What is it about Black and White?

[sarah_fox]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>So I went to a museum yesterday and saw a collection of landscape paintings and sketches in numerous media. There were about as many monochrome as color images. Of course it's hard to compare a charcoal with an oil painting. Both give very different feels. However, I was really struck by my reaction to several abstract "black and white" watercolors that I presume were done with dilute ink. I found them strangely impactful -- more so than their colored brethren, even when of similar style. I then noticed I found charcoals more impactful than pastels of a similar style by the same artist. Why was that?</p>

<p>So am I simply impacted by lack of color? I don't think so. My reaction to the monochrome images "felt" very much to me like my reaction to some very vividly colored oil landscapes by the featured artist. Although I found most of his work to be minor variations on a theme (water, trees, sky, New England), the simplicity of its form was striking.</p>

<p>So is it simplicity I crave, whether in form or in color?</p>

<p>I have always been drawn to B&W photography, and that is my preferred form. I shoot digitally, so I can PP my images however I please. Most of my images go straight to monochrome, after a lot of tweaking of color channels, much to the amusement of those around me. I don't know why I do this or why I have this innate preference.</p>

<p>It's often said that B&W doesn't suffer from the confusion or distraction of colors. However, it's more than that for me. I admit some of my photos have distracting colors that disappear in post, but most do not. To me there's a certain drama in B&W that I can't achieve in color. I admit I get a bit heavy handed, sometimes, with my curves, and a color output would not let me get away with this, but I don't think this limitation underlies any distaste for color. I'm left confused.</p>

<p>And then there are those who quip, sarcastically, "Just convert it to B&W. Then it becomes 'art.' Voila!" Yes, I get the humor, and I chuckle too. But is this some expression that B&W is really somehow more impactful to "most" people than color?</p>

<p>I'm truly confused as to why I'm so drawn to B&W. I'm not saying I don't like color, but often the color I truly love is over-the-top color. Maybe non-over-the-top color looks too mundane to me? Is that it?</p>

<p>Maybe some of you have thought about this issue? Why do you like (or dislike) B&W? I'm not looking for anyone to answer my own personal questions for me. Only I can do that. Rather, I'm curious how others feel and what they've figured out about their own reactions to color vs. B&W.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phflowers2sm.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Should be in color?!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>... or maybe my head's just messed up because I had a B&W painting hanging in my bedroom as a child! ;-)</p>

[sallymack]

Interesting question, Sarah. I think of b&w as more "sculptural" because the forms and textures take on more importance

without the distraction of color. I often take the "same" shot on both b&w and color films. Sometimes I like the b&w shot better,

sometimes the color, and I'm often surprised. And although it may be the "same" shot, they wind up being very different

pictures. --Sally<div></div>

[sallymack]

Oops, the picture above is obviously not (color), but I'd wanted to include it, anyway. I'll try the truly color one. --Sally<div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I have always been drawn to B&W photography, and that is my preferred form.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you've answered your own question. There's a fine line between taste and prejudice and I often find people trying to justify their tastes by looking for some external reason why what they are drawn to is somehow better or more this or that. It's OK to have taste and it's OK for there not to be some objective reason for having it and it's OK for others not to share it.</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Should it be in color?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if you didn't want it to be. I wonder if you're questioning whether it should be color or black and white because you find it in some way lacking (?) You haven't said so, but I'll proceed anyway. It might have more presence and interest either in color or black and white. That would come from putting some imagination into it, perhaps some drama, maybe more variety of tonality. It looks like it was a beautiful flower but it's a really boring photograph of a flower. The symmetry, the lack of tonal variety, the impersonal perspective, the ordinariness of the presentation make the photograph kind of unremarkable, and the bigness of it in the frame undermines any sense of delicacy as it feels very in-your-face.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>I posed a similar question in the Philosophy Forum a few months ago.</p>

