Why so many images here are in black and white?

[vktr]

<p>Street is in color, isn't it? ;)</p>

[silvercityphotography]

<p>I prefer to shoot street in b/w because I feel that color distracts the viewer from what the subject of the photo is. But that is just my 2 cents.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I'm not a very good street photographer, but shoot mostly B&W because I can easily develop my own stuff. I shoot dozens of rolls of personal images every week. I couldn't afford to send it all out, let alone color. Personally I think taking color away from street images lets you focus more on the subject and the relationship to the surroundings, which I think is important.</p>

[richterjw]

<p>I really enjoy the tones and textures of B/W. It also helps me focus on composition. I try to only photograph in color if I think the color will be a basic element of the photograph and make it more effective. Also I can develop my own film in B/W, and that is a process I enjoy. JR</p>

[ajglover]

<p>trent parke shoots street in color, check him out if u have not yet. making good images in color is a lot easier than BW though</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"making good images in color is a lot easier than BW though"</p>

<p>Funny, I was going to say something different. Making good street shots in color is hard. I find that b/w, even when it's not anything particularly significant, often superficially looks like it is. Which is not to say that good b/w isn't great. But so's good color. b/w isn't harder and color isn't harder. Making good photos is hard.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"making good images in color is a lot easier than BW though"</p>

<p>Making images is no easier in color than black and white and no easier in black and white than color.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>...I feel that color distracts the viewer from what the subject of the photo is...<br /> ...Personally I think taking color away from street images lets you focus more on the subject and the relationship to the surroundings...<br /> ...It also helps me focus on composition...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't get that at all. How is color <em>not</em> part of what the subject is, or it's surroundings, or an element of the composition if it had been included.</p>

<p>Doesn't bother me though, unless the lack of color makes the composition confusing, which I believe it often does. Or, if it's purely an affectation.</p>

<p align="center"><a title="20090625-DSC_8513 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nohodamon/3662386024/" title="20090625-DSC_8513 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3352/3662386024_c42a3f4a30_o.jpg" alt="20090625-DSC_8513" width="700" height="420" /> </a> <br /> Did you notice the rose in her hair? Probably not.</p>

[ian_tindale]

<p>The street is also moving - so why do so many people shoot still-frame?</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I began nearly 40 or so years ago with my first camera and two rolls of Tri-X and went out and shot 'street' -- just whatever I saw. One from my first roll of B/W Tri-X is still in my portfolio. Of course it is in black and white. I had only black and white film, color was too expensive to process and processing had to be done then by a lab. (However, when publications viewed 'color' they would only look at transparencies, because they were easier to sort on a light table, and they simply refused to look at photos shot with color negative film, as I remember from visiting various publications while shopping my early photos around Manhattan (as a student).<br>

In very early times, true color (as opposed to 'colorizing' such as 'cyan' or 'magenta') was simply not an option. <br>

When they did arrive, early dyes and emulsions did not last, and anyone who shot color had to have started sometime during about the middle of World War II, probably with military issued film. <br>

Only in the middle '50s and late '50s did consumers get around to shooting color, and most photo albums from that period will show almost exclusively black and white shots. Color was available, but it was not used -- it was just too expensive and not popular because of that.<br>

There just was no other choice at the start of photography, other than shooting three identical images through colored filters, then projecting them likewise. That was for sideshows and also for professors to demonstrate.<br>

Black and white was literally the only way to go for most of the early history of photography, and that includes 'street' and 'documentary'.<br>

So, the tradition of black and white' for 'street' and 'documentary' comes from a practical background based in historical necessity.<br>

It was not until after the end of World War II that color film came into availability at all, and it was not the best. It tended to fade rapidly. Worse, with transparency film, unless you hit the exposure 'dead on' you lost the exposure, because with transparency film you could not manipulate in the darkroom if you did not nail exposure - it just was not possible.<br>

