Colour & B/W image combinations

[david_thomas___banned_from]

Lots of professional wedding photographers think colour & B/W combination

photographs are tacky, but are they? Done right, they can be a real winner. Of

course, done wrong they can be totally hideous. Do you think, the dislike of

such images is a throwback to an ideology such as 'Leica purism', where the

only images that are acceptable are unmanipulated ones...PS my spelling of

colour is correct here in England.<div></div>

[beauh44]

Hi David, I think with the advent of Photoshop and digital imaging the effect was so easy to achieve that it was a bit over-done. But one can say the same thing about "power chords" after the electric guitar came about and no one seems to get too tired of those either. I think your example was done tastefully and if the customer likes it that's what matters. As for 'Leica Purism' - people were manipulating film photographs long before Photoshop. Joseph Stalin had a few "pals" standing next to him removed from photographs in the 40's and 50's. Hugh Hefner's been unapologetically "airbrushing" his Playmates for decades saying, in effect, that his photographs have absolutely nothing to do with reality; they're about fantasy.

[al_kaplan1]

Hefner had little choice. Showing pubic hair was a big no-no when Playboy first hit the market.

 

Back in the days when shooting color for publication meant shooting slides you had to nail your filtration and exposure. There was no Photoshop and exact exposure was critical. Whether B&W or color you tried to fill the frame because films were grainier than they are today.

 

I went through a period when I played around with combining B&W images from several negatives like Jerry Uelsmann, in some cases combining both positive and negative images in the same print, and got quite good at it. It was a fun thing to do for awhile but it wasn't me. Maybe it's just the photographer in me, but when I see oddball images with B&W and color mixed in the same print I start looking at the technique used, second guessing why this-not-that was in color, and never really see the picture.

 

Uelsmann presented an other worldly view of reality. He photographed dreams and made them real. Maybe you knew that the image couldn't have existed as presented but it had a coherence that's lacking in so many manipulated images today. Jerry's images will still be shown in museums one hundred years from now. Most of today's Photoshoped images will simply be dismissed with a shrug and an "Oh yeah, that was the style back then..."

[kevin cook - stratford upo]

Hi David,

 

I always insert a couple of BW with colour in the previews. Usually the flowers or couple hands with only the rings in colour. I also include a shot when I take the whole wedding party in BW with the bride and groom in colour. Always have them included in the final presentation album. Perhaps the Brits are behind the times!

 

Kevin Stratford UK

[rich_taylor____mequon__wi]

Your question and photo made me stop and consider afresh what had previously been my conditioned response to combinations of color and b/w. My knee-jerk reaction has always been, "tacky," and I would (rather snobbishly, I suppose) dismiss such an image as being somehow less than professional.

 

Taking a step back and looking at the issue with a new perspective, I'm not so sure that all such images should be painted with the same broad brush (so to speak). Yours, for example, is subtle and artistic, and presents a strong argument for the validity of the technique. Even so, however, I wouldn't want to see the technique employed in more than a couple of images in an entire album. If used very judiciously and done well, I can see how it can be an enhancement.

 

Thanks for bringing up the question. It triggered a valuable mental process for me.

[rtrace]

To me they always have and always will look tacky and "cheap". I realize clients may like them, but that's not the question here I gather.

 

For me it has nothing to do with and Leica purism (never used a Leica). Just a matter of taste. Even when done on film it looks bad and cheap to me.

 

Then again, I don't like black & white modern photography or cinematography either. B&W had its day, but we live in a world full of colors/colours, and we don't see in B&W...Other than for that romanticized/nostalgic notion that modern B&W photogrpahy will bring, I don't see it's use. But that's me. And yes I know people use it for "abstraction" etc. All BS to me. People shot B&W because that's what they had - B&W film. Life is full of color - see it! B&W is simpler and a copout IMHO. I'm sure I'll get flamed ;)

 

Bogdan

[daydreamsart]

I love color and B&W. When I do a picture in B&W, I usually offer it to the client in color also. Colorizing only parts of an image are not new. I think with the advent of Photoshop, it's become more common and too often tacky. I do it rarely. My customers seem to like an image all color or all B&W. However, the attached image was a favorite and was framed for display at this brides reception.<br><br><img src="http://www.daydreamsart.com/photonet/MANDY.JPG" width="367" height="550">

[buckry]

I don't think this is tacky at all. It's a very good effect and not only to my brides love it, I personally think it looks very classy.

