of my own photos best that were the easiest to make. I haven't yet found making photos more or less difficult in black&white or in color and realize that may change as I print more.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, that's a poetic and fascinating distinction between your seeing color first with your "eye" and black and white first with your "I." It gives great insight into the way they affect you differently. It's also important that you mention that we may project onto these things as well as taking these things in. We do have both a passive and active relationship (or receptive and ascriptive) to these elements and it's hard if even possible to determine where the dividing line is between what we get from color and black&white and what we give to color and black&white.</p>

<p><strong>Scott</strong>, I'm glad you spoke about darkroom technology and effect. I haven't worked in a darkroom but I imagine the accessibility of working hands-on with black and white did make a difference in how some people think and feel about color, though I know some people who've spent a lot of time in darkrooms who had different experiences about color and black&white even before the darkroom was an issue.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, I appreciate your mentioning what you think of as the abstract quality of black and white and the importance of our not seeing in black and white (most of us) every day. At the same time, I find myself often working with the abstract qualities of color and am mindful of the difference between "real life" color and the color in my photographs. I note, as well, the degrees to which accurate or representational color will be important to various people and especially within various genres of photography.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p>First, it's gratifying to me that there are a bunch of new faces in on this discussion. In the last thread, posted by Wouter, we were discussing the process we go through in this forum and some people were talking about their own hesitation to participate. I hope this forum is now opening up and really welcome all the ideas that have been offered. There's a lot to digest and it's really been quite eye-opening to read all these great responses.</p>

<p>So, as I'm not sure where to go from here, I thought I'd post a few examples. I am aware of some of my own preconceptions about color and black&white and how many exceptions there are to the rules I might have thought there were. I noticed some others' predilections in addition to my own. Will any of these examples nudge ways of thinking? What do they bring up for you regarding color usage? I wonder if some go against the accepted grain of thinking about these issues? I figure this topic deserves some visual accompaniment.*</p>

<p>*Obviously, I'm not posting these links in order for the photographs themselves to be critiqued. What I am interested in is further discussion about how black&white and color can be used and can make us feel or think.</p>

<p>goldin:<br /> http://photonumerique.codedrops.net/IMG/jpg/Self-portrait_on_the_train_Boston_-_New_Haven.jpg</p>

<p>dijkstra:<br /> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EMNJN7NCL.jpg_SX350_BO1,138,138,138_SH30_BO0,100,100,100_PA7,5,5,10_.jpg</p>

<p>callahan:<br /> http://www.photogrowth.com/images/blog/2007/0813_Harry_Callahan.jpg</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>http://www.mocp.org/collections/permanent/uploads/Callahan1984_9.jpg</p>

<p>moriyama:<br /> http://mariagimenez.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/moriyama_02755_7501.jpg</p>

<p>weston:<br /> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CTlXCO4XDxU/SQXOGE1Fb4I/AAAAAAAABCM/v4oG7D_BbMs/s400/Edward+Weston.jpg</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> In what way would the layer of complexity added by color differ from the layers of complexity added by varieties of tonal variations? Yes, it is clearly an element to be reckoned with. How do you reckon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All shades of grey and black and white tend to go with each other as long as the composition is good (I can imagine a black and white shot that was out of proportion in distribution of tones.</p>

<p>Color means working with a range of color -- like Julie said, that pink isn't going away unless you move it and reshoot. Not all color will look equally good together, but in different ways than having blown-out highlights or blocked up shadows. </p>

<p>Setting up studio shots come to mind here -- picking color schemes, or taking advantage of fortuitous combinations.</p>

<p>Black and white film is cheaper than color film, but neither is as cheap as digital with screen as the final presentation.</p>

<p> Color adds another dimension to my photographs. It is infinitely more complex than B&W, but that complexity also makes for a larger conceptual working space, allowing for a vast increase in creative possibilities and problems, welcome problems at that. For me as for most of us descended from Old World apes, color is natural, thus also part of the vernacular of human visual language, making it easy to emphasize the "window" aspect of photographs.</p>

<p> My introduction to color was in the hot light of the tropics, the pungent blue-greens aquamarines of the ocean, its shadings in the shallows, strong, raking light pouring down across terracotta tile roofs, whitewash playing ping-pong with light, filling shadows across streets, the riot of color used expressively and with abandon for everything from house paint to women's dresses.</p>

<p> Although color can be defined objectively, as a wavelength number, that is meaningless. For me color is relative, not absolute. It can be incidental, as in the merely "pretty" or descriptive (Julie's "pink thing") or I can go in and make that pink into whatever I want it to be. For us, as with goldfish and water, color is a problem (a wonderful one at that) in that most people are desensitized to it. This means they are WFO to it in photographs, inhaling without question or reservation. And it's inner language is still a secret, largely unknown to almost all photographers (and painters!) beyond the incidental ("dude, the colors of this sunset were <em>hawt</em> ") or decorative. It is mercurial, changing depending on adjacent colors and that of the light. Color is organic and alive, my perception of it changing according to my state of ennervation. For me, it has also always changed when I mentally shift from one language to another (of a place I've lived in).</p>

