Why do YOU shoot black and white?

[jtayloreckstein]

Why do you shoot black and white?

 

Do you shoot just black and white? Ever shoot color, why or why not?

 

Which do you prefer?

 

Favorite film and developer? Favorite style or subject (lomo,landscape,

portrait, friends, macro, parties, kids, pets...)? What lighting conditions do

you shoot under most?

 

Like grain or hate it? How high do you like your contrast?

 

Make your own prints? Why or why not? Anything different you like to do while

printing?

 

Do you make your shots available digitally? How or why not?

 

Lastly, what's your "pay off"? (Some would say that film is such a hassle these

days...)

 

Artistic judgments, opinions, philosophies, anything!

 

I have my answers... but I'd like to hear from everyone else first.

 

Samples welcome.

[michaelging]

I shoot B&W because I like the way it isolates the photo, so you see the light , not just colors. I also shoot color, as some photos need color to tell their story. I shoot Tr-x and develop it in D76. If you are looking at one of my photos and you are looking at the grain , then I have not done my job and my photo is boring. I mainly print on a Epson printer, after developing and scanning my film. I like the contrast to match what I saw in the scene, I like a full range of tones in my photos, from a deep black to a white with detail. As I said , I scan my photos in to a digital file, for many years I printed in a wet darkroom, but do not anymore.My pay off comes when I am happy with one of my photos. Here is a B&W and a color shot from the same event.<div></div>

[michaelging]

Same event in B&W<div></div>

[mark f]

Photos, for me, about documentation of ideas and emotions....not the literal documentation of events. Color often muddys that up a bit. Color distracts from the idea of my photographs (people, form mostly). I'm finding myself more drawn to the work of Keith Carter who looks to abstract out the image a bit further. Besides I love the crazy things I can do so cheaply in the wet darkroom!

[michael_huizenga]

I shoot both. Digital for friends and family that I can send free on the web. B&W I do mainly for myself in my darkroom. My favorite film is Tri-X in D-76, but I'll shoot everything from Plus-X to 3200 Tmax. Favorite subjects tend to be sports; surfing, drag racing, soccer, and friend's children.

While I find a great deal of pleasure using either media, the look of a hand processed B&W photo is the classic standard of photography, IMHO.

Grain is a non-issue, as long as I don't accentuate it during the processing.

The payoff for me is giving people photos that they wouldn't get otherwise. For instance, when I shoot my nephew's soccer game, I'll shoot a few rolls of Tri-X for myself, but also a few hundred digital of all of the kids playing. Those I can foward to the parents. They get nice stuff they can't get with their P&S's, I hopefully get some cool stuff to play with in the darkroom, and I enjoy a day of playing photographer until my eyeballs fall out.

[caesar_augustus]

I shoot B&W because I find color distracting

[jasmine_clark]

Why do you shoot black and white? Makes you look at things differently. Still don't have a definite answer :)

 

I mostly shoot black and white. Color depending on the subject.

I prefer black and white. Film: I like grainy b/w film. Just started using Adox/Efke 25 or 50iso. I really like landscapes, but i'll shoot just about anything. I shoot outside a lot. Taking a Studio class at the moment.

 

I make my own prints. Majoring in Art Photo, so I have to do my own work : ) But I really like to. Even though it can be annoying.

 

I always bring my DSLR with me when I shoot and depends on subject or where I'm at if I shoot with both.

 

right now debating if I want to shoot my portfolio in black and white or color. may just shoot both and then compare. I took my first color photo class and learned how to print during my fall semester. Before then I only thought about black and white. Damn color complicated my thought process. Taking upper division photo classes I now have the choice to shoot in b/w or color.

 

I find black and white more challenging. With shooting color you know what colors are going to look like. Black and white you have to guess and even then it can surprise you. Color is more interesting to me when it's not the norm, something shows up that you didn't expect. Cross-processed film made me like it more.

[brucecahn]

B&W is a different medium. The emphasis is on form, composition and action. In color photography the colors have to be controlled to get ringing good color harmony. If a picture has this it will probably be successful. To achieve this result consciously, the photographer has to study color and understand it. Or settle for the rare accidental picture which is a success. For now at least, I use photography for B&W and painting for color.

[aeaster]

I use B&W film because I was born into a B&W world.

 

Different cameras like different films. My Rolleiflex likes FP4 the best; my Crown Graphic prefers HP5. I develop both in Ilfotec HC. My Nikon likes the Kodak and Ilford C-41 stuff.

 

I do not use color. Ever.

 

You ask too many questions. Get back out there and shoot.

[aplumpton]

Abstract nature

 

Emotional power

 

Unencumbered by multiple tints

 

Better delineation of form, line and texture.

 

I also love its appearance.

[lex_jenkins]

For me, I'd have to say it's the process itself as much as the aesthetics. My first experience was with a home darkroom kit I received as a gift when I was 9 years old. After that I was hooked on the process.

 

Over the decades my photographic habits have varied according to darkroom access. When I have darkroom access, I shoot b&w film almost exclusively. When I don't have darkroom access, I tend to shoot color. Occasionally I'll use a chromogenic monochrome film like Ilford XP2 Super.

