Why does BW give pleasure to my eye?

<p>I have an app on my computer that presents an AA picture everytime I reload my browser.<br>

Most of them give me pleasure to the eye.<br>

My own black and white photos give me pleasure to look at. They don't look like the real world(the real world is in color, and big, and with perspective, and all the other things that photos don't have).<br>

And it can't be just me, they MUST give pleasure to other viewers as well.<br>

Why do black and white photos give pleasure to the eye?</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>A fantasy world, more abstract than color, simpler and sometimes more powerful compositions of light, point, line and form, a certain sometimes stark emotional impact. Color is also very powerful - when well used. </p>

<p>Having been brought up on black and white tv (after no tv) and still preferring the old B&W film classics, I also love looking at B&W images. There is an interesting challenge to produce an interesting photograph without the benefit of colour; your subject, composition, etc all become so much more important as you don't have the colour there (and I love bright colours!).<br /> I replaced my perfectly good Epson 1900 with the 2880 so I could make better B&W prints and I'm going to be buying the latest version of Silver Efex Pro shortly for B&W conversions.In addition of course, we're no longer used to seeing much in the way of B&W so, being out of the ordinary, it catches our attention.I'm quite happy to see a resurgence in interest in black and white photographs.<br>

cb :-)</p>

<p>Color is hormones and ripeness. It needs to be fed and watered and let out to go to the bathroom. It can bloom and it can rot.</p>

<p>Black and white has had the all the time taken out of it. It's forever; it won't go bad. It will be there when you get back.</p>

<p>Black and white is a more known/familiar vocabulary in photography.</p>

<p>Pleasure is one value among many. Color and black and white have different <em>challenges</em>.</p>

<p>I love what Julie said. I don't agree with her.....but I love how she said it!</p>

<p>I think it to be more a matter of the <em><strong>intent </strong></em>of the image.....and the nature of the subject matter.....Robert</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Color is hormones and ripeness. It needs to be fed and watered and let out to go to the bathroom. It can bloom and it can rot.<br>

Black and white has had the all the time taken out of it. It's forever; it won't go bad. It will be there when you get back.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow! Superb writing! Ingenious perception.</p>

<p>I just bought a Nikon F6 to shoot Tri-X exclusively. I wanted to create real, organic grain again. In my more pedestrian terms, black and white allows me to "cheat," effecting instant, effortless abstraction. Delete color, and then form, gradient, and texture become my design focus.</p>

<p>Black & White steals me away to a place Nostalgic. I did not grow up on B&W, even so there is always something nostalgic, having greater gravitas than color.</p>

<p>Personally, I think it represents a moment of simplicity in a world of complexity to me.</p>

<p>There's the traditional and historical baggage of B&W, very little of which is pure B&W, btw, most has a color cast. The charm of B&W lies in that it's far less realistic-looking than color, that it's an abstraction. That distancing allows us to see things in a different, far simpler way.</p>

<p>I work mostly in B&W and I don't find any "charm" in it. I do it for three main reasons: 1) it is consistent with the body of my work, and color can be a distraction 2) since the photos that matter to me are those that I print, I don't want the extra complexity of color post-processing Vs B&W post processing (which for me is mostly density/contrast/dodging-burning/sharpening). 3) I'm not after pretty pictures, and pretty tends to rule the color world.</p>

<p>As well, "the eye" is a bad metaphor for how we see because it dumbs-down the joy some of us find in doubt, complexity, allusions etc. Color photos tend to be simplistic, intended for passive appreciation, decorative...not always of course, but usually.</p>

<p>...also, comments about "color cast" in B&W prints are outdated. Color cast became a non-issue four or five years ago with printer drivers such as Quadtone or Epson's ABW, or (alternatively) use of B&W dedicated inksets such as Cone and MIS. </p>

<p>The B&W silver prints some of us most enjoy are often toned (eg selenium or gold), or have become more beautiful with age (as some of Weston's). Inkjet printing can as easily emulate those or neutral looks or very cold looks without any hint of color cast (unless one inspects with a loupe and finds a color pigment was added to blacks and greys to get a particular effect, such as that of Portriga Rapid, Agfa's warm-tone silver paper). My Epson 3800 uses four OEM blacks and can print with those alone if I choose.</p>

<p>While a b&w image may be more pleasing than the same image in color in some examples ( I find color photographs actually very pleasing to look at, Stephen Shore, etc...) I think it has more to do with the subject ( in many good color photographs, color <em>is</em> the subject ) than with it having to do with either b&w or color. I can think of many photographs in b&w that aren't at all pleasing to look at, because the subject may not call for that ( war photography for example ), and, where the use of b&w over color is perhaps used to make it something in the other direction of 'pleasing'.</p>