<p>It was an interesting and intellectually stimulating discussion.</p>

<p>In the end, my question came to a conclusion which came to a hypothesis. That human beings are the only true diurnal primate. And this is because our ancestors, as hunters, spent a lot of time in activity during night. And I don't think it is a trait that all of us share, but many of us do.</p>

<p>For example, when I view an Ansel Adam's photo. Taken in the daylight but with artificially blackened skies. It represents, to me, a stylized night photograph. Something close to what an ancient hunter/gather ancestor might have seen on a perfect full moon hunting night.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I don't have a preference for either, but like and appreciate both. Sometimes color can add drama or atmosphere that black and white can't such as a sunrise or sunset photo with a vividly painted cloudy sky whereas the b/w version may simply look like a landscape taken during the middle of the day. But other photos benefit from the lack of color. Photos that are centered around shapes or lines or details may be better in b/w because color would only distract from what the photographer wants the viewer to notice. This is all stuff everyone knows already, but for me, color, or lack of, is a preference I have on a photo to photo basis.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[Addition to my post] There may actually be external reasons. One that I consider when this question comes up is that we are influenced by the fact that early photographs were only done in black and white, so that takes on both a classic and nostalgic feel. Often, historical roots are taken very seriously and they can impact some people toward considering black and white more "true." While the history has a certain affect on all of us, it doesn't work that way for all of us.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>I think that the only "control group" for that today is young people. They really did not grow up on black and white film or television influence. Like most of us older people did.</p>

<p>And many of them find black and white pleasing, in and of itself. Irrespective of historical context.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Richard, I don't think you have to be born in an era for history to have an effect on you.</p>

<p>We've all been profoundly affected by WWII, even those of us born after the war ended. I'm a musician and am very much affected by music's history. You'll find most rock musicians influenced to varying degrees by their classical roots, all of which happened way before their times. Younger folks today still go to museums, look at photography books, watch reruns of Dick Van Dyke on Nickelodeon. They're influenced by the history of black and white.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p>Also, I'm not suggesting that kids or anyone else don't or shouldn't find black and white pleasing or even more pleasing than color. I think they have every right to their taste. It's just that a lot of the so-called inherently superior photographic qualities that have posed by various people throughout these types of threads are simply bogus claims to justify one's personal taste.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>@Sally: Good point, at least with some photographs. Maybe this sculptural quality gives some B&W images a bit more dimensionality -- more depth.</p>

<p>@Fred: My photo is a rebellious one, re flower photography and color. I don't ordinarily photograph flowers. I just thought it illustrated the thread well. (Personally, I like it.) I'm really more interested in the question than the particular photo (which was just incidental).</p>

<p>I agree with you that B&W brings about a classical and nostalgic feel, at least for those of us who grew up with B&W. However, I've never departed from B&W in my lifetime, so I'm not left missing the good ol' days. Where I connect with your point is that I often see B&W as a means of removing time from my photographs. Timelessness is a theme that fascinates me. Perhaps it's because I live in a historical area and enjoy the anachronisms it serves up on a daily basis.</p>

<p>Interesting, BTW, that I tend to turn to B&W mostly when photographing people. I wonder whether that means anything. Timelessness, perhaps?</p>

<p>Finally, I think you misunderstand my intent. I'm not trying to justify my tastes. I suppose it's the sensory physiologist in me who is trying to UNDERSTAND them. B&W has a strange grip on me that is truly mystifying. I do both color and B&W photography, but it's the B&W work that's somehow special to me.</p>