 

Ryan

[rtrace]

Al,

 

Perhaps you were refering to, "Even when done on film it looks bad and cheap to me."? I meant 35mm film as in movies - new movies. And it was regarding mixing color w/ B&W, like for example the little girl in "Schindler's List" and countless others. To me, they look tacky/cheap. Just like pictures. Just my opinion!

 

Anyway, your picture is fine. But to me it would look better in color! That's all I'm saying. And what I said, was that *MODERN* B&W photography doesn't do anything for *me*. Of course in the old days there was no choice. And not only that, but 35mm color film emulsions were not reliable and would fade, etc. But times have changed. Early 80s..

 

"Raging Bull" would have looked a LOT better in color. Scorsese didn't shoot it in B&W for the B&W "look", but to make a statement against the crappy color emulsions at the time.

 

But now I still see a lot of B&W photography (another subject that I'm sure has been beaten to death), where IMO color would look better. Now it's more a matter of choice where before it was what was better. Most street photographers shoot B&W today for nostalgic reasons I gather. Or because it's easier - i.e. more latitude. But just because Bresson shot B&W, does not mean every Leica and "true" street photographer needs to shoot B&W. It seems some feel that way. And to me that's a copout and not original.

 

"The times they are a-changing." - from the guy in your photo ;)

 

Bogdan

[kevin cook - stratford upo]

Wow don't some people get uptight?

 

I'm in this business to earn money not awards so if a client wants B&W or Sepia (no-one mentioned that LOL) or a mix or pastels then I do it. I show a range so they can think about it.

 

I agree that we see in colour and the old B&W images were because they only had black and white film. Colour can add to an image and removing it can take away. Think about a graph in colour showing 10 items, now remove the colour and it is not useable. The same can, in some instances, apply to colour photographs.

 

A beautiful blue sky can look a dreary grey in B&W changing the mood of the picture totally (and introduce non-reality).

 

I just think both and a mix of both can be used, but you have to be careful to use it in context.

[rich_taylor____mequon__wi]

Bogdan, certainly you are entitled to your view. It is my opinion that your view is rather narrow. Things have evolved in photography, and we now have more choices. That, however, does not diminish the artistic power that earlier means of expression provided, even if those means are employed in the era of modern technology. The key concept here is choice, and one chooses what best satisfies the image that needs to be born.

[annealmasy]

It's important that ANY effect succeed in enhancing the images. Whether B&W, Color, Sepia,

B&W/Color blend, or any filters and plug-ins -- they all need to achieve something more

than "hey, look what I can do!"

 

If it doesn't improve our images, what are we doing it for?

 

I try to look at each image and determine what will make it better, not what will show off my

Photoshop skills.

[rtrace]

Rich, I took this thread off topic. But it's just a thing of preference/taste as I've said. No point debtaing B&W vs. color as it's silly - much like RAW vs. JPEG, etc. All I will say is that what made people like HCB great were his images & style - not that they were B&W. That was my point. Today, it seems many people try to imitate that style by shooting B&W, missing the other points. Or feeling they have to.

 

I agree with Anne. To me these color/BW take away from the image rather than add to it. Again that's just me. Of course I haven't seen every single image in the world done like this, but I don't have to, to formulate an opinion. From all the ones I've seen, I have not liked a single one. And I've seen plenty. But I'm not sure if this is a question for us photographers or for what sells. If the latter, it doesn't really matter. Do whatever you want if you can sell it and the client is happy.

 

Bogdan

[jon jacobson]

Your image David, and please take this with a grain of salt, does nothing for me. But that's a matter of preference and taste, like saying "I don't like Catsup." But I'm certainly not saying it's hideous.

<p>

I guess when I single out an image like that, it does nothing to enhance the story behind the image and does little to enhance the artistic value of the image. Now that Singleton image on the otherhand has a certain artistic value added to it. But again, eye-of-the-beholder stuff here.

<p>

The bottom line, is that Brides dig it, so I do it too. I try to keep it at a judicious level.

<p>

So to prove I'm a big hypocrite, here's one I made up for the B&G. They love it, but it does nothing for me.<br>

<img src="http://www.picturemichigan.com/davis/006.jpg"><br>

But this next one, I do like, because it enhances the story of them on the crowded dance floor but really in their own distant world.<br>

<img src="http://www.picturemichigan.com/davis/026.jpg"><br>

[fotografz]

My opinion? The people look "united in death" when color is added to just the flowers.

