Why shoot B & W?

Why does anyone shoot black & white film for nature photography? Other than special situations, I can�t understand why some people persist in shooting monochrome, when there is such a wealth of color film available. I see in color. Nature is color. Our job as nature photographers is to record some scene, or portion there of, in intimate detail (to me, that means COLOR). Yes, there are times when it is difficult, and I sometimes wonder if that is when other people shoot B&W. At those difficult times, you may find me trying every kind of Fuji & Kodak transparency film on the market.......or, more likely, I will have put down the camera to wait for another day or opportunity with better light. I�m sure there will be those of you who will say, �what about the great masters�....Ansel and those well-worn tripod marks. Yes, he was a gifted photographer. When he started, B&W was easily available; color was not. Today, he�d probably be shooting a 35mm with Velvia. (Sorry for the blasphemy...) I know there are a few black & white shooters who frequent this forum. Without color, I can�t tell a yellow-bellied marmot from a hoary marmot (sorry Don). And that �racetrack� could be a chunk of frozen mud on my icy driveway (sorry Dan). Tell me, why do you like b&w?

Let me start by saying that not all nature photographers are just intrested in recording as scene. I think you have forgotten that photography is still an art. I used to agree with you about black and white. I don't anymore, because I looked past the simple photo and looked to see what it expresses. A mood,the photographers feelings. You say you like Adams' black and white; what is it about those images that you like. Most people would say that it is the emotion that is associated with the photo. Could color have revealed all of that emotion. I don't think so. Look at photography as an art. It is not just a technical profession. Black and White is simple, yet can best express a photographers feelings about a solution. For many, I shoot black and white for the challange. I find it to be greatly rewarding to see my prints taking form in the darkroom and having them represent what I felt when I took the photograph. I also shoot with velvia, but I can not introduce my own art to a slide other than through exposure, lighting, or composition. With a black and white print, I can manipulate the image how I choose, and that is when it becomes art and not just a historical documentation of some place at some time. Look past the technical side of photography and find the ART!

I agree with James.

You do not "record a scene", you create a photograph, (at least you try to CREATE. Or maybe you do not even try...)

Anyway "recording a scene" most likely results in boring pictures that noone wants to look at. (with the exception of a criminal photographer shooting a murder scene)

 

<p>

 

The range and subtliety of emotion that can be expressed in B&W is very rich and different from those in color.

If anything, B&W is superior to color in many ways.

 

<p>

 

(BTW I shoot Velvia most of the time)

B&W (including infrared B&W) can be very effective for landscapes

and abstract nature images. It can concentrate on the patterns

involved and sometimes be more effective than color. You can do things in B&W you can't in color (e.g. the use of yellow/green/red

filters to alter the tonal balance in an image). It's also

1000% easier to process and print at home! Even I can do B&W...

 

<p>

 

I'd agree though that I've yet to see any wildlife images that

probably wouldn't have been more effective in color. I'm not

saying there aren't any, just that so far I haven't seen one!

I often hear that the job of a photographer is to accurately reproduce an image onto film. I hear it even more often among nature photographers. This issue of accuracy is often used to suggest that certain films, filters, techniques, etc. are inappropriate. I disagree strongly. Ansel Adams liked to photograph in B&W specifically because he could manipulate the image so much. Look carefully at some of these images with rich dark skies, do you really think that the sky was the darkest part of the image? No, the image was manipulated to make the sky dark and create the emotion desired.

 

<p>

 

I believe that the benefits of B&W are:

Technical - Much greater range of contrast, and generally better detail.

Emotional - The ability to strongly manipulate the shades of the image. Plus B&W images tend to focus the visual experience on subtle shades and textures.

 

<p>

 

I also think it is a great exercise to photograph in B&W. Photography is about capturing the substance of the image, not just making an exact copy (otherwise, why would you use Velvia?). By using B&W film, I am forced to think carefully about how the final image will appear, and how I can work to change the image to match my experience of the scene. By learning use the zone system in B&W, I am much better and using the zone system in color.

 

<p>

 

Give it a try. I shoot lots of color slides using Velvia and my super auto-Nikon wonder camera. But my real learning is done with my primative 4x5 with simple B&W film. By learning to carefully create the image I 'see' in my head, I can create a better image on film.

 

<p>

 

(P.S. A well shot B&W should allow you to tell the yellow-bellied marmot from the hoary kind, if this were the goal of the photo.)

Steve, I agree that color is normally a lot prettier than b&w, especially for wildlife. I think there are exceptions, however, the yellow-bellied marmot is probably not one of those exceptions. I shot him in b&w and Provia. Why b&w? Someone mentioned challenge, and for me I guess that was it. When I started shooting nature a few years ago, I hadn't done any photography for about 10 years. I decided to take a year and just shoot b&w. It forced me to watch the lighting carefully. I figured it I could get good b&w images, good color images would be a snap. When I shot this little guy, I was just emerging from my year of b&w only and carried one camera with b&w and one with color slide film. So call it a challenge or call it training. I still shoot b&w occasionally. It's like getting back to basics.