<p>@Richard: I can't agree that humans are the only true nocturnal primates, but I can certainly attest that I have a fascination with the night. The night seems to transform the ordinary into something exciting and extraordinary. And certainly you're right that scotopic vision dominates that realm. Interesting.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm not saying that black and white and color don't have different qualities and characteristics that can be used by photographers, knowingly or not. I'm saying that in the hands of a good photographer, either can express what the photographer wants to. A photographer will often determine which is better for a particular shot based on his/her vision and other circumstances. And many will determine that one is better than the other for the majority of their work. That doesn't mean that one is inherently better than the other in any absolute sense.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Richard, as an alternative POV relating to our diurnal status, consider the following: The purpose of resting at night is many-fold, but part of it is simply to stay out of trouble. If we were to sleep during the day and wander around at night, our relatively insensitive eyes would leave us stumbling around, and we might easily be picked off by a leopard. Better to sleep at night and stay out of trouble. SO that is why we, as humans, are perhaps a bit hypervigilant at night. We have an innate sense that we are not in our native element. I wonder whether a B&W image invokes this sense of scotopic vision and thus makes us a bit hypervigilant, so to speak. Put another way, maybe color is too familiar and comfortable, and B&W knocks us off center enough to demand our full attention. Perhaps this last assertion could even stand on its own, even without the nocturnal context. Just thinking out loud, of course...</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Sarah, for me the subtleties of tonal graduation and texture are easier to appreciate in B&W. Depending upon complexity and intensity, color can often come forward in an image and occupy our brain's attention, making the tonal structure less apparent. The stronger the color, the more forward it becomes. A good B&W image-photo or wash drawing- seems more direct in it's connection to the subject and, often, the maker's intent. The structure of the design is clearer, for better or worse, without any color to mask or divert attention from an unbalanced composition. As one can control these variables and bring them to bear in, say a print, the image seems to sing a hushed song and leaves one gasping at the apparent mastery. <br>

I have no scientific data to support my opinion, it's just a feeling.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>That may be true Sarah,</p>

<p>But as good a prey animal as humans make, they are the only notable predator of any of the primates as well.</p>

<p>I believe that the hunter/gatherer lifestyle cycle existed, in our common human ancestors, long enough to alter our reproductive cycle. To mostly coincide with the hunting cycles of the full moon, at night which is the best time to hunt prey animals. Today it is so easy to hunt game by the full moon at night it is illegal to do so.</p>

<p>If this hypothesis is true, then affecting the innate appreciation of visual stimulation seems very plausible. Here is a simple inexpensive experiment to test the hypothesis. Take out all of the 3000K lightbulbs in your home(or just the living room and kitchen), and replace them with 5500K CFL bulbs, and see how long that lasts. There is relatively no cultural or societal influence to this experiment, but I am sure of the outcome of it.</p>

<p>ps, I obviously used the word diurnal incorrectly in my previous post.</p>

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Colour focuses ones attention to the surface ...

[richardsperry]

Fred,

 

I don't think that there is a valid argument to be made that one is superior to the other. One can both appreciate rich

saturated color prints and black and white prints equally. I do.

 

I still believe that if color photography were invented first, and black and white invented just a couple years ago, we

viewers would still go,,,"ooh that's cool, I like that". Or many of us would. Of course this is just belief, and I know no

way of testing this on human subjects today.

 

The closest we have is those who have been exposed to a lot less of it growing up than our generation. And I think it

partially accounts for the recent surge in black and white film(Lomo, Holga, hipster stuff) by young adults exposed only

to color media all their lives.

[chris_waller]

<p>Black and white is to colour as poetry is to prose. That latter might be a more literal description, but the former can reveal a more subtle and deeper truth. Take for example Dylan Thomas's "Do Not Go Gentle". We all know what he means when he writes,<br /> "Do not go gentle into that good night,<br /> Old age should burn and rave at close of day,<br /> Rage, rage against the dying of the light."</p>

<p>Though wise men at their end know dark is right,<br /> Because their words had forked no lightning, they<br /> Do not go gentle into that good night.</p>

