Black and White V Colour in Landscapes

[mbpixel]

Hi

 

Does anyone think that black and white landscape photography is dying out? A

quick search of the top 50 landscape pictures of all time reveals only one

mono shot.

 

Black and white will always have a place in portrait photography, being the

medium of choice for many, maybe because it can remove distractions etc but in

landscape, the photographer composes for the strongest image, removing

distractions with compositional skills.

 

Some of the early pioneers, Adams for example, had to use black and white as

there wasn't much choice. I wonder what amazing sunrises/sets he witnessed

and was unable (unfortunately) to record.

 

Does anyone have any views on this?

[laurent-paul]

Just my little take on that : I really don;t think the B&W lanscape photography is dying. And the top photos here are showing a very large range of what will please the most of people, rather than really spotting the most artistical or photos. And many times, as you mentioned, a B&W landscape may be more difficult to do than a color one where the colors, can often hide some lack in the composition.

 

But there are tones of magnificients B&W landscapes around here if we can find them :-)

[laurent-paul]

Now I see I misunderstood a bit your post.

 

If I understand you say that in landscape photography, the composition is more important than in portrait, and therefore, there would be less interest in using B&W for landscapes, as if I understand, B&W helps removing "ditractive" parts of the photo.

 

Actually, I think a bit the opposite : A shot in B&W has to be even more balanced than a color one, whtever the subject ( And of course the compsition will always have to be perfect, or as close as possible to perfection ), as colors are such a powerfull element, that they will actually help hide most of the other problems which could appear in a photo ( light, composition, subject, etc. )

[machts gut]

Hello Mike,

just a few thoughts. First, the history of colour photography is older than most people think. There are a few colour photos by Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, but I admit I find them not interessting. And they might have thought the same, because they didn't pursue this technique. Second, I'm glad they didn't take photos of sunrises/sets in colour. I almost always have to shiver from disgust when I see a photo of one. Third, there is some interessting b&w landscape photography. You may want to follow this blog:

 

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/

 

When you scroll down to previous posts you'll find from time to time examples. But you probably won't find many examples of classical b&w landscapes like Adams and Weston. Why should one want to copy 50 year old masters?

[iancoxleigh]

Where did you find this miraculous list of the top 50 landscape photographs of all time?

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

With colour as an option, B&W has never been the dominant medium in photography. Digital has increased the numberd enjoying photography but colour still dominates.

 

This has nothing to do with whether B&W landscape as a form is dying out. A good colour landscape doesnt always make for a good B&W one; you need to think about how you want the end result to look and what you are trying to achieve. Its never going to be about people taking their usual landscape photos then deciding after, "Oh, I wonder what that would look like in B&W", a good B&W landscape is a conscious decisions necessary from the outset.

 

I was recently looking through the current issue of Lensworks (#74) are there are some fantastic B&W landscape images from iceland. B&W landscape is not really dying - you just need to broaden where you look.

[JDMvW]

B&W dying out?

 

In the last month or so nearly every photomagazine on the rack has seemed to be about B&W and how to do it in digital, etc.

[mbpixel]

Thanks for all of your input. I should have mentioned the top 50 landscapes were from the photo.net all time list.

 

Maybe a lot of people do not make the decision to photograph in black and white until they are at the pc, maybe this is why we do not see so many, or maybe the explosion in digital in the last few years brings a new generation of photographers who are, on the whole, not so interested in B&W

 

There seems to be a larger window of opportunity in B&W, but colour sunrise/set pictures need the light to be absolutely right.

 

Interesting debate though.

[jlkphoto]

Mike Brehaut wrote:

"Some of the early pioneers, Adams for example, had to use black and white as there wasn't much choice. I wonder what amazing sunrises/sets he witnessed and was unable (unfortunately) to record?"

 

Ansel Adams took thousands of color exposures during his lifetime. He was never satisified with them and did not publish them. He was, however, working on his first color book just before his death.

 

There has been at least one published since his death:

 

"Ansel Adams in Color."

 

http://www.amazon.com/Ansel-Adams-Color/dp/0821219804

[mbpixel]

Cheers Jeff.

 

I think maybe colour film was not as highly developed as black and white. Towards his later years the quality would have improved somewhat.

 

The picture on the front cover is great! I think it is better than the black and white images he took. It is far more realistic in colour.

[lex_jenkins]

Eliot Porter was specializing in color landscape (and other) photography during (more or less) the same era as Adams. I haven't read Adams' comments on color photography - it's possible he wasn't interested in the complexity of the dye transfer process. It would require much patience and the finesse of juggling a bowling ball, a feather and a knife to truly master both forms.

 

Porter's photos are beautiful but may seem dated to younger photographers. In that ere they were considered the pinnacle of color photography for the saturation and accuracy. Today, I suspect that many photographers whose experience is primarily limited to digital photography and Photoshop would find them dull.

[mbpixel]

Thanks Lex, I'll look Eliot Porter up.

[michaelchristensen]

Black & White photography is not as prevalent in the US as in other countries, nonetheless, black and white requires a much higher standard of composition and subject matter that is not as easy to acquire as a simple beautiful color picture.

 

Some subjects just look stunning in black and white .. and if shot in color, the glamour and excitement is lost. Surfing the net, you'll tend to pick out a color shot more often than not to view because colors are tied to a lot of human emotion and interest. More often than not, a good color shot is simply good, .. not great.

 

But if you happen to find a black and white shot that holds your interest .. you have to ask yourself .. why is this compelling. Then you're on your way to discovery.

 

I happen to love old photographs in black and white .. and to a lesser degree some landscape work in black and white .. they are "timeless" .. were they shot yesterday or 100 years ago? With color, one easily dates a photograph.

 

Another thing, with black and white portraits .. they cause the viewer to look deeper into the image, if but to discover and learn what the photographer was trying to say ..

 

Lex is right, today's digital photographer may not ever experience black and white as an art form ... but it most certainly is such ..

 

Color can actually distract the viewer in the way a photographer did not intend .. and can sometimes make a so-so composition more interesting.