Although it seems apparent that the intent behind the original post is to (mostly) provide thread bait, I cannot help but throw in my opinion on the subject. I will begin by saying that I shoot color landscape. I started in photography as a B&W (large format) zone system weenie; I now shoot color because it is much easier to sell. I still love B&W, my favorite photographers of all time, Minor White, Brett Weston, Clarence John Laughlin (to name a few) were all B&W shooters. I do not believe that there is anything inherent in either medium that makes it superior. B&W and color are merely different.

 

<p>

 

I am a (self proclaimed) compositionalist. To me, a work of art becomes �great� when the sum total of its lines and shapes, spaces (and negative space) work to generate a �power� that is seemingly greater than the subject matter at hand. Great art demands attention........it follows you around the room; hell it follows you home and enters your thoughts and dreams. So to me, subject matter is irrelevant. Of course, this philosophy is not B&W (please pardon the pun) A haunted expression on a portrait can evoke similar feelings, but (for me) it doesn�t become great art unless the above criterion is met. For example, once a saw a snapshot taken by a �hunter� of a mountain lion cornered by a pack of dogs. (Ranchers will kill any lion they can find, regardless of the legality, generally they use dogs to run it down) The lion was scratched, starved and exhausted, with a look of desperation and resignation that I cannot forget. That look will follow me to my grave. However, the pic was not great art.

 

<p>

 

The reason I digressed into the endless debate about �art� was because I cannot help but disagree with the responding poster, James Fazio. (pardon me James; you may feel I am quoting out of context)) �....with B&W I can manipulate the image how I choose, and that is when it becomes art� One can manipulate color in the darkroom also......check out some of Michael Fatalis prints sometime. They are so highly manipulated (I am told, I never met the gentleman) that he calls them �art prints� instead of photographs. Art is, or it not, for any individual.

 

<p>

 

I also disagree with the photographers mandate as stated by Steve in the original post. �Our job as photographers is to record some scene.......in intimate detail� I feel that my job is to create compelling imagery, and I will do that with every tool at my disposal, be it B&W or color. It seems important to Steve to be able to tell the difference between species, and obviously, one may needs color to be able to do so. I certainly understand this. But, while the sale of the photo may be dependent upon the ability to identify the species, the power generated by the image is not (for me).

 

<p>

 

B&W, in my opinion, needs no defense. The creation of compositional power is merely different in B&W than with color....specifically in the area of space. That is, the addition of color in any given image will many times change the �intensity or strength� of specific spaces (as opposed to B&W). I feel that this is especially true in the area of negative space....that is the definition of a specific space by the surrounding (positive) spaces. Color becomes as much a part of the compositional process as the shapes, lines and spaces. It is my opinion that B&W is easier to �shoot � simply because there is one less concern. (I know, I am really setting myself up with that one)

 

<p>

 

Some images are more powerful in B&W than color....and vice versa. I shoot them side by side all the time.

 

<p>

 

I apologize if all this seems like incoherent mumbo-jumbo. I find it ironic....ten years ago I read a book that tried to define the difference between art and great art written by the great photographer and international artist, Frederick Summer. I threw it on a shelf, dismissing it as mumbo jumbo. I realize now that he probably spent a lifetime trying figure it out for himself, and discover myself musing on the same subject constantly. Now I carry it in my camera sack and read it while in the field. Piece by piece, little by little, it begins to come clear. And hell, now I walk around spouting incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo. Its a weird world.

 

<p>

 

Thanks all,

George

It seems I offended a few people, and that was not the intent of my question. I don't believe B & W is necessarily "the basics", as I and many others have learned to photograph in color. I've shot film for about 30 years now, and for the past 15, I've made my living shooting stock photos. I've literally shot thousands of rolls of film, but, I've never used a roll of B & W. I also have no desire to work in a darkroom (it might be fun to you, Bob, but I don't like being stuck in a small, dark space with smelly chemicals). Aside from the ease of home developing, I still don't understand most B & W NATURE shots (and I stress NATURE)...I contend it will work better in color (though maybe not easier....color films are definitely less forgiving!).

I guess Steve and I have a different aesthetic - I would cite Dan's "racetrack" image as demonstrating EXACTLY why one might choose to shoot B&W. And I'm speaking as someone who's shot very little B&W in the last five years...