What you saw on your transparency was what you got. (Now there may have been tricks in converting transparencies to prints for illustration that I do not know about, but when I first long ago began shooting, and I shot in black and white, I approached one stock agency that specialized in 'ONLY COLOR', and they got gargantuan prices for their stock images. <br>

I did have some color transparency shots, gave them works they chose and they sold some of my few early works for very high prices, including one that I am told ended up in the lobby of one of the towers of the World Trade Center, more than a story high, for which my share was a thousand dollars -- all for a measly stupid photo of some traffic in Los Angeles taken from an overpass that I had no real use for.<br>

The color agency grabbed from me among the few photos they took to try to sell. (I only dropped off photos with them one time, but they sold an amazing amount of that group).<br>

We fell out of touch about 35 years ago, but in the meantime, an occasional check would come in the mail -- '1/2 page Spanish Enclyclopedia, people on barrio steps -- color -- $500 - your share', the remittance advice would say, mysteriously, often several years later. Black and white the image then might have been worth $25.00.<br>

Those were astounding prices for a single print so very many years ago, and my only regret was I only had a few salable color photos and certainly not enough to do more than one submission to the agency before we really fell out of touch, and I went off to do serious journalism/writing work and photo editing work for Associated Press. I haven't resumed it since, and frankly haven't sold but one photo in 35 years since, and it took me a year to get paid the $25 I was paid for that.<br>

Famed 'street' photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson not only shot black and white photos, as well as dabbling in film as an assistant director (later director) and cinematographer, but he also in the late '40s or early '50s also dabbled in still color shooting, but was never its master, which irritated him greatly. <br>

He like to deny he ever even shot color, though in fact he did. Some was published, I have seen some of that, and it was not of high standard.<br>

He was so good at aligning compositions in his black and white work ('geometry' he called it after his art professor Andre Lohte who was a huge proponent of 'geometry' in the art Cartier-Bresson studied, that when the added element of color in photography came along, Cartier-Bresson was stymied. He could not perform his 'magic' with color added as a variable.<br>

Not only was he disappointed that his creations tended to change color and simply fade, but he could not often line up the colors satisfactorily although the composition otherwise was satisfactory.<br>

In the end, he simply gave up on color shooting, and ultimately denied he ever did such shooting.<br>

Shortly after his death in 1994,, the editor of French "Photo' magazine who was a friend of Cartier-Bresson wrote in his magazine's obituary a long story about Cartier-Bresson's mercurial personality, and to illustrate the point, he told this story:<br>

The editor a C-B longtime friend went with friends and acquaintances of Cartier-Bresson to a dinner at a restaurant, and as a 'surprise' the editor brought along some of Cartier-Bresson's early color works to ask Cartier-Bresson's impression of those after the passage of many years (probably decades and almost certainly after Cartier-Bresson had literally abandoned photography in the late '60s, and early '70s to pursue 'art' -- his first love.<br>

The editor reported that Cartier-Bresson went into a tirade. He tried to take the photos and destroy them, indicating that he had destroyed other color work. He obviously did not want to be remembered for his color photos.<br>

I had seen some about the time Cartier-Bresson retired, and none was particularly memorable -- he had such a gift of aligning all the elements of a composition together that adding one more element -- color -- simply was beyond him.<br>

The editor described Cartier-Bresson's tirade, first at the shared dinner table, then as Cartier-Bresson went around the restaurant and denounced his 'friend' to strangers dining, in a loud voice, all for bringing such lesser work to the table. <br>

[Cartier-Bresson was not known for his politeness in all circumstances - and the word 'mercurial' often was used to describe him. He was brilliant, born independently wealthy, and was able to travel the world on his own terms, and to take photos on his own terms.]<br>

Apparently he destroyed much of his color work -- perhaps all he could get his hands on (now this is a paraphrase from the article which I read in the original French, and it is five years out of mind, but still left a firm imprint in my memory. If someone wants to find that article and/or a translation and 'link' it here, I would be happy to admit any errors or exaggerations in my retelling. <br>

