eugene_scherba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 <p>> <i>There are lots of photographers who consciously chose color to use it as a means of expression</i></p> <p>Nobody denies there is no history to color photography. My argument was that color is more transparent to the viewer's eyes because most of us are born with color perception, not with B&W perception. Why do you think there has never existed B&W painting, at least not on the scale you see in the photo world? Talk about escaping from genetics.</p> <p>> <i>As for being original, great artists in past and future where/are mainly concerned with being original for themselfes and not for someone else or some general public</i></p> <p>I am tired of this argument. Try to understand what Warhol meant when he said there is nothing in this world except surface. Nothing matters except how people perceive you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 "The point of being original is to place yourself in a position from where you would be creating history instead of repeating it." That fact that you are using a camera along with the masses elimanates anything "original" from the very start. Once you press the shutter it all becomes mundane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 <p><i>Once you press the shutter it all becomes mundane.</i></p> <p>Of course the shutter doesn't matter. It matters what you do before and after you press the shutter.</p> <p>Saying that photography cannot be original as an artform is quite uneducated.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Show us an example of an "Original" photograph? I don't think that you can. You talk a good game though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 <p><i>Show us an example of an "Original" photograph?</i></p> <p>I will only do so after you show me an example of original anything.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 original would have had to originate from something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 I find this to be a very interesting discussion. My own thoughts are that a photographer uses camera format,lens focal length,F-stop, shutter speed,background,point of view,all as tools to get the photograph from the mind of the photographer, to the final Image. Choosing to shoot the photo in Color or B&W is just another tool they have in their bag. I shot 10 rolls of B&W film in Paris last winter,mainly because of the look I wanted and very dense overcast .I did shoot a roll of film in color of these women who were getting ready for a New Years Parade. I found that in this case color was a important element to the photo,many times its not.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Same location,but with B&W Tri-x<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 <p><i>Choosing to shoot the photo in Color or B&W is just another tool they have in their bag.</i></p> <p>That's exactly my problem with most photographers. They think in terms of bags and tools instead of asking themselves why they are doing it in the first place.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Eugene, you have been using many words. Are there any pictures of yours you want to link me to, to illustrate your choices and draw a background to your lecturing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 <p>@Hugh:</p> <p>> <i>Idris Khan was producing layered images in color... before applying the same technique to the Bechers' images.</i></p> <p>Quite the opposite. To me this suggests IK has chosen to apply this technique to Becher's images.</p> <p>> <i>As for IK not being contemporary well...</i></p> <p>Who said IK is not contemporary? I said he is not contemporary <i>B&W</i> photographer. Of course he is a contemporary artist and a contemporary photographer. Just not a contemporary <i>B&W</i> one, get it?</p> <p>@Lutz:</p> <p>> <i>Are there any pictures of yours you want to link me to, to illustrate your choices and draw a background to your lecturing?</i></p> <p>Finding images online and linking to them is like a full-time job -- actually it's called curating. I can forward you to some sites if you wish; those who run them will do a better job than myself.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Becher's -> Bechers'. Apologies for poor grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Eugene, it takes a curator to link me to any of _your_ pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Why, you were asking for <i>my</i> pictures? What do <i>my</i> pictures have to do with this? Yeah, I will send you an email if you want; not sure what you'll get from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 <I>"...background to your lecturing?"</I> <P> Interesting choice of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Don't worry Steve, I'm now on good terms with Lutz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Glad to hear. BTW, excellent thread. Challenging the dogma that surrounds something as iconic as the black and white image is a worthy topic, even if it's uncomfortable for some people to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 It's a good thread, but what's uncomfortable is a certain viewpoint that colorphotography is somehow more legit then black&white photography in todays age just because colorphotography ' evolved ' out of black&white photography. and therefore makes the lesser not justified anymore. But what does ' evolve ' really mean ? , what is the frame of reference here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Hi Eugene, while I'm happy about our offline shortcut I politely wish to open the "case" once again. I doubt there is _one_ truth about color vs. b&w, there are as many as there are individuals, both photographers and viewers, blessed with a visual sensitivity, taste and education. I guess that, for instance, among those who started out in photography in the digital age when the availability and workability of color became a veritable non-issue, who, so to speak, "skipped" both, the analog as well as the b&w upbringing, there are many who see little point in looking back, i.e. getting involved in techniques that, at first sight, appear antiquated, limiting and cumbersome.