I think B&W allows you more control, and more of and ability to put something of yourself into the image. You're wrong about AA and color. He lived well into the era of color dominance (he died in the early '80s some time). He did do some color work, but was apparently dissatisfied with it and frustrated with the lack of control. (He was somewhat of a control freak). Once digital imaging matures it will give you the sort of control he would want.<P>If your idea is simply to record a scene in intimate detail, then you and I certainly have difference aesthetics. Nothing wrong with that. I liked Dan's color photo of the tarantula on the racetrack, by the way, but it was the b&w racetrack print I chose to purchase for my wall.

Steve: Take a look at Adams' "Monolith, the face of halfdome" and

see what can be done in B&W. I think Adams used a deep red filter

to turn the sky black. You just couldn't do that in color. Also,

look at Adams Zone system for controling the image. You can't do

that in color either (not over much of a range or without color

shifts anyway). Adams did work in color BTW, even using Kodachrome.

You can find books of his color work. He didn't do a lot for

reasons stated by others.

 

<p>

 

I don't suggest for one second that most color images would look

better in B&W (they don't), but I think there are a few B&W images

which wouldn't look as good in color as they would in B&W.

 

<p>

 

Since they can "colorize" B&W movies, who will be the first to

publish the colorized version of Adams' "Moonrize over Hernandez".

Can't say I'm real anxious to see it myself though.

 

<p>

 

BTW at first glance I thought the B&W image of the marmot was

a hoary marmot! It looked like a

<a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/gallery/img0039.htm">

color image</a> I took (on Kodachrome

in a heavy fog up in the North Cascades!)

I will start this by saying that I am a black and white photographer that shoots a whole variety of subjects, including a lot of landscape/nature (though not fauna). I have shot some color, but prefer the control at each step of the process that black and white provides. What I like about black and white images and what makes them superior to color, for me, is that they are a more active viewing experience. The viewer must read more into the image as it is not presented in a manner in which he/she normally sees the world. Once an B&W image is strong enough compositionally to interest them, the viewer, whether consciously or subconsciously, calls upon memory, experience, and emotion to interpret the image towards his/her personal vision of it. Color leaves that much less room for personal interpretation by the viewer. Black and white also calls more attention to elements of our world that are neglected- form, texture, light, shadow, reflection, etc. I am not saying this is true for all black and white or all color, but much of the time I feel that B&W is like reading and color is like watching TV.

 

<p>

 

BTW, I like spending a lot of time in a small, darkroom with smelly chemicals performing what at times seems like magic just as much as I enjoy exposing film. :-)>

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Jon

I guess I should clarify where I was coming from with my question. I recently had the experience of having another photographer, who shoots black and white tell me that he was an "artist" (and sells his work through galleries), while I was merely a "skilled technician" since I used color, and sell my work to magazines and books. Somehow, it angered me more than it should have...but, I have grown weary of the opinion that B & W is "ART" while color is just a photograph. I wanted to hear from some of you who shoot B & W, to get your opinions.....not that I ever intend to shoot a roll of B & W myself! I still think nature looks best as we see it, in color.

The idea that color can't be art is just stupid. Black and white is simply a different medium, better suited to some things and less suited to others. I do think that a lot of nature photography doesn't really qualify as art, though. It involves skill and aesthetics, but producing art really isn't the intention a lot of the time.

Steve, I'm one of those people who works outdoors, work that could be considered commercial photography, even though its in natural, nearly wilderness locations and subjects. I use Kodachrome nearly all the time, in 35mm.

 

<p>

 

I also keep a medium format rangefinder in the backpack specifically to shoot B&W nature studies and landscapes, using different filters, with a "zen zone" exposure style. These I sell successfully as office art, 16 x 20, tastefully matted and framed. Maybe this is artsy, or Ansel Adams knock-offs, but Ansel Adams never visited Terror Fjords Wilderness in Alaska, and people like the dreamy look of familier places in B&W. At this point my work is getting common in the state capitol building.

 

<p>

 

Its nature photography, for sure. Just not the same thing my color chromes of whales breeching is all.

 

<p>

 

Ya, the artist thing bugs me too sometimes.

Art is art, whether in color, B&W, carved from granite or molded from clay. Choose whatever fits your vision & do with it what you will. Just so you enjoy it. Life is too short for anything else.

I primarily shoot color but sometimes enjoy shooting black and white for the challange. I find it much more difficult to get a good composition and practicing like this improves my color work. One thought I've had is to digitally change some of my color images to B&W with photoshop and experiment with both to try both worlds with the same image so to speak.

 

<p>

 

Has anyone tried this with their images and what was their results?

I have photographed the same scene in B&W and color with all other variables being the same. In some cases I have preferred the colored version, but in others I preferred the B&W version. One of my favorite photographs is B&W, and won out decisively over the colored version. The scene was a lily bed in late summer. Many of the lilies were above the surface of the water, and their leaves were beautifully contoured and velvetly smooth. The B&W version was a joy to look at. It was a feast of form and texture both above the water and reflected in the water. In the colored version, the green of the leaves attracted the eye, and in the process weakened the perception of form and texture.