 

"Of course in the old days there was no choice. And not only that, but 35mm color film

emulsions were not reliable and would fade, etc. But times have changed. Early 80s."

 

Not true at all. Kodachrome existed well before the 80s ... remember the song? I recently

scanned Kodachrome slides from a 1964 wedding that were perfect.

 

"Most street photographers shoot B&W today for nostalgic reasons I gather."

 

Reasons gathered from what source of information?

 

"Or because it's easier - i.e. more latitude." HUH?

 

" But just because Bresson shot B&W, does not mean every Leica and "true" street

photographer needs to shoot B&W."

 

True, but many still do and not just because Bresson did.

 

Proliferating these type pronouncements concerning the art of B&W photography belies

the tremendous creative contributions made by a host of photographers both past,

present (and hopefully the future) who express powerful emotional, political, and aesthetic

ideas with a well established and highly regarded medium.

[rtrace]

"Proliferating these type pronouncements concerning the art of B&W photography belies the tremendous creative contributions made by a host of photographers both past, present (and hopefully the future) who express powerful emotional, political, and aesthetic ideas with a well established and highly regarded medium."

 

Don't take it so seriously...and read my last post please rather than picking quotes here and there. I said it's my *opinion*.

 

I can comment at length on what you say above, but it's off topic. No biggie. I'm not "condemning" anyone - just stating my opinion and preference.

 

Bogdan

 

PS Latitude = dynamic range = more in B&W film = easier to expose than chromes/digital, but you already know this, so why ask!?

[al_kaplan1]

I wouldn't want to have to print 50 or 100 carelessly exposed B&W negatives. Yeah, you can salvage under- and overexposed pictures with techniques such as split filter printing, extensive burning and dodging, ferracyaniding some areas, etc., but a correctly exposed and developed negative is a joy to work with. Read The Negative by Ansel Adams. Get things as right as possible from the git-go.

[fotografz]

If you like color over B&W that's your business. While your opinion is of course yours ...

information like that used to support your opinion ... isn't opinion ... it's misinformation ...

including saying it's used because of latitude as THE reason ... thus the "HUH?"

 

Stable color film was used well before 1980's, including for art photography, so lack of it

wasn't the reason shooters used B&W as you say.

 

Nor was Raging Bull (1980) shot in B&W because color emulsions were bad at that time...

but more for these artistic reasons: " ... the film's brutal, no-holds-barred look at the

gladiatorial sport of boxing in documentary-style, B/W newsreel footage ... stark, to

provide an expressionistic look and feel of the brutality inside the ring" Also consider that

"Barry Lyndon" was shot in color 5 years BEFORE Raging Bull, and is one of the most

beautiful color motion pictures ever filmed.

 

Nor are many B&W photographers using the medium for the other reasons you list in an

attempt to support your preference for color photography.

[rtrace]

Al,

 

I agree with getting the exposure right in-camera (I'm not arguing this), but what I said is true regarding latitude and exposure. You can't argue with that. And people that I know, shoot B&W just for the reasons I stated - you can capture more and have more room to play (since a lot develop B&W themselves). Is there something wrong with that? NO! *I* just stated I don't like modern B&W - especially digital where one can now "develop" color just as well.

 

Marc,

 

You keep wanting to argue the point, but you are misunderstanding things here and IMO taking it personally. Relax. The fact is that many B&W photographers ARE in fact using B&W for the reasons I stated - nostalgic/romanticized look, more latitude, and imitation. I know plenty here in Boston and talk to them. And some friends in LA too. Again, why argue? Seems someone is taking it personally, yet I have not said anything is wrong with it other than that I don't prefer it. I also said that I think it's easier and a "copout", and explained what I meant by the latter in my last post before yours.

 

Now are ALL B&W photographers doing this? No! Some like devloping - though as I said above in the digital age, this attraction makes no sense to me anymore since they can easily "develop" color just as well. Some also like the abstraction, etc. Fine. But to *ME* I don't like it. I already went over this. Why re-hash it? Show me how I'm wrong in my opinion based on real things..