<p>On the other hand, who, like myself, has been initiated to the miracle of photography at age 14, in a wet b&w darkroom, ultimately becoming the creator of an image throughout it's entire process from seeing it, taking it, developing it to printing it, it's a slightly different matter. It is deeply routed in the way I _can_ (but don't necessarily need to) actually see, perceive, relate. And not a cliche.<p> For me, each evolution in photography that has happened ever since has been welcomed as an addendum, a broadening of view, not a substitute. Color photography, in the form of slides I used to develop myself, has been with me ever since the Seventies, from before Egglestone had even started being published, let alone famed in Europe. And the perfection of digital capture with all its obvious advantages has been tried and tested throughout its evolution and partly adopted in my everyday work.<p>To sum it up, I'm happy about the technical choices available nowadays, as much as about the heritage that I have had a chance to develop amongst (and against). I humbly believe that I can see and create both, color as b&w pictures, simply because of this personal background of mine. And I doubt that I am so much unique in this. ;-)<p>Another thing, though, that I have been observing whenever out in the street with a camera. I tend to see just the pictures that my camera/emulsion will be best at capturing, somehow filtering out the rest. I rarely see a color shot when out on Neopan 400, or a b&w shot when the Lumix is in my pocket. But, basically, on my retina there are receptors for both... :-)<p> <img src="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/P1040053.crop.web.jpg"><p> <img src="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/P1040299.web.jpg"><p> <img src="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/P1040336.web.jpg"><p> <img src="http://www.konermann.net/imprevues/images/37.jpg"><p> <img src="http://www.konermann.net/imprevues/images/33.jpg"><p> <img src="http://www.konermann.net/imprevues/images/34.jpg"><p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 deeply routed = deeply rooted ;-) <p>As for the above pics, color is Mumbai, 2007, b&w is Arles, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilambrose Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 <p><em>I guess that, for instance, among those who started out in photography in the digital age when the availability and workability of color became a veritable non-issue, who, so to speak, "skipped" both, the analog as well as the b&w upbringing, there are many who see little point in looking back, i.e. getting involved in techniques that, at first sight, appear antiquated, limiting and cumbersome. (Lutz)</em</p> <p>Lutz is absolutely right. And for many people the reverse is also true. I had my first digital camera in 1996, and my first digital back in 2001. Even though the technology was nothing compared to what it is today, I was very much an early adopter and managed to develop a degree of expertise as a digital photographer working heavily in colour. But, to be honest, I found the process increasingly one dimensional and actively learned how to work with silver b+w as it opened new avenues and new challenges for me.</p> <p>I don't understand conversations that attempt to position colour photography as something more legitimate than b+w photography. (Equally, I don't understand conversations that claim b+w is more legitimate than colour). They're just not sensible statements- it's akin to claiming that potatoes are more legitimate than beans.</p> <p>There are great colour photographs, and there are bad colour photographs. There are great b+w photographs, and there are bad b+w photographs. And there are great and bad photographers, some working with colour, some with b+w, and some with both.</p> <p>Arguing about the validity of the medium is rather like looking at a pointing finger, and not at the moon to which it points.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim gray Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 "meaning that her work cannot be divorced from the past photographic history" - Who's work can be divorced from history? Even when it's groundbreaking and 'fresh', that's in the context of history... I like B&W, not just for street, because I enjoy the process. I like the way the pictures look, I like the grain, I like printing in the darkroom. I find when I shoot digital or load my camera up with color film, I go out seeking a different type of picture. Not necessarily looking for a woman in red coat in a sea of black coats, but still, looking to add the color as a part of the composition. Someone said B&W is the easy way out. This is probably an unfair way to state it. When I shoot B&W, I just ignore the color - it doesn't factor in. Some shots, like Mr. Spirer's, are wonderful with the color. Some shots however, the color distracts. One should consciously shoot with color in mind when shooting color, but at the same time, one should consciously shoot with a B&W mindset when shooting B&W. They both take a different approach. I was shooting a concert the other week (not that concert photography is 'art' by everyone) and I was the only one shooting with film, and B&W for that matter. After the show, all the other photographers commented on how much red and purple there was in the lighting and how it sucked. I can honestly say I didn't notice it. I was thinking about lighting, etc., and certainly had some complaints about it, but never once thought, "Dang, way too much red for this to be an interesting picture." While I've seen some awesome concert shots in color and where the color is an important part of the photo, I feel like I can say at this show, the color really added nothing - it was just there. And the B&W photos looked best in my mind, mine and the ones that the other photographers converted to B&W for whatever reason. Whatever. Shoot what you like and to hell with what everyone else thinks about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 <I>"...is rather like looking at a pointing finger, and not at the moon to which it points.</I> <P> Very nicely put. And that is exactly what I've gotten out of this thread - a question of why. <P> Essentially, I'm guilt of everything Eugene pointed out. And I'm somewhat surprised by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 "Guilty" in what way ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now