Black and White Street Photography.

[neilambrose]

<p><em>Of course, but cliche seems to be by far the most prevalent of them.</em></

p>

 

<p>Eugene, a look through your posting history makes it pretty clear that you only

appreciate colour pictures. Nothing wrong with that. But claiming that b+w is a choice

driven in the main by cliche is extraordinary. There are plenty of photographers whose

work derives its power from the fact that it was shot in b+w, and where the colour

equivalent would be a very different picture. Look at the work of Michael Kenna, for

example, or Rolfe Horne, or Salgado. For them, b+w is a necessary ingredient of their

work that provides drama and formalism.</p>

 

<p>No reason why the same principle cannot also apply to street photography. There are

some street images that work precisely because they were shot in b+w, where the

materials, composition, and light come together into a coherent statement. Similarly, there

are other images where the use of colour is a vital ingredient to the success of the whole -

the wonderful images of Saul Leiter, for example. But in all these cases the images work

precisely because the materials and the composition have come together to say

something.</p>

 

<p>It makes no difference to me which images you like, or which genres of photography

you stake your flag to. But if you reject an entire tradition purely because of the

materials in which images were created then you will be missing out. The choice is

certainly yours to make, but, speaking for myself, I prefer to appreciate images based on

their merits rather than their format.</p>

[max cooper]

I recently wrote a lengthy post about this on my blog. I'm wrestling with digital (color) vs. film (B&W) for street work, and some images push me one way, some the other. The most powerful push has been toward digital, because of the attached image.

 

Here's a link to the post:

 

http://www.darktopography.com/blog.html

[benovincent_baars]

Joel Meyerowitz started streetphotography in color. I switched to color when i saw photo's made by Nick Turpin en Trent Parke.

 

All the best.

<center>

<img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/2061336559_073ced5816.jpg?v=0.jpg

"></center>

[rich_langley]

Some photos work better in b&w, some work better in colour, some will work as either. To suggest b&w is an easy way out is ignorant. If you think I'm wrong, go and look at some effective colour photos and then drain them of their colour. Still effective? If you have a look around I'm sure you can find plenty that aren't effective in b&w. Going to start saying colour is an easy way out now?

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Neil said: <i>Look at the work of Michael Kenna, for example, or Rolfe Horne, or

Salgado</i></p>

<p>In response to Neil, I find Michael Kenna's and Rolfe Horne's images overly formalist

and aestheticist. In other words, I don't really like them. Not because of them being in

black and white, but because of what they show and how they show it. If they were in

color, my reaction to them would be the same -- I guess the visual equivalent of Kenna's,

Horne's, and Salgado's imagery in color would be the photography you find in National

Geographic. Now, I don't think I would hang on my wall any of the 99.9% of the images I

find in National Geographic.</p>

<p>Regarding Salgado, I have another problem with his imagery, completely unrelated to

his use of B&W. Like Steve McCurry, Salgado aestheticizes his subjects, making poverty

look beautiful. I find this quite indigestible.</p>

[amorteguy]

Eugene, if you would read the thread maybe you could follow a point. My reply about HCB was in direct response to Brad's comment on 11/20.

 

As for your opinion about my comment, coming from a guy who thinks that any photo taken in the street makes you a "street" photographer, I'll chalk that up to your lack of discernment (or knowledge.)

 

Personally, I think the term "steet" photographer is rather pointless anyway, therefore I put it in quotes. Oh, and since when is photographic history (i.e., those photographers who influenced so called "street" photographers) irrelevant?

 

You referenced a photographer in your repsonse too. So, I can't? Well, I guess I just took on the wrong person here; the "man" who determines what is or what is not "a waste of time" in a thread.

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Brad's statement was mostly sarcastic; you seem to have taken it seriously.</p>

 

<p><i>> As for your opinion about my comment, coming from a guy who thinks that any

photo taken in the street makes you a "street" photographer, I'll chalk that up to your lack

of discernment (or knowledge.)</i></p>

 

<p>Not only do I hold on to my opinion, but I am going to make a point of reiterating it

again. There is nothing special about street photography. There are bad street

photographers, and there are good street photographers. The really good ones are called

artists, the average ones are called street photographers, and the really hacky ones are

called perverts.</p>

 

<p><i>> Oh, and since when is photographic history (i.e., those photographers who

influenced so called "street" photographers) irrelevant?</i></p>

 

<p>There is no history, just a bunch of random hacks.</p>

 

<p><i>> You referenced a photographer in your repsonse too. So, I can't? </i></p>

 

<p>I referenced Robert Frank because you referenced HCB. It's like a chain reaction, you

know. Somebody has to step out, or else...</p>

[eugene_scherba]

Just FYI, "so-called" is spelled with a hyphen, and the quotation marks are unnecessary after

it.

[robert_m_johnson]

"Now, I don't think I would hang on my wall any of the 99.9% of the images I find in National Geographic."

 

I happened to see the last copy of NG, it kinda sucked. If they are still taking a zillion shots for each one printed, it didn't show. The Hubble Telescope shots were cool of course.