<p>I like what both Robert and Phylo have to say. I'd add to this that I think it's the way various elements are put together, their relationship, that creates what I see and how I react to a photograph. No one element alone, such as color or black and white, strikes me in one particular way absent a context and its relationship to other elements, such as subject, contrast, lighting, perspective, etc.</p>

<p>There's nothing more timeless than <em>The Wizard of Oz</em>, mostly in glorious color. And there's nothing more nostalgic and time-referencing than a good Douglas Sirk potboiler, also in that unmistakable 50s-era color. Color can accomplish many things. As can black and white. It's in their <em>use</em>.</p>

<p>It's true that color is nowadays used for most snapshots, so that can color the way it is experienced. But it's also true that color can transcend that kind of association. The equivalent of bad or one-dimensional color work exists in black and white as well: over-emphasis on high-contrast work, badly done high key effects, obvious pathos-laden sepia toning . . .</p>

<p>While I love Julie's comment, Luis G's does ring a lot of bells too. For the "liking it part", as a viewer, that is.<br>

As for being busy on photos myself, agree with Phylo and Robert; I do like B&W and shoot quite a lot B&W. But as stated already, the difference between a B&W and colour photo is more than just the lack of colour. When out and about shooting photos, to me, typically they are either B&W or colour upfront - I have precious few who work equally well with or without colour. B&W is part of the intent indeed, and shooting film, I notice how I do "watch" for different things knowing some things will not work super in B&W, and some will.</p>

<p>Sure you can have a preference for one over the other, nothing to argue there. But is it because of the subject of these photos, their reason for being colourless, or is it because colour distracts you?</p>

<p><em>(Sure enough, while typing this, all pictures below showing samples of the posters are monochrome - 2 B&W, one sepia. All showing a key strength of B&W to me - more focus on lines, shapes, forms. Well, that, and 'nuff said on our preferences, I guess!).</em></p>

<p>Richard - You said the "Real" world is in color! Are you sure? Becasue color is only a tiny bandwidth of the energy spectrum that affects human eyes. Heat is its sister. Radio wave is its sister. ..... World is only Color to your and my eyes. Not that "Reality" is in Color. World (or reality, whatever the definition for that maybe) is what eye "says" of it; not that it is what eye "sees" of it. If your eye (like mine) likes it in B&W, then it "is" in B&W, and that it is the color that is the odd. <br>

Furthermore, the world that we are talking about, is discretized into "things" that are familiar and useful to humans; things like Trees, Lakes, Moon, Fruits, etc. Whatever it is, it is a different thing to a lion who sees things in only two categories: eatables, and negligibles. There is no "reality" except what "we" make of it. </p><div></div>

<p>It seems juvenile to argue the "goodness" or "badness" of B&W Vs color, but I suppose that's inevitable because it's an easy thing to do. It's also easy to philosophize about it, especially if one takes the kumbayah path. <br>

I'd reject out of hand the idea that B&W is "better" than color for graphic purposes. "Better" has to do with skill and intentions.<br>

A harder path was to address my own decisionmaking...which I attempted because I could express some general reasons for working mostly in B&W. <br>

My impression is that people who don't print favor color. I think B&W and color are equally demanding to print but again, color seems to me to be a distracting factor in printmaking because it introduces visual factors that rarely contribute to what I envision when I make the exposure. Color rarely serves my purpose currently, but it has in the past and might in the future. It's a matter of previsualization, but not in the technical sense of the Zone System (I don't place a particular grey in a particular zone). </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've watched thousands of people experience more than a hundred photographic exhibitions. The opportunity to do this came from years as a gallerist, an exhibitor of photographs, sometime director of a photographic gallery, critic, and commentator.<br /> <br /> A typical exhibition of thirty colour photographs takes the average opening night viewer only about 10 to 15 minutes to process. While I'm working the crowd the questions are always the same: where was this taken, when did this happen, what's the name of this? Fully 99% of the mental activity going on in the room is dedicated to identifying the subject and filing it away in a comfortable real-world context. After the hors d'oeuvres are finished and there is only red wine left I don't see knots of people gathered in front of a colour picture arguing about what it <em>means</em>. That's reserved for black and white exhibitions.<br /> <br /> A black and white photograph, however it looks, could have been otherwise. Its appearance is not rigidly dictated by subject matter and it is a limited source of information about that subject matter. On the other hand it is rich in hints about the choices the photographer made. And inevitably those choices are driven by the photographer's agenda. The viewers challenge is to deconvolute the agenda from the visual clues in the photograph; unravelling an abstraction in other words. <br /> <br /> Mental process that invoke simile, metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, connotation, allusion, and illusion are dragged into the process to make sense of what is being looked at. People with a richer intellectual history of looking at photographs see more than the casual viewer. I've watched many people "mentalise" black and white photographs and their destination is <em>understanding</em> rather than <em>identification</em>.<br /> <br /></p>

