why is this image in color?

<p>I can't recall who said "color photography is about color; black and white is about everything else," but since i've been concentrating on b&w film of late i've really taken these words to heart. now every time i see a color photograph i ask myself whether the color adds anything to the aesthetic value of the image and if not, why is this picture in color? i believe one consequence of the digital takeover is the complete shift in the default setting of the photographic paradigm from black and white to color, a shift which appears to have started in the 1970s with the advent of the instant lab for color negative film. nonetheless i fail to see why the above-quoted maxim is any less true today than it ever was. where the aesthetic value of an image is primarily or completely derived from a study of form, texture, geometry, etc., ought we not be asking of ourselves and of the photographer, why is this image in color? </p>

<p>Color is more immediately accessible to a photographer or a viewer than are the subtlties of light, I think. Having lived in the b&w age, I recall what visual impact a true technicolor movie had. The b&w photos I like best seem to have natural light itself as the subject and not really the forms the light models, and the best color photos are the ones that manage to "harmonize" the colors like a good representational painting, the values conformed to the color wheel, with the pigments mixed to that end. If a photographer can get the two together in one photograph, that is really something worth viewing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Color photography isn't "just about color". The better statement would be that black and white photography is about the lack of color, allowing one to focus on aspects that might get missed otherwise.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I love black and white photography and will always love it. But the simple answer is "because our eyes see in color".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ought we not be asking of ourselves and of the photographer, why is this image in color?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not ask, why is this image in black and white? It's false from the start that color images are only about color, there is absolutely nothing to back it up, not in anything you present or anyone else. It's another one of those "feel good about the old days" kinds of statements.</p>

<p>I agree with Jeff here. I don't think color photos are "about" color any more than they are "about" anything else. I go with my gut on what I process in color and what goes to black and white but I don't necessarily make those decisions because of the color itself but because of what the color expresses and how it feels.</p>

<p>"the aesthetic value of an image is primarily or completely derived from a study of form, texture, geometry, etc."</p>

<p>That seems a clinical view of aesthetics, emphasizing the forensic aspects and leaving out the emotional and feeling aspects. Beauty is a place to be brought to, not just a series of visual categories. The aesthetic value of an image, for me, is derived from what it expresses and how it makes me feel.</p>

<p>I think it's always hard to define the "basis" of a photograph from which other elements (like color) can be abstracted or added or subtracted. I see it more as a gestalt than as primary and secondary elements. I don't think of black and white photos as lacking color and I don't think of color photos as having something added to them. I am inclined to see each kind of photo as a sort of fullness in itself. That's not to say they don't serve different purposes and make me feel differently. And some of my photos seem destined for one or the other. But neither seems foundational.</p>

<p>Colour has more "degrees of freedom" than black and white. The colour wheel of formative art courses has no relevance in black and white, except in terms of the tones of grey and the way we can make use of colour filters to manipulate those tones.</p>

<p>Colour photos can be made to be abstract, but it isn't an intrinsic property of colour itself. Black and white IS abstract, and that is a very great part of its attraction. We are NEVER looking at a fully realistic interpretation of what our eyes see. The additional degrees of freeom of colour, in being able to use colour harmony and discord, are valuable but are not there, but in black and white the eye is particularly open to the beauty of light and shade, to variations in tone that is expessed simply by a range of greys (often silvery in appearance) rather than from a kaleidoscope of colours. White and black elements of the image assume major importance, whereas in a colour photograph they are often only secondary.</p>

<p>We see in colour. So do great painters, but that doesn't prevent them from moulding reality to their aesthetic interests. To say black and white is dead, or of another era, is ridiculous. Many collectors of prints prefer it. For one, you can check out the prices of Michael Kenna's contemporary small prints.</p>

<p>It is an art form and a photographic form and one that will never die. For those wishing to expess themselves in black and white, the traditional darkroom is still very accessible (as opposed to the now redundant colour darkroom) and a great and enjoyable craft experience. You can also easily (but not always as successfully) convert digital to monochrome, and print digitally like you would colour. Maybe some day we will see black and white digital cameras, making better use of all the pixels. In any case, black and white is unique and very different from colour imaging.</p>

<p>I agree with Fred about the emotional or feeling aspects. Color can be a very powerful conveyor of them. I prefer b&w for candid photography because of that...because the color in the scene is out of my control -- it is not my choice to have, say, a lot of hot pink in a scene that is otherwise peaceful and serene simply because a house or a billboard is that color.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur--</p>

<p>I agree with much of what you said and appreciate the way you've put it. I don't think, though, that I would emphasize the "abstractness" of black and white to the extent you have. Black and white was all we had for decades of film and photographs and they have become part of the way we see, part of our vernacular, and as realistic in so many ways as color. I don't think of Ansel Adams photographs as abstract in a way more than I would a color photo of Yosemite. Both have realistic and abstract qualities. Casablanca is not a particularly VISUALLY abstract film, although there are certainly abstract qualities to it, qualities that transcend narrative and subject, as in all art. I'm no more conscious of light in Casablanca than I am in, say, Badlands, where Terence Malick weaves a narrative but his color filming works on that same aesthetically abstract level about which you are speaking regarding black and white.</p>