I do believe I have told the story correctly though, however.<br>

From time to time, I do get a photo that aligns all the elements correctly, and that includes color, and for those times, I seldom get rewarded.<br>

Here is one such photo where I believe Cartier-Bresson's elements of composition are met, AND the element of color he could not capture was also captured. Alas, such photos are very rare indeed in my portfolio and in my shooting, though I shoot lots of 'street'.<br>

In fact, in all my 'street' shooting, with all modern shooting beginning as color then desaturated, these are the two images I felt might have met Cartier-Bressson's standards for composition, but with the added element of having color align in that je ne said quoi way:<br>

The first: 'Study in twos', may seem rather mundane, but it is a precise study in pairs and 'catching the moment' -- either a fraction of a second too soon or too late would have destroyed the composition. <br>

Moreover, it has the added element of repetition of colors: See the repetition of gray and pink from the building to gray and pink on the billboard. One sees such alignment (as Cartier-Bresson might have used that term) extremely rarely. Raters, unfortunately did not reward this photo. I consider it one of my best color works.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6717545">http://www.photo.net/photo/6717545</a><br>

The second photo below, 'Study in Contrasts', also relies very much on composition with the larger woman representing possibly through her size the importance our culture places on youth, while the older woman is represented as a smaller figure. But both have similar colors including similar color hair with a propitious background color. <br>

It also is one of the high points of my color work, but again, such work is not especially highly regarded by raters. Again, 'color' adds to the 'geometry' of the composition.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3963851">http://www.photo.net/photo/3963851</a><br>

Although (rarely) and from time to time, I may take a photo that bears some resemblance to something that Cartier-Bresson might have liked as a lesser work, such works almost never have the added element of bringing the elusive color element into alignment as in these photos.<br>

If you think there are other color photos in my huge portfolio that might meet the standard of combining classic 'street' composition with additional alignment in color which enhances it, I'd be happy to hear from you. I think it's an extremely hard job.<br>

In fact, what Cartier-Bresson did on a regular basis with black and white was an almost impossible job for almost any other photographer in the world, which is why he left such a great legacy (and why seeing his exhibited works caused me to abandon photography as a serious career back in the late '60s, when I saw them in a huge museum exhibition in San Francisco. He occupied the field and left little else to be done in 'street' as I saw it, plus news magazines and pictorial magazines which bought such photos were dying, and photographers were abandoning the business, just as he did.)<br>

All my current black and white work now starts out as color work, but it is the rare color 'street' shot that stays saturated (in color) because the color alignment so often just is not strong enough to aid the shot. <br>

Black and white enhances the 'story' told by many of my photos and also enhances many of the graphic elements.<br>

Consider this shot:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8834254">http://www.photo.net/photo/8834254</a><br>

In this shot you are supposed to search for 'similarities and 'near similarities'. On examination, you will find that Seth Rogan's fingers form a light 'V" while the fur on the hoodie of the girl seated at the bus stop bench also forms a light "V", but this time it's inverted.<br>

Taken through a car windshield, bugs and all, this photo is a total failure as a color capture, but as a black and white capture it provoked some interest. While not my best, it does illustrate that you can make graphics work for you in a black and white capture that will totally escape you in color (Seth Rogan's fingers were flesh color on the poster, while the fur on the hoodie lining was white, and in color, though a car windshield. the image was very much degraded in color - almost unviewable.<br>

Even much of my early work started out as color transparencies that I decided to desaturate because the black and white graphic elements worked so much better than color elements that seemed to detract from the composition.<br>

There are 'street magicians' who can do excellent color work. <br>

Helen Levitt who recently passed away, was a magician with early color work, but her work would have probably been just as strong in black and white -- I don't feel that color did much to enhance her work, other than give it a sense of the 'times' - -which by this time also includes fading in all of her work, since it was shot with early color film. <br>

A corollary is that all film-based color will fade with time in any case, and no matter how good it started out, it will debase over time: (However, once digitized, that no longer is the case, provided someone over decades or eons still has the digital key to unlock the image for viewing from its 'file'.)<br>

