Black and White Street Photography.

[eugene_scherba]

<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>

[robert_m_johnson]

"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.

[eugene_scherba]

<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>

[robert_m_johnson]

Show us an example of an "Original" photograph? I don't think that you can. You talk a good game though...

[eugene_scherba]

<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>

[robert_m_johnson]

original would have had to originate from something...

[eugene_scherba]

so?

[michaelging]

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>

[michaelging]

Same location,but with B&W Tri-x<div></div>

[eugene_scherba]

<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>

[lutz]

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?

[eugene_scherba]

<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>

[eugene_scherba]

Becher's -> Bechers'. Apologies for poor grammar.

[lutz]

Eugene, it takes a curator to link me to any of _your_ pictures?

[eugene_scherba]

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.

[sprouty]

<I>"...background to your lecturing?"</I>

<P>

Interesting choice of words.

[eugene_scherba]

Don't worry Steve, I'm now on good terms with Lutz.

[sprouty]

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.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

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 ?

[lutz]

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>

[lutz]

deeply routed = deeply rooted ;-) <p>As for the above pics, color is Mumbai, 2007, b&w is Arles, 2005

[neilambrose]

<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>

[tim gray]

"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.

[sprouty]

<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.

[michael s.]

"Guilty" in what way ?