<p>I've just been fortunate to see Giorgio Morandi's retrospective at the Met in NYC. "http://www.italica.rai.it/index.php?categoria=art&scheda=morandi_90_64</p>

<p>He said "Nothing is abstract in my view: moreover, I believe that there is nothing more surreal and more abstract than reality."</p>

<p>Here's a photographic spin on Morandi ...very happy to find it just now...somewhere I saw a representative collection of his paintings online, but I've not been able to find it again to link..</p>

<p>I strongly disagree with statements that support color photography with "we see color." We may see color, but that fact is irrelevant to photography. (note: I appreciate color photography as much as B&W photography and am technically competent with both.)</p>

<p>With photography, we use devices to produce relatively permanent images... independent of brief retinal experiences. Those relatively permanent images can as readily be B&W as color...neither is more "photographic."</p>

<p>I'm currently yearning for B&W film...my digital B&W prints are often fine, but inkjet prints from scanned B&W 35mm have frequently been more rewarding than DSLR B&W (Lightroom conversion from RAW). I think this mostly has to do with the way film responds to low light when processed the way I often like it (pushed, 1+100 stand-processed Rodinal.. it's edge definition and tonal scale, not just the grain). As well, film (B&W and fast color) has more inherent character than DSLR files, it's less ambiguous...film helps me make images, a DSLR file is more passive.</p>

<p>A great color photograph is far harder to make than a great black & white photo. Black & white is an abstraction it becomes much more about the graphic qualities of the image . By removing color you remove information -- information . That missing information might be a distraction or it might make a better photo, it all depends on the photograph. Color used right has real power, but like I said, it is hard to use well.</p>

<p>http://artandperception.com/2008/11/photo-morandi-i.html</p>

<p>That's the photographic spin on Morandi that I failed to link above.</p>

<p>Morandi often used a limited range of colors...such as browns and creams and greys... a narrow range is perhaps different from both "B&W" or "color" in photography.</p>

<p>I often think antique brown and sepia toned originals (ie "B&W") and matched copies are more appealing than "neutral B&W" renditions from the same scan of the same original.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i believe one consequence of the digital takeover is the complete shift in the default setting of the photographic paradigm from black and white to color, a shift which appears to have started in the 1970s with the advent of the instant lab for color negative film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe you're making all this up because you have no proof either of the statements is true. Using your logic, shouldn't this shift to color have started with Polaroid which gave instant results in color - much like digital - and also totally eliminated the need for a processing lab? </p>

<p>I've been shooting color since about 1980 because I find color much more interesting than B&W.</p>

<p>Anybody that doesn't think color photography isn't about color ..... well they can't honestly think that. I believe most color photographers first and foremost think about what they're seeing "in color" before anything else. And, it's they're "prime" motivator for taking the picture. Period.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anybody that doesn't think color photography isn't about color ..... well they can't honestly think that. I believe most color photographers first and foremost think about what they're seeing "in color" before anything else. And, it's they're "prime" motivator for taking the picture. Period.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then for people working in B&W - it's first and foremost about black and white and grey... I believe most B&W photographers first and foremost think about what they're seeing in B&W before anything else - and it's their prime motivator for taking the picture. Period.</p>

<p>Are those statements true? </p>

<p>No - and neither is your statement about color. Color is one of the elements to be used in the photograph, and it may or may not be one of the "prime motivator" for making the image. </p>

<p>I work in color because I find it more interesting. Some photographs are about color - the color of objects or the color of light - but, other photographs are about the subject and color happens to be one of the elements in the photograph.</p>

<p>"I believe..." is a reliable sign of ignorance.</p>

<p>"where the aesthetic value of an image is primarily or completely derived from a study of form, texture, geometry, etc., ought we not be asking of ourselves and of the photographer, why is this image in color?"</p>

<p>Sure, why not...? Could be an interesting exercise, because I can easily imagine there being many different responses... A common one must surely be "Well, why not...?" :) Or, perhaps "Because my client didn't want a B&W shot..." And let's not forget the classic "Erm, because my camera takes colour photographs... Do you have some kind of problem with colour pictures or something...?"</p>

<p>The problem is that the "aesthetic value" of the image is purely in the mind of the individual viewer (including the photographer, of course), so the questioning process itself will differ from one individual to the next depending on each individual photo, along with the context in which it's presented and all the rest of it... And the answers are just gonna be a big bunch of personal opinions/reactions... Will such answers be useful to you...? Depends who you're asking, and what they have to say, I guess.</p>

<p>If you find your own answers to questions such as these useful, I don't see any harm in asking... In fact, I think I'd encourage people to do just that... But OK, if the basic conclusion to all the questioning and analysis is "I just seem to prefer B&W pics these days", well, I'm not entirely sure what that achieves, because you probably knew that already... :)</p>