<p>I recommend you read the rest for yourself, but to me this poem speaks very eloquently on the question of mortality. For me, black and white speaks to a deeper truth by removing distractions.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Black and white is to colour as poetry is to prose. That latter might be a more literal description, but the former can reveal a more subtle and deeper truth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>[begin sarcasm]I shall have to relay this to the entire history of painters, few of whom worked in black and white. I'm sure they'll be amused to learn that black and white printmakers and charcoal drawers were revealing more subtle and deeper truths than, say, Matisse, Monet, Cezanne, Renoir, and all those other poor purveyors of mere prose. Shall have to relay this one to Dickens and Nabokov as well.[end sarcasm]</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>I truly wish I had a few moments to write tonight. I'll be back tomorrow morning. Some of this discussion (particularly by Richard, Louis, and Chris) has sparked a few ideas I'd like to share. I'm thinking this may have something to do with how primates (particularly humans) actually use color vision and how they recognize objects. It's about what we process with different parts of our brains... I think. I think the analogy Chris made was the little mallet that tapped me on the head. ;-) I'll be back tomorrow. Thank you all... and please keep sharing your insights (and images, if you care to).</p>

<p>Peace,<br>

Sarah</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I just don't like B&W nearly as much as color. I don't know why. I've thought about it, but I've never come to any conclusion. I have Ansel Adams in B&W and I also have, "Ansel Adams in Color" (or similar title). I like the B&W, but I love the color. As to the argument that B&W is more "artistic", all I can say is that masters painted in color.</p>

<p>The closest I've come to an explanation is that we see in color so when color is missing we, or at least I, miss it. When I see a B&W photo, I always wonder how it would look in color. Art is personal. We all have our own tastes. I like the Impressionists. I don't like Dali. Maybe there's some deep psychological reason for why we like what we like, or maybe it's like Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm saying that in the hands of a good photographer, either can express what the photographer wants to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hard to find a truer statement in here.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Colour focuses ones attention to the surface ...</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>Only if one is predisposed to that. I'm not.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Black and white is to colour as poetry is to prose. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't find it that way at all. It's an absolute statement with nothing to back it up. It may feel that way to you. It's important to separate one's own feelings so that projection doesn't occur.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Art is personal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well that one is as true as Fred's, so I take back the singularity.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Black and white is to colour as poetry is to prose."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a useful analogy to some extent, as long as we're referring to equally good poetry and prose, and differentiating between types of poetry and prose. Michael Kenna's photography has often been described as visual haiku. Some visually complex b&w photography would be closer to epic poetry and some color closer to Robert B. Parker's terse, smartypants prose.</p>

<p>One could pass a pleasant evening among friends coming up with similar comparisons. My own would mostly be doggerel.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Fred,<br /> I cite, as evidence for the defence, the sumi-ye style of pen and ink paintings of Japan, and the classical style of Chinese landscape painting (example: <a href="http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog4/tungyuan.htm">http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog4/tungyuan.htm</a>) of which I am a great admirer. To me, these are some of the most sublime landscapes ever painted.<br>

Edit - a few seconds later. A friend has just pointed out that there is some green in the picture but being afflicted by Daltonism, I can't see it! But, many such paintings were made using just black ink. I have the advantage that I see them all as just black and white.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Good morning! :-)<br /> <br />Thanks for your perspective, Mark! Your input goes to show that B&W is not a universal preference. Whether it's even a common preference remains to be established. Probably anyone participating in this thread has already come here with a well defined preference.<br /> <br />So this whole color/B&W/poetry/prose suggestion got me to thinking about localization of function in the brain. I generally hate "left brain" vs. "right brain" arguments, because these concepts are so poorly understood by 99.9% of everyone using them. However, with that in mind, left brain language areas are ordinarily where the bulk of our vocabulary reside, where the bulk of our syntactic processing occurs, etc. However, the right hemisphere has language areas of its own that process the more emotive aspects of language. That's where you'll find processing critical to expression and compression of affect, rhythm, meter, etc. It's contribution from these areas that give rise to poetry and song. This doesn't relate to color vision, but it got me to thinking about different paths of information processing.<br>

<br /> This is what takes me back to the Jurassic era, when I was still in the academic sector. Back then, we were thinking of color vision as being handled by various accessory areas to the visual cortex. We were also thinking about color vision in primates having to do mostly with discrimination of tree anatomy and food items. I thought it would be interesting to see where our more recent understanding of visual cortical processing has taken us.<br>