[robert_m_johnson]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/robert_m_johnson/2062151945/" title="Dog Walking by Robert_M_Johnson, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2147/2062151945_a3213e2a38_o.jpg" width="802" height="452" alt="Dog Walking" /></a>

[photobiscuits]

Thanks for the continued discussion here. I just wanted to clarify that more often than not when I see a 'street' photo here on photo.net it is presented in b&w. After awhile I came to wonder whether or not this was just a matter of course, "street photos MUST=b&w".<br>

Now I am seeing some excellent examples of what can be done when these types of photos are left in colour, and I have been reading through everyone's opinions and comments (thank you for your interest) and it just seems to reaffirm to me that b&w is probably often used as a cheesy/cliche way out of a photo that a)doesn't work if left in colour or worse, b)might be an attempt to "follow the lead of the others" and convert to (or shoot in) b&w because "that's what they do".<br>

yes, there are plenty of pictures that work beautifully in black and white. I just wondered at it's abundance in this specific genre, and specifically here on photonet.<br>

Thanks folks.

[jonathan_reynolds]

Mike, I don't think that's a sound inference at all. Some (many?) of us choose to use B&W because we love the medium. It has its limitations, but it has its advantages too. It has its own kind of beauty. We choose it like we choose to use miniature cameras, or to use a camera rather than a paintbrush. To infer that it's a cop-out or lack of imagination is like asking why an angler doesn't use dynamite.

There may well be an element of perpetuating a style genre that has proved appealing and successful in the past, but what's wrong with that? Why does an artist ever choose a stick of charcoal?

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>Some (many?) of us choose to use B&W because we love the medium.</i></p>

 

<p>Even if you love a cliche, it's still a cliche.</p>

 

<p><i>There may well be an element of perpetuating a style genre that has proved

appealing and successful in the past, but what's wrong with that?</i></p>

 

<p>Well, let's see... Hmmm.... Scratching my head.... originality, maybe?</p>

[jonathan_reynolds]

As soon as we've decided on our medium, we operate within self-imposed constraints. Nowadays we can leave the choice of B&W or colour for a late decision, just as we can choose to crop long after the exposure. It gives you more flexibility approach, but I think working within constraints is part of the discipline and fun in photography as much as in fly-fishing.

 

Neither colour nor B&W is better. For several reasons including financial constraints, I happen to have chosen to use 35mm B&W film only. I'm not a very original photographer, and for people like me there obviously is a danger of cliche - but I think B&W is a sufficiently spacious medium to leave plenty of scope for originality for those with genuine talent. I don't think using colour makes anyone more original. I don't think a 21st century artist reaching for a stick of charcoal is slavishly following a cliche set by cavemen.

[neilambrose]

<p><em>Well, let's see... Hmmm.... Scratching my head.... originality, maybe?</em></p>

 

<p>But what's so original about using colour? Isn't this just following in the footsteps of about 500 million digi-cam owners, trailblazing the high street with their colour 6x4 prints?</p>

 

<p>Surely originality has to be in the intent of the photographer, not the choice of medium. Whether the photographer chooses to use b+w or colour for their own reasons must be their own choice. It's the image that matters, not the process.</p>

 

<p>For which reason I find this discussion increasingly ludicrous. If people spent more time debating what a picture stands for than they do the technology used to create it, then the world of photography would be a lot more interesting.</p>

[eugene_scherba]

<p>> <i>I think B&W is a sufficiently spacious medium to leave plenty of scope for

originality for those with genuine talent.</i></p>

 

<p>Two things here. First -- yes, there can be original B&W photography, but it's been

getting harder and harder to find ever since Meatyard died and color film was introduced.

Second -- I wouldn't call B&W photography an separate medium vis-à-vis color

photography, the same way I wouldn't call Kodachrome photography a separate medium

vis-à-vis Portra photography. There is a difference in the process, a difference in

color rendition (or absence of color rendition), but no fundamental difference from color

photography.</p>

 

<p>> <i>I don't think using colour makes anyone more original.</i></p>

 

<p>You are missing my point. B&W is not a different medium; it is simply a different

process (either a traditional process with developer tanks and all, or a digital process

involving channel mixing). Today it has become a <i>special</i> process (a tool),

because, thanks to the advance of technology, by default, our photos are in color. If you

want B&W, you have to make a conscious decision to produce it, and I am arguing that

making this decision has to do with trying to fit into a certain frame of view. Because of

this, such decisions have to be very carefully weighted out. If a person aims to participate

in a popular genre by producing B&W work, it is most often due to cliche thinking on

behalf of that person. Taking B&W photos is like writing novels in a certain very outdated

way. The key here is that a tradeoff is made between <i>novelty</i> and

<i>popularity</i>, in favor of popularity. Such decisions are always cliche thinking.</p>

 

<p>> <i>I don't think a 21st century artist reaching for a stick of charcoal is slavishly

following a cliche set by cavemen.</i></p>

 

<p>See my analogy with writing novels above.</p>

[jonathan_reynolds]

> <i>If a person aims to participate in a popular genre by producing B&W work, it is most often due to cliche thinking on behalf of that person.</i>

<p>

I think you are missing MY point! As soon as you reach for a camera rather than a pen, and a small format camera rather than a half-plate, and a 50mm lens rather than a 90mm, you are committing yourself to a set of constraints. That isn't cliche thinking.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>But what's so original about using colour? Isn't this just following in the footsteps

of about 500 million digi-cam owners, trailblazing the high street with their colour 6x4

prints?</i></p>

 

<p>There is nothing original about color. As you say yourself a paragraph below,

originality is in the intent (i.e. conscious decisions on behalf of the photographer). Read

my post above what kind of decisions lead to cliches.</p>

 

<p><i>Surely originality has to be in the intent of the photographer, not the choice of

medium.</i></p>

 

<p>One thing wrong here. Choice of <strike>medium</strike > process is always a part

of the photographer's intent. Other than that -- yes, originality lies mostly in the

intent.</p>

 

<p><i>If people spent more time debating what a picture stands for than they do the

technology used to create it, then the world of photography would be a lot more

interesting.</i></p>

 

<p>By using the word "technology," you are trying to blow soap bubbles into somebody's

eyes here. I care very little whether you use Zeiss or Mamiya lenses, but the differences in

process (B&W vs color) are strike me right in the face when I'm looking at somebody's

work. Medium is always a part of the message, in other words.</p>

[eugene_scherba]

</i><p>> <i> If a person aims to participate in a <strong>popular</strong> genre by

producing B&W work, it is most often due to cliche thinking on behalf of that

person.</i></p>

 

<p>Jonathan, I forgot to emphasize the word "popular."</p>

[eugene_scherba]

If one more person tries to make an argument that "color does not immediately make

anybody original," he or she gets a slap in the face.

[neilambrose]

<p>Eugene, you make some interesting points, some of which I agree with, and some which I don't.</p>

 

<p>I think what I'd like to take away from your remarks is the point that using a given set of processes because you think you ought to, or that the genre requires it, is certainly a cliche. And I entirely agree with this, but only in so far as it represents a lack of intent of behalf of the photographer, and the world doesn't need any more intention less photography.</p>

 

<p>But this argument does not extend to so someone who engages with a particular process because they want to, irrespective of popular thinking. A photographer who uses b+w because it communicates what they want to say is certainly not guilty of cliche. Although it's entirely possible of course that the resultant image could be a cliche. Which is why I prefer to confine my critique to the image - I couldn't care less about the process used in making it. Whether it's a b+w print, or a tin-type, or a digital c-type.... not an important question, in my opinion. It's only the merit of the resultant image that interest me.</p>

 

<p>And btw - 'technology' is exactly the right word for what we're discussing. Any camera, any process, digital or otherwise, is most certainly a form of technology, and has been since the days of the camera obscura.</p>

[michael s.]

Neither choice -- to make a photo in color, or in b & w -- in and of itself helps me determine originality.<p>

 

And it certainly doesn't drive my own sense of good photo, which is one that for some reason grabs me.<p>

 

Even originality often does not have much to do with whether I like a photo. A couple years ago, an <a href=http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/4aa/4aa339.htm>exhibit by Sally Mann</a> featured photos she made using a "wet collodian" process dating back 150 years. It was 'original' in current terms in the sense that this sort of photo-making is rarely seen today. But with a couple exceptions, I just didn't like the photos.<p>

 

And while I found a number of Eugene's comments interesting and provocative, as I often do, I'm not persuaded that he's right about one of his original points: that cliche is largely responsible for driving those who currently shoot b & w or convert to it after the fact.<p>

 

Without surveying the photographers, I really can't tell you why they're shooting, or printing, or posting in b & w. I just don't know why. We're seeing a few different reasons expressed on this little thread. And I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of those statements.<p>

 

So I would reject the dogma associated with most broad pronouncements about color and b & w, even though I'm aware they're often offered tongue-in-cheek.<p>

 

<center><a href=" title=". by sandbagm, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2216/2070959099_c5455c7432_o.jpg" width="750" height="495" alt="." /></a><p>

rejecting dogma</center>

[eugene_scherba]

At least two people here clearly wish the whole discussion went to the dogs.

[peteradownunder]

I am first and foremost a fan of good writing, when eyeballing internet chats. Therefore (and ignoring the suffering pathos of confused educated youthful anxiety) I say ( with gusto) Eugene is a treasure! <p>

 

As for my response - I will refer to Jeff's colour shots. Note the limited palette and the slab sided framing imposed by the blocks of colour - thats why the 'colour' shots work so well in these shots. As for Jeff's pointedly rakish commentary regarding geographical location - I would say that the bright sun shines ( even) in the USA -still.<p>

 

Re my friend Michael S - president of the diplomatic core - the dog shot would be so much better in B&W!<p>

 

Keep the good fight up Eugene - time is on your side - barring accidents.

[michael s.]

Hey, Pete :)