<p>Maris, you've hit on the head one of the reasons I love working in color. It's a challenge! I think good and thoughtful and significant color work can do all that you've experienced with black and white. It's all in the color recipe. [At present, I seem to do equal amounts of work in color and black and white.] Sometimes a photographer can (hope to) lead even the most complacent or habitualized audience.</p>

<p>Arguing the differences between traditional and digital printing can be exhausting, mainly exhaustingly boring and often trivial. The best of either are virtually comparable.</p>

<p>Arguing the difference between black and white and colour is more meaningful. They are very different media, as water colours and oils are. Today we see them used interchangeably, as it is so easy to desaturate a colour image. That ease often robs the photographer of the potential for a better mastery of black and white. When you shoot black and white (B&W film and B&W darkroom paper or digital printing, or with a digital camera set up for black and white) you really think black and white. Black and white is not as easy as making a later quick change, it is a whole artform in itself. Very few excellent colour images make equally good B&W images, and vice versa. And shouldn't. I very much agree with Maris. Each medium has its shortcomings, and that of colour he has described as I see it as well. If I had to choose betwen the two, I would not hesitate. Not for the pleasing quality. That I usually associate more with colour than with B&W.</p>

<p>Remarkably interesting observations by Maris Rusis. Minor White did some studies around time spent viewing individual photos in galleries, but I think he was concerned more with generic viewing than with anything as detailed as what Maris describes..I doubt White considered color.</p>

<h1>Why does BW give pleasure to my eye?</h1>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why does BW give pleasure to the eye?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know if it does. Not more or less than "colors".<br>

As a starting point I would rather see all "colors" together, the color white and the color black among them.<br>

I think the best way into the question is to try to detect that very special quality of white and black and the contrast between them compared to other colors. Colors have always in all cultures symbolized the human world of beliefs and various emotional reactions. Color symbolism is also present in all arts throughout history. We all react spontaneously to colors according to our cultural affinities. The question is therefor what is the faculties of black and white when they are presented as opposites. In taoism, for example, in order to communicate extreme opposites, like Yin and Yang, mostly black and white would be used. <br>

On this background, loosely described above, I admit, I would believe that the colors white and black (BW) communicate tension and provokes the eye and mind to approach differences and compositions more directly than mix of other colors. I would therefor not relate the term "pleasure" to BW but more "attention" and "reflection".<br>

I also believe that if we consider BW photos as more serious (what ever that means) than "color" photos, it is mainly because we master better the strong language of BW than that of colors. Colors, as mentioned above, are therefore a largely unanswered challenge to most of us - or at least to me.</p>

<p>Simplicity and less distraction. Also B&W seems to bring out the emotions.</p>

<p>Anders,<br /> I have made an observation. Black and white images gives me pleasure to view. Obviously, it does to others as well. Or else they would have become extinct when color photos(television or movies) became available.<br /> You mention tribalism to an extent to explain your point(not like you called it that, but I will). But what about tribalistic, black and white(skin) tattoos? There has recently been a huge resurgence of pure black 'tribal' tattoos. Or merely black and white tattoos, when color versions today are readily available.<br /> <br /> So far, I have found Maris' post the most interesting. Julie Heyward's only a short second behind.</p>

<p>"Simplicity and less distraction." Harry Joseph wrote.<br /> <br /> I don't know if that's the right answer. The lighthouse photo that Robert Cossar posted, on the first page is certainly not simple. It's very complex. And there are distractions in it. Yet it very pleasing to the eye. I am distracted between the subject, the lighthouse. And the very very high jarring contrast foreground, and the smooth ethereal qualities of the sun and clouds. Very distracting, very complex, but it works for me. Why is that pleasing to us as human beings(it's at least pleasing to Robert as well, for he posted it)?</p>

<p>Nozar,<br /> I think that is an interesting point.<br /> "Furthermore, the world that we are talking about, is discretized into "things" that are familiar and useful to humans; things like Trees, Lakes, Moon, Fruits, etc."<br /> Because it might belie our ancestral roots.<br /> Maybe not the fruit part. Fruits are colorful and ripe, and dripping, like Julie stated. To be gathered and gleaned during the light of day. The moon part, trees part, the lakes part, certainly...<br /> When did our ancestors hunt, 20(200) thousand years ago? Did they hunt during the day. Or at night?</p>

<p>Why do Adam's artificially <strong>blackened</strong> Yosemite skies give us pleasure to view? They are certainly not representative of what is real during the day.</p>