<br /> Cutting to the chase, it seems that color processing runs right along with object/form processing in the visual cortex through to the inferotemporal cortex where complex object recognition (e.g. faces or bananas) seems to take place. Therefore it's quite possible that color could contribute extraneous information that might not be necessary or useful for recognition of certain objects, while the same color information might be useful or necessary for recognition of other objects. In the former case, this might result in "noise" -- an interference or distraction that diminishes pattern recognition. This is all wild speculation, mind you!<br>

<br /> So how do primates use color information? Our red (actually orange) and (lime) green pigments are broadly overlapping in their absorptance spectra, giving rise to very acute discrimination in the red/green end of the color spectrum. R and G cones are by far the most prevalent. The relatively sparse blue cones are used for less fine-tuned discrimination in the remainder of the spectrum.<br>

<br /> Why do we emphasize discrimination on the red end of the spectrum? Here comes the speculative part (speculations of others): Color vision is generally an adaptation for discrimination of foods. In the case of primates, we're talking mainly about fruit. It's important to any fructivorous animal to be able to discern fruit ripeness on the basis of color, and generally speaking, these fruit color differences are not all that great -- in terms of wavelength. Anyway, we humans are fruit ripeness discrimination experts, by virtue of our red/green color vision.<br>

<br /> We primates also have to discriminate between tree branches, because most of us are arboreal. It's important to discriminate between green leaves (not grabbable), green branches (not too good to grab, because they don't offer much support), brown branches (sturdy and woody), and faded brown branches (perhaps going rotten). It is equally important to contrast these all against sky (blue), but that's easy with only a few B cones thrown in here and there. This is all very important when jumping from branch to branch. You don't want to grab at the wrong thing and fall to the ground!<br>

<br /> But is color vision necessary or useful for more social things like facial recognition? I would suggest it is generally not. It might play some role in humans, for instance in discriminating between two people with red and brown hair, respectively. However, these differences are more human-specific, and they are not really all that important even in humans. Can we recognize Conan O'Brien without color? Absolutely! Easily! That's because we have an enormous neural machinery attuned to extraordinarily subtle differences in facial structure that allow us to recognize specific individuals. Hair color actually becomes a minor factor, as does eye color. (Oddly, while we may easily recognize a person, we might not know that person's eye color for memory.)<br>

<br /> Wrapping this all together just a bit, I would submit that color is important to us for recognition of foods and plants, but it is not important to us for recognition of people. In fact I would say that color to SOME people could be an extraneous and distracting factor for recognition of people.<br>

<br /> How does this relate to photography? Let's consider a few bits of subject matter:<br>

<br /> Flowers (plants -- fruiting ones, at that): We care about color. Therefore most flower pics (perhaps not mine) are in color.<br>

<br /> Fruits: usually photographed in color.<br>

<br /> Foods in general: photographed in color. A B&W pic of a sumptuous meal would not be sumptuous at all. Moreover, it would be difficult to discriminate the food items.<br>

<br /> People: This varies. I don't know whether there is a clear preference for B&W or color. However, I think it is clear that B&W yields a very usable and recognizeable image. Perhaps some people are not distracted by colors, but perhaps some are. Remember that this visual information streams through the same areas, all the way up to the inferotemporal cortex, where facial recognition seems to take place. Here's what I find interesting/significant, though: Almost all street photography (which is really about people) is in B&W. Why is that? I think it's because color is a distraction to many when visually processing images of people.<br>

<br /> Skies: Visually, we care about sky (hence our B cones). Therefore we like skies in color. Perhaps that underlies our obsession with sunsets, which are photographed almost exclusively in color (except for a few experimental shots of mine, I suppose).<br>

<br /> Again, this is all speculation. Still, it seems to converge on popular trends in photography that are probably popular (some nearing universality) for some reason.<br>

<br /> Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it! ;-P<br>

<br /> Peace,<br />Sarah</p>

<p>PS Mark, when you say you miss color, does that depend on the subject matter? For instance, would you like to see street photography and all portraiture in color? </p>