 

I've never really been comfortable with or interested in the color process. I don't enjoy digital editing and use it only reluctantly and when necessary.

 

The main differences? Besides having a preference for the b&w process, I also tend to prefer the aesthetics for artistic purposes. I tend to see the world, as an artist, writer and armchair philosopher, in terms of nearly infinite shades of gray.

 

While I've taken many times more color photos, including digital, I tend to use it as a tool for capturing memories or telling stories, rather than to express any particular artistic vision. I recognize that most viewers can related to color photos of people, places and things more readily than they can to b&w. Since a lot of my photography is for other people, I use the medium that suits their preferences rather than my own.

 

I've noticed that some photographers don't really seem to grasp the essential differences between b&w and color photography. Many seem to think that merely desaturating a color photo transforms it into art. Too often it's a hollow exercise. There are, fortunately, occasional exceptions.

[ric_johnson1]

I shoot B&W because I'm color blind... I never see colors, so in the darkroom I can't even print color.

[richterjw]

I'm with Lex, though he said better than I might have. Best, JR

[doug grosjean]

I shoot a lot of b/w, but for varied reasons, and not exclusively. But *probably* most of my film usage is now b/w.

 

I live out in the country, it's a 30-mile drive to town. Winters are gray here, mostly. Wintertime, color films are in the minority in my camera bag.

 

Shooting b/w saves me a 30-mile drive to town for processing, and speeds up how fast I get to see the images I've shot. Plus in winter there's little color to shoot around here anyway. And on top of that, in winter's dim light, I'll shoot b/w more often and then push-process it. That allows me to shoot in ambient light where color would be a bit of an issue.

 

B/w also forces me to really work at composition.

 

I usually shoot color for family portraits, and on vacation or summer day trips where the light would really pop in color.

 

On vacation, roles are reversed, and b/w films are in the minority in my bag. I'm recording in a different way. And since I'll likely take all the rolls in at once for processing, the drive into town is amortized over 20-30 rolls instead of just 1 roll.

[bob_smith]

What is this "color" you speak of?

[inspiration point studio]

<p><p>Funny, what a conincident. I just wrote about this on my blog. 3 main reasons... see link to

<a href="http://www.inspirationpointstudio.com/IPS/Gallery/51A05514-4DC2-448B-962C-26F2F00637DA.html" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"> Inspiration Point Studio. </a></P>

<P>I don't use B&W film nor do any darkroom print making, too much trouble these days. I just play with color to B&W conversion.</P>

[inspiration point studio]

Sequoia and Dogwood. Original in color.

[inspiration point studio]

Larger version of Sequoia and Dogwood so you can see the details.

[ad trace]

Because it can't be a coincidence that my colour photos almost always disappoint me, yet a throwaway b&w snap not expected to amount to much has so much more depth and feel. It's got to the point that when I have colour film loaded I'm not inspired to shoot (maybe that's the problem ;)).

 

For example, I love the way I can tell from the tone whether the picture taken in the fields by my house are showing green or golden wheat, even with no colour.

 

And, of course, the process (which I'm just starting back with) to produce the prints is so satisfying.

 

Cheers

AD

 

p.s. recently had my first proper printing session since my school days - I should post some results, but it would have to be a digital photo of a print as I have no scanner.

Thanks to you all for your help (even if you had no idea when you posted all those years ago) :)

[doug grosjean]

Another reason I shoot b/w - sometimes it simply fits the subject to a T.

 

My dad's involved in Model T Fords and such, and I have other friends / aquaintance involved in vintage motorcycles. Below is one of those "ideal subjects" for b/w. I also have a color shot, taken moments later by my g/f, with me sitting on the Indian grinning ear to ear. Lots of green grass, blue sky, marroon paint and black tires and gray engine on the Indian. Good resolution, as it's a 6MP image shot on a decent P&S digi.

 

While the color is a nice enough pic, the b/w pics below really rock. The lack of color isolates as others here have said, and forces your eye and mind to focus on shapes and composition.

 

Original of 1920-something Indian, taken late Summer 2007:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads/00N9Vf-39472384.jpg

 

Detail from same neg. It's not necc. film grain, but the aluminum casting grain:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads/00N9Vj-39472484.jpg

 

FWIW - I contact printed several of these for the Indian's owner, a retired gent. He was absolutely thrilled, and friends in his vintage m/c club thought he'd found another Indian to buy.

 

Doug Grosjean

[john_wilson10]

Because my film cameras are so much fun to use! I love my Olympus XA and carry it everywhere loaded with HP5, and I carry my OM-1 (w/TMax 100 & the 135 2.8 lens) almost everywhere. It's also a lot of fun to pick up an old medium format folder or box camera at an antique store and run a roll of 120 through it. And I like processing (although I recently got sensitized to DD-X so I'm re-thinking my B&W processing strategy.)

 

On the other hand, digital has big workflow advantages. I can't set up a darkroom in our current house (we rent, and no, really, I can't set one up, yes, not even in the bathroom or a spare closet) so if I want to share my B&W images I have to spend a lot of time fighting dust and my scanner to get a good scan.