Now you also can shoot 'street' in color, and it will work out very well.<br>

I have several shots in my portfolio that started out as color postings, but on suggestions of members later were desaturated and then again did very well, and in one or two cases became much stronger photos. <br>

Here is one that started out as a color capture and it was one I considered very strong:<br>

'Billboard and Man' (color ed.) when posted by me was a photo I never thought of desaturating and it was well received:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3080536">http://www.photo.net/photo/3080536</a><br>

But when member Doug Hawks suggested desaturating it, it jumped in ratings and became almost another photo, and in my opinion much stronger.<br>

In the black and white version (desaturation), the lines of the photo which cross between the man and the 'poster man' are emphasized and the corollary lighting in the two faces (mirrored lighting) is more fully exposed, and not only did ratings jump but also 'views'.<br>

When desaturated, this became one of my highest-viewed photos. Together, the color and black and white versions for a long time together were my highest-viewed single image (albeit in two postings -- color AND black and white).<br>

Billboard and man, black and white ed.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3120753">http://www.photo.net/photo/3120753</a><br>

(comment, © john crosley 2009, all rights reserved).<br>

I shoot color for everything, since my digital sensors always record color anyway in the raw version, and desaturate a great deal: I like the historical tradition of black and white, and also like the advantages of black and white over color, especially the ease with which it is possible to 'create' a composition in black and white' that is meaningful over creating a similarly meaningful composition in color.<br>

(Now, I have seen some fantastic work, some from Africa, with native costumes, and peasants, that was done in color in which the color work was fantastic, so don't get me wrong - color and 'street' or 'documentary' also has a place. It's for the artist to decide.<br>

I choose both color and black and white, depending, and have portfolios for each.<br>

It's an artistic choice.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Simply put: because I like it</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>My color perception is horrible. I'm not color blind, just not good at recognizing subtleties in color. I enjoy using color film, but am miserable at digital editing. Some days I can't even recognize a magenta or cyan cast in skin tones; other days it leaps out at me. Probably why I'm a lifelong fan of b&w film. I don't convert many of my digital photos to monochrome but I probably should since my color perception isn't very good.</p>

[akochanowski]

<p>John, is it really true that you correlate the number of views received on PN with the strength of the photograph? After having been here for 8 years or so, I can pretty confidently say that while PN has some undeniable virtues, the collective taste of its membership-- wholly immune to subtlety and attracted like flies to honey with contrasty black and white and radioactive coloring-- is not one of them. I guess YMMV.</p>

[ray .]

<p>In a sense, black and white equates to drawing, color to painting. Everyone should try both.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>I loath velvia</p>

[JTG1]

With color you see life; with black and white you feel emotions.

[sam_motskin]

<p>When I do street shooting I look for expressions, jestures, postures, and "geometry" as someone put it it here. For me this is expressed much more dramatically in B&W. Each color evokes a certain emotion which may be at variance with the picture idea. But this is just me and somebody else may line up colors into a powerful composition.<br>

BTW,if we take a look at the old masters graphic work such as Honore Daumier's lithographs, Hokusai's drawings, and Rembrandt's etchings, I'm not sure that their work would be as powerful if they used color </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>So, you're saying these masters' most powerful works are their etchings and lithos?</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Andy K.<br>

In response, the number the 'views' a photo receives very frequently is an expression of its popularity.<br>

Popularity is not the sine qua non of a good or even a great photograph. I have some photographs I have been assured by a Lucie Award Winner who curated them that have few viewers. <br>

Many viewers do not understand photos of mine he has chosen that he contends should be in 'fine art' galleries of the highest quarter such as the Gagosian or 'fine art' museums -- and he should know, he prints for some of the most outstanding photographers in the country and almost all of the major museums of the world have photos he has printed in their collections -- usually large numbers of them. He's currently having a documentary film made of his life and tells me I may be in it. (He was Helmut Newton's private printer, prints for Sally Mann and Nann Goldin among many others.)<br>