 

I have spread no misinformation to "support" anything. Please correct me where. In fact you have spread misinformation by attempting to argue against "Raging Bull". Yeah I know "Barry Lyndon" was shot in color as was "Taxi Driver" - Scorsese's own. But do you know what happened before/when "Raging Bull" was shot? Or are you searching for "Raging Bull" on the Internet to get some reviewer's quote? Because if you knew, you'd know I was correct in what I said. I have just one small quote for you from "Scorsese on Scorsese" since it's on my bookshelf right in front of me. Page 80, Scorsese discussing "Raging Bull":

 

"We said, no, it's too pretentious to use black and white now. But then it clicked in my mind that colour wasn't going to last anyway - the film stock was subject to rapid fading."

 

One can dig up more on this - there's a whole story with how he wasn't happy with "Mean Streets" and his earlier color footage fading, etc. It's well known and documented. How De Niro had to get him to do the film as he (Scorsese) was depressed in a hospital, etc. Color vs. B&W. So if you want to argue, know the facts first and don't point the finger my way.

 

And obviously there was color film before 1980..., but many emulsions were NOT stable, no matter how much you may want to argue. It wasn't due to the lack of color emulsions that people shot B&W, but that B&W was still a trend and color emulsions were not as good/stable. So please don't attack and pretend this is was not the case. Why get all worked up?

 

Bogdan

[fotografz]

People who tell other people to "relax" and not to "get all worked up" in the middle of their

own diatribe need to take their own advice.

 

B&W is a well regarded medium of expression that many many accomplished

photographers have utilized to make powerful and lasting images with. To reduce it to the

rationale presented here in defense of a opinion or preference shouldn't be challenged?

[al_kaplan1]

Calm down Bogdan. There are a lot of good reasons for shooting B&W, and equally good reasons for shooting color. As for image stability we really won't know just how archival today's color film and prints are for years to come. All we have are the manufacturers claims for the dyes and pigments being used, and not much said about the stuff that binds them to the paper or the paper itself. We do know that Kodachrome dyes were more stable than Ektachrome, and that Agfachrome and Anscochrome were less stable. Many years ago Kodak made Kodachrome prints using a similar process and dyes to the film. They were expensive and contrasty but held up quite well over the last 50 or 60 years.

 

We're selling memories and we should at least be offering people the option of buying long lasting ones with proven technology. If you're the last guy in the city that can still offer a siver gelatin print on fiber paper then charge accordingly. It has nothing to do with shooting Leicas or your style of shooting.

 

As for resin coated papers, when they first hit the market in the 1970's the manufacturers all said they weren't as stable as fiber. I think that they might have just been covering their butts at the time because they really didn't know. I have lots of RC contact sheets and some RC B&W prints from back then that still look just fine. The thirty year old color prints have obvious fading and color shift, and if it wasn't for a bit of digital manipulation most of those old color negatives would yield horrible prints now.

[rtrace]

"To reduce it to the rationale presented here in defense of a opinion or preference shouldn't be challenged?"

 

One can challenge it all he/she wants - but it is getting off topic as I was saying long ago. Plus what are you looking to challenge exactly anyway? So far it seems more like and attack on my opinion, nothing more. And it doesn't help saying, "While your opinion is of course yours ... information like that used to support your opinion ... isn't opinion ... it's misinformation ...", when it's not true. That implies something else..

 

Also is there really a need to get "nasty" or patronizing like in your first sentence in the post above? Really, I am calm. I thought the subject had ended - at least for me. But some want to continue it and pick here and there. Why, if not for what I said?

 

Al seems more relaxed about this!

 

Like I said, I'm not here to say what's right or wrong - there is no right or wrong, just preferences. I've stated my opinion, but I'm being challenged on statements that I've explained already, which seems pointless.

 

You seem to be taking this way too seriously. It's not a big deal..to me at least. Life is good.

 

Bogdan

[jmichaelc]

If i had my choice, i would shoot 100% BW. I hate color actually (except for landscapes) for i feel it only takes away from the intended subject of focus. The mood and emotion of a BW far surpases that of color IMO and is my reasons for using it. I could care less about the lattitude issue and never considered that as a reason once.

[jmichaelc]

By the way, i don't care for Color/BW combos David. It cheapens the overall appeal IMO.

[karl_borowski]

Personally, I like the vintage look of a real hand-colored B&W print. B&W isn't about reality,

it's about fantasy, and I feel pastel chalks play right into that feeling.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl