Black and White Street Photography.

[eugene_scherba]

yeah, the color in that dog shot really pisses me off.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>time is on your side</i></p>

 

<p>and when i finally win the argument, i will spend my old age selling vintage B&W prints.

Mwahahahaha!</p>

[Allen Herbert]

I find that the amount of black and white street photography that is shown makes the good color work really stand out

 

Love him. Classic Mr Spirer. I thought the old dog was going a bit soft in his old age.

 

Of course,some folks think it's got to be a masterpiece if it was taken in BW film. Jeez, scary thought or what!

[Allen Herbert]

I am first and foremost a fan of good writing, when eyeballing internet chats

 

See, the proper King of England lives in Aussie...sort of a challenged fact for those interested in such things....he lives in the outback...pulls calfs out of private parts with his beer hands. Not like your your German Windy Greek lot who just suck on prawns all day.

 

He has taught all those err convicted souls to luv pruper English.

 

Good on em muckers. And they still love the Queen. Proper folk.

[lutz]

yada, yada...<p>

<i>Jeff Spirerphoto.net hero photo.net patron, Nov 20, 2007; 12:40 p.m.

<br>

I find that the amount of black and white street photography that is shown makes the good color work really stand out.</i><p>

I find that the amount of bad to average street photography makes the good work really stand out - perfectly independent from color or monochrome. There's bad color street photography as well as bad b&w street photography. And there is good work in both media (I prefer that term to "technology"). To think of b&w as cliche'd is cliche'd. To think of color as plain and simple is plain and simplistic. Prefering one over the other is a matter of style, taste and sensitivity. Some people can see and work in both.

[Allen Herbert]

I find that the amount of bad to average street photography makes the good work really stand out - perfectly independent from color or monochrome.

 

Someones bad, is someones good. Just a thought, Lutz....perhaps there is some master brain who decides such things. Of course if someone is too scared to contribute, just don't feel they are worthy, how will they ever have fun and move on.

 

Just a few thoughts to the worthy and wise.

[Allen Herbert]

Nope, i don't want the one ring.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>And there is good work in both media (I prefer that term to

"technology")</i></p>

 

<p>Two things, Lutz:

<ul>

<li>Video and still image make an example of two different media. B&W and color? I really

don't think so.</li>

<li>Name me 5 photographers who do interesting B&W work today. I can think of two so

far (as opposed to, say, 250 or so photographers who do interesting work in color).</li>

</ul></p>

[Uhooru]

WTF, only 2?

what about Edmo, Lemos, Beau, a couple Oaxiana [sp] and Dimitri, Steve West, Takaki, just a few internet hacks that will probably never amount to much...in documentary Bill Arens, Bruce Davidson whether he works in color or B/W for his heart, Boogie, and these are just ...and so forth...

 

Eugene you are one tough dude man...

[michael s.]

I don't go along with stacking up lists to see which is heavier. Not really a useful way <i>for me</i> to think about photographers or photography.<p>

 

But would you add <a href=http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R1482X4&nm=Bruce%20Gilden>Bruce Gilden</a> to the b & w list ? I believe I probably would. He's got a couple good snaps there.

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Hugh -- great post, thanks.</p>

 

<p>To correct myself, I never said that the value of B&W photography is somehow

diminished due to the small number of photographers using it today. The fact that there

are a few people who do use B&W means that there is a niche for which the look of B&W is

indeed appropriate.</p>

 

<p>But I'm going to par down your list nonetheless. In fact, I wish I had time to publish

my own list of photographers who work in B&W, though I guess it could make for a

misleading image of myself, as I'm more of a color guy.</p>

 

<p>Valerie Vouyer -- she's not googlable, meaning she either doesn't exist or you got the

spelling wrong. Ted Partin -- great work, truly a good contemporary B&W photographer

(1). Idris Khan -- I like his stuff a lot, but he's superimposing photographs taken in 1960s

by Bechers, which means that I can't quite place him on this list. An-My Le -- great stuff;

and I'm amazed by how the Iraq photos look in B&W; however (a big however) she's using

the historical connotations of B&W to her advantage, meaning that her work cannot be

divorced from the past photographic history. I don't mean to criticize her work -- I like

her stuff -- it's just she's not "listable" on my list for the reason I mentioned above.

Santiago Sierra -- really interesting -- but this seems to be a performance artist who

simply uses photography to document his work. Between him and An-Me, I guess there is

half a point, but not a full point.</p>

 

<p>So when it came down to counting, I could only pick one and a half photographers

from your list. Three and a half to go...</p>

[iwmac]

Anyone who listens and understands listening to radio will understand the why of B&W photography.

[mg]

I don't listen to radio, but I think I can see (or should I say "hear"?) what Ian is saying...