[cblkdog]

Good answer Bob Smith.

I shoot b/w because I like it. I don't understand why someone would shoot, process then scan instead of making a real print. If you're going to shoot b/w, then do it the right way.

[matthew_smeal1]

I like the inherent abstractness of a b&w print - it makes you look; perhaps I should say, it

makes you see. Colour is all around us and we are used to it. I guess black and white

reduces the subject to the bare minimum, allowing the viewer to focus more on form and

texture and tonal variations. Colour is great for some shots but it can be distracting and a

bit same old, same old.

 

I also dig what Lex said about enjoying the process and was only thinking about this

recently: what do I prefer: the taking, the developing, or the printing? To be honest, they

are all intertwined and, for me, one can't exist without the other.

 

I've done a lot of photojournalism work in recent years and shot both colour and B&W. I

can hardly remember any colour shots - I just don't respond to them. I think in B&W and

visualise the finished print as a B&W print.

 

As for it all being a hassle - no way. I find computers, scanning, PhotoShop a hassle. I like

something tactile: I want to see it, hold it, touch it. When a computer screen is involved I

always feel one step removed from what I'm doing which is one step too far.

 

Film etc, well I'm an Ilford fan. Recently though, I've shot on FP4 (Ilford), developed in

Rodinal (Agfa) and printed using Dektol (Kodak). By and large though, Ilford FP4, HP5 and

Pan F. Ilford ID11 for developing, Ilford multigrade paper and Kodak Dektol for printing. I

like to keep it simple and get to fully know and appreciate what I use. That can only come

from experience.

 

Grain doesn't particularly worry me. The only time I'm that close to a print is in the

darkroom. In a portfolio/album or on a wall, it shouldn't be a problem. Sometimes it adds

to the print. Some of Jeanloup Sieff's prints are outrageously grainy but they work

wonderfully. Same with Sebastaio Selgado's work - it's not all grain free but definitely

stunning and moving. The quest for no grain is a bit overdone methinks. Ever seen the

thick brush marks on the work of some of the Masters? I've never heard painters carry on

about getting rid of brush marks. Perhaps us photographers should take a leaf from their

book and see grain as an inherent part of our chosen medium.

 

Finally: shoot it, develop it, print it - that way it's yours.

[don_e]

I was born and raised, and learned photography, in the b&w world; when I think 'photography' it is in b&w.

 

Color can work well with 'directorial' control as in a studio, but for candid photography color can break the composition and distract the viewer's eyes unless the composition is simple and the found colors are not 'out of gamut' of the emotional tonality intended.

 

So, shooting color or b&w may depend on the kinds of photography you do, and subject and compositional preferences.

[luke_ballard]

It was mentioned in this thread in a way, but I didn't realize when I was shooting color that I had no understanding of color until I took color thoery in school. It had no photography in the course, it was painting and mixing colors and was all about understanding colors and the thoery associated with it, compliments, non-compliments, primaries, secondaries, and so on. After that course, I really changed the way I shot color, I only shoot color for clinets, I don't shoot it for me, I only shoot b&w film for me, but for clients, it is much easier to shoot digital color just because of the time issue even though after many people see my work, they sometimes request that I shoot thier work in B&W film not digital or color. However, I am a total fanatic with film! I love it and will shoot it until they make the last roll, I learned how to shoot on film and process in the darkroom by hand and that is where my roots are so that is what I love. The process to me is where the passion is, I absoulutly love the b&w process. Also, as said above it makes you think more about composition and makes you take your time before shooting to really look at your scene before you push the shutter release. I find that ppl that shoot nothing but digital get completley lax about taking the time to compose a photo properly and to look at every aspect of the photo before they shoot. Main reason is, you can look at the LCD and say, Oh that was bad, delete, shoot again. That will in time just cause you to become lazy, film forces you to take your time and think and when a good photo is made, that is what happens, "You Think". An instructor in school once told me, "If you look at a photo and it causes a intellectual process to begin then you have done your job". "If someone stops and thinks about your photo, then you have not only done something amazing, you have created a photograph, not a "Pic". In one class we went to a gallery to look at photos and as we were walking around our instructor asked, how long do you think the average person looks at a photo on the wall in a gallery? Lots of people had differnt opinions, but he said, about 3 seconds and then they move on, if you can stop them with your photo and make them think about it and stare at it while asking questions to themselves, then you have done your job right. Black and White really allows you to create Art and something amazing if done right, color is just kinda boring. It is ok for some things, but if you want to make truley artistic photos, then B&W is the way to go in my humble opinion. I have been fortunate to have several photos and also several sets that made it into galleries and not one of them was in color, all were black and white. Just some food for thought. Like I said, color has its place and its niche, but black and white is just plain wonderful in everyway! Also as far as changing a digital color photo into black and white, I don't like doing it. I don't think digital captures the full tonality of film and I don't think when you shoot a color digital photo that most people are thinking, Hmm I am changing this to black and white, so I need to think and look at this scene as if it was black and white. Most don't look at it that way and thats why thier color photos converted to black and white don't look very well. Some people can pull it off, but I would rather shoot it in its true form, not something that I plan on converting.

Take care!

 

Luke.