<p>Stepping back a bit ... from that same standpoint, we should then ask "why..." about <em>every</em> facet of the image, not just decision to use colour. (Including "why black and white?")<br>

Colour or black and white (or sepia, or whatever) is one important decision making dimension among many – none of which should have a default which we have not personally made.</p>

<p>Color is a distraction that takes away concentration on the finer things like gradations of light, lines, form and composition. How often have we heard the comment "Oh what lovely color!" .....end of discussion. B/W forces the viewer to see more deeply then they could have otherwise. </p>

<p>Color, like the other "<em>finer things like gradations of light, lines, form and composition</em> " is content. As I said before, either a photographer uses that content well or they don't. And when it is used it well, people notice. Or more precisely, they don't notice it, they just take it all in as part of the experience of looking at the photo. It is only when the photo is otherwise boring or just flat out sucks that people make comments like ""Oh what lovely color!" and the discussion ends.<br>

To say "color is a distraction" is the same thing as thinking pepper is a distraction from the salt in a chicken cassarole; or that commas are a distraction from periods in a sentence.</p>

<p>I love black and white photography; but, if you want to get some respect for color really fast, try painting. You could paint in a monochrome or "less than three" type combination of hues; I'm talking paint with a dozen colors. Didn't have any respect for the masters before? Think only cosmetic people use color? Any other color-related put downs? </p>

<p>Even if you ace painting in color, I think the answer would be the opposite; it's easier to work in tones alone. Straight up easier. Why is this image in color? Okay, I think that's provocative; I think there's probably a good point in there; the image could have been made without it, etc. Maybe some people's photography would be improved by ditching color altogether. </p>

<p>That said, I think that, from an artistic respect point of view, the decision to not use color would be one of structural simplification. I doubt someone would kick color out of the image because color work was too easy. Maybe it's easy to do a really bad job of it; maybe that's commonplace. </p>

<p>Why use color? Overall, I'd generally prefer to ditch it; but a good sized segment of population responds readily and positively to the presence of color. Look at the Impressionist movement. Almost all of those images kick tone out of the image in favor of hue; not entirely true, but a trend. I guess people use color because they naturally like it, and they can. </p>

<p>To command a mastery over a use of color? That's a whole different thing. Some people are good at it; I'm not; I say more power to those who do; it's just not my thing. Good luck. J.</p>

<p>I think that only until you have worked in black and white to the fullest, from the conception of an image in envisaged monochrome space, through to the manipulations of film development and printing, using all the means of tonal control, dodging, burning and post print development treatments, can you get a complete appreciation of the medium. No, on second thought, that is necssary, but it is not enough. You have to also make mistakes. Lots of them. You can then re-adapt your thinking and practices and go forward toproduce better work. Parallel to all this is the conceptual process of how to best use the medium for your art, based upon what you as a unique individual can do within the freedom of the medium and a world of subject matter.</p>

<p>The same is true of colour, within the limitations of either traditional colour processes or the more flexible numerical or digital colour image production and modification routes. Each of B&W and colour photography has its advantages for certain types of image-making. Some prefer the realism of colour, or its chromatic wealth and abstraction possibilities. Others prefer the specific artistic challenges of black and white.</p>

<p>If I had to choose (and I like both for what they are) one or the other, there is no question it would be a black and white decision. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that only..can you get a complete appreciation of the medium.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So only photographers can appreciate the medium? Does that mean that if you haven't used oil paint, you have no appreciation for oil paintings? </p>

<p>Quite frankly, the statement is nonsense. There is nothing to back it up, nothing to make it worth thinking about. It's not just nonsense, it's elitist nonsense - only the suffering artist who has paid his or her dues is worthy. Phooey! (And that's a philosophical phooey.)</p>

<p>"Color is for the eyes, black and white is for the soul."</p>

<p>I'm not sure who said it and I can't agree with it 100% of the time but for me it applies. I have severe color vision limitations so I miss a lot (when I look at a rainbow I see three bands) and can't begin to work in color. B&W is a whole different story. I have seen color photos that I like and impress me but good B&W will reach down inside of me and grab soemthing. </p>

<p>Because of the color vision I realize I'm probably an exception but I also think a lot of people react the same way to a B&W photo that "grabs" them, more so then one done in color.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because of the color vision I realize I'm probably an exception but I also think a lot of people react the same way to a B&W photo that "grabs" them, more so then one done in color.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to believe it's because of innate prejudice, like the elitist nonsense I pointed out above, or because they haven't seen masters of color photography like Rio Branco or Lauren Greenfield.</p>

<p>In school I was taught that if a painting (done with colors) looked good as a black and white reproduction, then color wasn't being used properly. Seems to me that could apply with photography. Take a color picture, convert it to B&W, and if it still really works as a picture, you probably don't need the color. If, on the other hand it looks terrible, the color is essential. Color contrast works differently than value contrast, and using one, the other, or both are valid ways of working.</p>