 

I believe the comparison relies on the fact that when listening to radio, you get important messages and information, although you do not see the reality described by the radio. When viewing a black & white photograph, you are in a way leaving the realm of Reality s well, since reality is in color. And what's left is what was really important to know.

 

To me, and to answer with my own words, b&w photography is a form of abstraction, that leaves colors out, in order to emphasize on other and probably more essential elements: message and graphics mostly.

[sprouty]

Valery Bareta?

 

http://www.valerybareta.com/index.php

[sprouty]

Valery Tumbayev?

 

http://photophilia.net/shergal/vt/01.html

[ays]

Photography in my relatively inexperienced mind can be seen as a scientific art or an

artistic science, that is on a philosophical and metaphorical level does the camera become

part of the photographer or the photographer part of the camera- the science part of the

art or the art part of the science.. objectivity vs subjectivity.

 

When black and white film was the only way to shoot the use of "black and white" was

primarily the process used to capture images- it was a way to record light therefore an

image.. the science behind imaging in this way, at that time.

 

With the advent of colour film and evolution of digital technology, "black and white" has

become less the scientific process of image capture, and more the artistic choice of the

photographer. Thats not to say that creativity did not exist with b+w before colour just

that creative decision did not extend to the conscious use of b+w film.

 

I personally do not think there is any cliche involved with using b+w, it is just the time we

live in now allows us as artists, to make a conscious decision of whether to use b+w or

colour- film or digital- 35mm or medium format- cross processing colour slide to print

black and white for super fine grain quality- qualities of colour film being used for black

and white output.

Every one of us as a photographer/ artist/ scientist/ journalist, story teller or story writer

has our own process and methods by which we create or depict, that is OUR own truth

that we offer back to the world/earth that inspired that truth in the first place.

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Speaking of Valerie Rouyer, I like her color work, but am not so sure of the "Still Lives"

series, possibly because it's in B&W, haha. I could well be biased here.</p>

 

<p><i>As for the artists you reject we will have to differ on that.</i></p>

 

<p>No no, stay with me here. You mean Idris Khan made a conscious choice to make

work in B&W? I don't think so. I think he made a conscious choice to make work based on

Becher's work, which is fine, but it means that he can be called a contemporary B&W

photographer.</p>

 

<p>The problem with B&W is that you cannot divorce it from history. Producing B&W work

is like dating a person whom you cannot divorce from his or her previous spouse.</p>

[eugene_scherba]

can -> can't, sorry.

[jonathan_reynolds]

Eugene, as a matter of interest, why are you so obsessed with being original? However hard you try, you cannot divorce yourself from your times, your culture, your sex, your prejudices. These things define you and create labels for your work. You can't escape - why try so hard?

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>However hard you try, you cannot divorce yourself from your times, your culture,

your sex, your prejudices.</i></p>

 

<p>The point of living a life is to become someone else than what you were in the

beginning.</p>

 

<p>The point of being original is to place yourself in a position from where you would be

creating history instead of repeating it.</p>

[jonathan_reynolds]

Sorry, Eugene, but I think those statements are only superficially profound. You can't be anyone but who you are. Sure, a life is a journey, but you can't escape your genetics or your upbringing or your era or your environment. You can only be an artist within those constraints. As you say, you can't divorce B&W (or charcoal or fingers) from history. So I don't see the point in trying to be original. It's like trying to be happy - it never works unless you already are. But maybe we're straying off the question...

[sprouty]

<I>"...but you can't escape your genetics or your upbringing or your era or your environment. You can only be an artist within those constraints.</I>

<P>

You can <I>choose</I> to think however you want.

<P>

BTW, "Superficially Profound" will be on my next t-shirt (with the parenthical title "I want to be the next me")

[sprouty]

parenthical = parenthetical

[fate_faith_change_chains]

I think colorphotography has as much history attached too it as black&white photography.

The history of photographers like William Eggleston and Stephen Shore for example, who

used color as a very deliberate means of expression, and not just because it was available

and made black and white useless. There are lots of photographers who consciously chose

color to use it as a means of expression ( just like there are with blackandwhite ), and by

that, just can't ignore of what went before them in the likes of guys like Eggleston, it's

hard to be original for them too. 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, that's what made or makes them great, wether or not they where

or are repeating history. So not using black and white mainly because it isn't original, is,

well, very unoriginal....me thinks.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>but you can't escape your genetics or your upbringing or your era or your

environment</i></p>

 

<p>Excuse me? Speaking of genetics, what does genetics have to do with B&W

photography? (Answer: very little).</p>

<p>Speaking of era, isn't taking B&W pictures more like escaping from the present (color)

era to the past (B&W) one? To me, a lot of B&W street photos I see in these forums =

escapism.</p>

<p>Speaking of upbringing and environment, I was raised Greek Catholic in Western

Ukraine. I am now an atheist living in Boston.</p>

<p>> <i>So I don't see the point in trying to be original.</i></p>

<p>I can tell.</p>