Personally, I believe a good photograph is mainly about the form and composition and will be good in both black and white and color.
Hello, perhaps this is a question that many of you had asked themselves or answered but I want to hear your opinion on it.
Personally, I believe a good photograph is mainly about the form and composition and will be good in both black and white and color.
However, I think that color is an extra element or problem to solve. For example black and white usually tends to "blend" and "fuse" things together under the umbrella of monochromatic tones. The color on the other hand might be too distracting or out of context. Also black and white "wants" and "screams" for editing in the darkroom/lightroom, color on the other hand resists exaggerated editing.
Then I noticed that many people shoot black and white because they think that their photos look more "artistic". I agree they tend to have an "artistic" look that takes benefit from the black and white properties and the historical legacy of the medium but in reality their photos could very well be weak.
In the end I have uttermost respect to people who try to do good photography nevertheless the medium (analog, digital, bw or color film). But perhaps I have some more secret admiration to the ones that do good color photography.
Not necessarily, but the risk is there. So moderator note: if this becomes a highly normative, "my photogwafy is the only twue photogwafy" kind of debate, we'll shut it down and/or remove posts. As long as the discussion steers clear of this, it's OK.I think the topic is like "digital vs. analog" in its effect on the discussion culture of a photo forum.
I photograph only in black and white. For a period of decades i shot only colour transparencies. It's been at least 20 years since i shot a roll of colour film.
As far as:
Then I noticed that many people shoot black and white because they think that their photos look more "artistic".
How did you notice what people think? I work in black and white because that's my chosen medium.... just like some people play acoustic instruments....& some electric.....or both.
If you admire colour photography....that's your choice. But you don't necessarily have to posit one against the other.
It is not the one vs the other. It is more a question of whether they are equivalent or if not whether they need a different approach.
That's not the question you asked....
& yes they require a different approach
Historically many photographers chose one or the other. Nat Geo photographers shot in colour...... photojournalists in BW
If color only mean is to impress or become more realistic i get it, but that is not what I asked for.
Btw i am struggling to think of many color photographers that would be in my top list (Allard, Ghirri, Harvey, Herzog, a few exceptions).
That is why I admire people who do color photography and really want to see more of it. I really think it is more difficult
An artificial debate. I do both. The question isn't, "Which is better, a guitar or a piano?", but how good is one at either.
+2, watercolor, oils, charcoal or pastels. Even AA did color and I like his color work.An artificial debate. I do both. The question isn't, "Which is better, a guitar or a piano?", but how good is one at either.
An artificial debate. I do both. The question isn't, "Which is better, a guitar or a piano?", but how good is one at either.
Agreed. It’s an entirely artificial debate. Neither is it “eternal” but it is certainly persistent, leading nowhere, offering nothing.
If the purpose of a good photograph is to transform reality as Winogrand said isn't it more difficult to do it with color when you are so much bound to reality?
Second, Winogrand might have meant that the simple fact that you are putting reality into a photograph is how photography transforms reality (a point also made by Edward Weston and Minor White). So color or not makes no difference.
Third, Winogrand made absolutely beautiful color photographs that are as Winograndy as his black and white photographs.
No he said that if he sees a photograph that looks exactly like the reality is useless to him. He had a very specfic criteria of transformation.
He did not hold his color photography of great value. He called his color camera his Schmulz toy camera. I also don't think of his color photographs as particularly good
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?