His prints of others' works often sell for upwards of $40,000 apiece, and he has advised me about photographic worth of much of my shooting and curated nearly all to part of last year. Sometimes he has been able to show me photos that will be 'viewable' and popular that I passed over entirely, and other times, he has chosen photos as 'fantastic' which I did not recognize the worth of initially, and he has undertaken to teach me some of his skills in evaluating photos. We have had many lively debates -- literally masters classes for me alone.<br>

So, NO, I do not equate 'views' with 'greatness' but I do believe after having studied tens of millions of 'views' of my photos under both the 'old' Photo.net view counting system and the 'new' system that 'views' do count for something. <br>

If nobody bothers to look at a photo, it certainly tells me something about the viewability of that particular photo -- and its mass appeal to the Photo.net audience. Notice I do not supersaturate almost anything, and I am not afraid to use subtlety in black and white or even subtle white variations in the occasional 'high key' photograph. <br>

After over five years of membership here and nearly 1,300 postings, I have found that views tend to be a rather reliable indicator of viewer interest -- albeit with major lacunae -- and important ones.<br>

I post a lot of photos that do not and will never get large 'views' but it's almost unheard of for me to remove them for lack of viewership (or even bad ratings), because I happen to like them or see particular value in them, which is why I post them.<br>

I am captain of my photographic ship and have no first or second mate.<br>

I post here in part to learn popularity of images - for me it's a testing ground -- kind of like a test audience or focus group, and in that regard the Photo.net audience does have its strengths. <br>

I make up my own mind, however about whether I think a particular photo is 'strong' or weak. <br>

Note in my long comment above, I mentioned that one of the photos linked that was not highly viewed was one of my 'best ever' in color. Doesn't that tell you something? I'd be proud to display it anywhere as among my very best work.<br>

Those photos which do garner a large number of 'views' sometimes have awakened me to strengths I had overlooked - same sometimes with ratings (but not always of course -- I believe in my own work and trust my own instincts first and foremost).<br>

You made an interesting observation; I hope my reply shows more than surface depth.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[sam_motskin]

<p>Damon, Not to me and I did not say that. They all did paintings too (well, Hokusai did color woodblock prints). But their drawings, lithos, and etchings are diffrent in compositional techniques with emphasis on lines, shapes, contrast, jestures.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>1) When I shoot street I prefer RF.</p>

<p>2) When I shoot RF, I prefer film.</p>

<p>3) When I shoot film, I shoot B&W since I do all the post-processing myself. Sending out color film makes street shooting cost prohibitive for me.</p>

<p>4) Used to have a digital RF (R-D1s, recently sold). Nothing against it in particular, but the VF of the ZI has just spoiled the heck out of me, so I stick with that.</p>

[vktr]

<p>Very insightful comments, thanks everyone! But (given the source is in color) I can't help thinking that some really bad photos were salvaged by mere color desaturation and some really good ones were damaged by it. Just thinking. Thanks again for your thoughts.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p><em>So, you're saying these masters' most powerful works are their etchings and lithos?..... </em> Well,<em> </em> In Goya's case (The disasters of War) and Breughel the elder (?), yes<em>.</em> <em><br /> </em></p>

[ray .]

<p>Well, Goya made some very great paintings, arguably every bit as great as his etchings. Velasquez, on the other hand, made his mark overwhelmingly with his paintings. R Crumb, perhaps today's Goya, has made drawing his main medium.</p>

[ray .]

<p>"How is color <em>not</em> part of what the subject is, or it's surroundings, or an element of the composition if it had been included."</p>

<p>Point taken, but what black and white can do is select or prioritize the part of the subject or idea you want to focus on- whether it be form, tone, gesture, narrative, or any other aspect of the picture other than color. The choice depends on the particular photograph and how the pieces fit together, and what the photographer's preferences or intentions are. If the color in the scene doesn't fit with the whole, the whole may still work if color is done away with. Or if a black and white image doesn't hold interest, color in certain instances can transform it into something that does.</p>