<p> The hard part of using color is to re-sensitize oneself to it. Then it has a chance of becoming one's color, not generic color.</p>

<p> I still use black and white when it aids and abets my vision</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> What else could be said about color in the context of photography?"</p>

<p> Volumes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred, Weston's nude and other black and white nudes are perhaps a special case where black and white has the most dramatic difference from color. Nudes in color carry far more of the flesh than black and white nudes.</p>

<p>There's a scene in the Secret Diary of a Call Girl where Belle/Hannah is having picture shot for a "Uber Whore" (her guy friend's characterization) presentation and "monochrome" is considered the classiest of them all. At the highest levels of working girl, it's important not to show too much flesh.</p>

<p>This might also connect with Julie's idea that black and white asks the viewer to reconstitute the color, involves them more in the viewing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 11, 2010; 08:14 a.m.</em></strong><br>

<em><strong>Clive</strong>, the more deranged the better, as far as I'm concerned! I think a "this is art" predilection associated with black and white can work both ways. For some, "art" will connote something positive and for others it will be a warning bell or a negative.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right? That's another thing to contend with, "If it's B/W it's art, if it's color, it's kitsch". Aaaaah, the stereotypes!</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>While I do use my digital camera to make B&W images when I "think B&W", I do not care much to transfer my colour digital files to B&W, at least in those cases where I have shot in colour to emphasise colour or some feeling or aesthetic that I feel requires colour.</p>

<p>Colour is probably our first visual recognition of the world arund us. Our eye receptors react differently to different wavelengths of colour. Colour is extremely powerful when used by the photographer with at least a basic understanding of the various elements of colour images - theory of colours - the specific character of each colour (primary, secondary, etc.) and its complements - the contrast of complimentary colours - the effect of relative areas of colour spaces within an image - the contrast of cold and warm colours - internal relationship of various sets of cold or warm colours - effect of different chromatic qualities of light - the differences between B&W compositional effect (point, line, volumes) and those of colour images of the same subject - and other relationships.</p>

<p>The colour and B&W photographs work on different perceptual planes, which can also overlap. It's too bad many have not had the pleasure of darkroom black and white printing (this is a great time to do so, as excellent equipment is cheap), as it gives the patient practitioner a great feedback on the use of light and dark, of the various manipulations which change the effect of various parts of an image and of the creation of a print by trial and error that can lead to amazingly lovely tones and surfaces that can add significantly to the impact of the final image and to the appreciation by the photographer of the potential of an image. Darkroom activity is not as important for colour as for black and white, most certainly in the digital era, but it can aid the photographer in getting what he wants from an initial exposure in a different way than possible with Photoshop. H.-C.B. never did any darkroom work and might never have used Photoshop. The nature of his wit and vision didn't require it. Digital is really a timely windfall for colour photographers.</p>

<p>Fred, I'm glad you bring in some links. Some of responses given really correspond with my thoughts on black and white, but whenever I try to formulate it, it starts to sound like colour photography is inferior. Probably because I cannot find the right words. So, some real life material will certainly work better. Because I honestly think it is horses for courses, and your links confirm that (for me at least).</p>

<p>The Dijkstra Beaches with the rather bleached look were in fact pictures that I already thought of earlier in this thread. I still don't care much for the photos, but I do find that the use of colour here (more specific the tonality of the colours) interesting. It adds a layer, and an implicit message. Would it be very colourful and saturated, as one would expect on a beach picture, the message of the photo would be radically different. Neither would this work in B&W, or a sepia or the likes, in my opinion. The choice for muted colours seems right.<br>

The first Callahan photo is great, and would be complete drab in black and white. The colour makes it. And for the second the black/white seems the right choice indeed. It makes the picture simpler and guides the viewer a bit better. Colour might only distract here.<br>

The Moriyama picture, partially I get the idea it is black and white out of necessity. Too much different colours in a night picture does not really work, in my experience, and B&W can disguise that perfectly. That said, the relative little amount of grays also help giving this picture a more edgy and raw appearance.<br>

The Goldin (first) link, to me it seems rather irrelevant whether this is colour or black and white. I guess both could work.<br>

As for the last one, the Weston photo, I agree with what Rebecca already said.<br>

It's a good collection assembled to show the use for both colour and B&W. Good thing we have a choice :-)</p>

<p>On a rather unrelated sidenote,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's usually the color of sunset photographs that, for me, emphasize negative aspects of what can so easily be a cliché.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was about to add to my first post how much of a cliché sunsets are, but edited it out; so when I read your respons I sure had to smile. Yes, they tend to be cliché. And I cannot resist them all the same. Natural light is fascinating, and sunsets are great displays of that, to me. Maybe I should try B&W conversions on them, though. Never tried that.</p>