 

<p>

 

Over the years I have noticed that many prize winning color photographs have been essentially monotones. These were usually depicting scenes where texture, form and mood were most important. In other cases riotus color was best, and depicted the true nature of teh scene.

 

<p>

 

I carry three 35mm bodies with me. Two are loaded with slow and fast color film - one with Kadacrhome 25 and the other with Kodachorme 200 - and the other body is loaded with slow B&W film - either Technical Pan or TMX 100. I usually know in advance if the scene will photgraph better in color or B&W, and shoot accordingly. In other cases, I shot in both B&W and color, and make my decison when I see the results.

Perhaps part of the answer to this is individual preference. So many different ways to look at something makes the world a far more interesting place. There should be no "carved in stone" rules for any media of art, it would be like telling an author to tell a story using ONLY certain words, language, etc. Everyone has their own individual method of expression; for photographers, some prefer B&W, others colour, some can only truly do a good job with video.

 

<p>

 

To answer Charles Bush's question, yes, I prefer colour, and I have tried a couple rolls of B&W just for a new experience. One of the best images I have come up with is of 3 pickerel weed leaves reflected in the water. The biggest impact of this picture is the resulting shapes and textures; colour would have taken away from that impact. (I will also mention that the print received Hon. Mention at a local photo club competition.) I won't be running out and buying up a dozen rolls of B&W film, but now and then something can be learned by trying other techniques and materials.

If I were to summarize all of the comments it probably comes down to 'some pictures are better in color and some are better in black and white.' I couldn't agree more.

How ironic that all this discussion is taking place at the same time an image of a tree stump by Ian Porteous has been posted. I would love to see a print of it in black and white and I kind of think it just might be a little better.

And all of this talk of home color processing being more difficult than black and white? I couldn't disagree more! I have been processing and printing my color work for 10 years and have just recently begun to try black and white. I maintain that if you are producing top quality B&W images in your darkroom you are paying strict attention to chemical mixing, temperature, processing times, and agitation methods. If you apply the same discipline to color work you will have excellent results, and the opportunity for the nature photographer to experiment with color balance to create a spectacular image are outstanding - I highly recommend that you give it a try!

Something Mark said a few posts ago is dead on for what this has deteriorated into: b&w as more "artsy" than color images. Often the intent with nature photos is NOT to produce something as artful, as an interpretation, as a composition (or rather, the photographer is too lazy to try to "see" the world differently, or more often is just incapable of seeing the patterns or small details that can transform a snapshot into a metaphor for something grand). Tough if that sounds elitist. True, "meaning" in art is a subjective quality, but too often I see images of ducks, a sunset, of a stationary eagle. Who cares? There has to be something personal, there has to be reciprocity between the subject and the recorder. Hoo, I'm babbling now. In order to compose a successful image, indeed to go so far as to present it for criticism, you should have a concrete idea of WHY the photo was taken and WHAT it conveys. Yes, this means maybe out of 12 rolls you take 4 good shots (even those David Muench books seem to me they would benefit greatly from being cut down a good deal)...and as for the original question, it doesn't matter a lick if it's in B&W or color, as long as it has that certain je nais se quois that makes ANY art worthwhile... how vague. --Lyn

I like shooting B&W; it's more dramatic that shooting in color. To me, colors are just too busy and only get in the way.

I just returned from one week in Yosemite National Park, and while there I watched the Ansel Adams film they show each Sunday. Ansel spoke of donating his negatives to a college, and said he wanted the students to print his images according to their interpretation, not his. I'm paraphrasing because I wasn't prepared to take notes, but Ansel compared a B&W negative to a classical music score, and the darkroom technician as the musician. The photographer scores the scene on film and the negative allows many interpretations of that score. Ansel specifically mentioned this as an advantage of B&W over color. With color, you are less free to interpret the negative than with B&W.

 

<p>

 

This is not to say color is a less valid photography medium than B&W. I bring this up only to answer Steve's question, "Why do you like b&w?" Because it allows the creative freedom to interpret the scene, rather than just record what I saw at the time. I shoot mainly in color now because I don't have a darkroom. After spending the last week in Yosemite, I'm going to buy a changing tent and start shooting B&W again, but I will carry color film in a second camera.

Many years later, I bumped into this topic. Just a thought about the great Ansel Adams who succinctly expressed my view by saying (on colour photography) <B>"If you can't make it good, then make it red"</B>.

 

Not that I think the colour photography can't be art - far from that. This is primarily the question of personal sensibility and sense of aesthetics. And the Roman people used to say <I>"de gustibus non disputantum"</I>, or "the matter of taste is not a matter to discuss" or something like that.

 

Cheers