This is my approach too and what I meant that a good image should work both on bw and color.
Nevertheless, therew is the choice still. I usually change between these two and rhe same image can change it to bw or color through time
"Do I like the image? If yes, I don't ask many questions."
Thank You MTG!
Did you mean to say "that both color and B&W images can be good"? If you meant literally what you said here, i.e. that a single, good image should look good in either color or B&W, then I don't agree. Some images work very well in color and indeed depend on it, and collapse if you take out the color. Vice versa, too: some B&W images don't work if you do a color version. There is of course a collection of images that works well in either color or B&W, but either version will likely evoke a different emotional response in most viewers. Even so, I wouldn't take the position, nor consider it viable to defend, that an image can only be considered 'good' if it falls into this category. Taking your words above literally, it seemed to be what you were saying. I hope/assume it was just an unfortunate formulation.a good image should work both on bw and color.
what I meant that a good image should work both on bw and color.
a good image should work both on bw and color
I prefer the color version, as I think the greens and yellow-greens add significantly to the overall impact.
If one has a whole lot of nothing, the color definitely pops out. Drop (crop) the bottom half of each version and the color becomes less significant when one's eyes has somewhere to travel.
Did you mean to say "that both color and B&W images can be good"? If you meant literally what you said here, i.e. that a single, good image should look good in either color or B&W, then I don't agree. Some images work very well in color and indeed depend on it, and collapse if you take out the color. Vice versa, too: some B&W images don't work if you do a color version. There is of course a collection of images that works well in either color or B&W, but either version will likely evoke a different emotional response in most viewers. Even so, I wouldn't take the position, nor consider it viable to defend, that an image can only be considered 'good' if it falls into this category. Taking your words above literally, it seemed to be what you were saying. I hope/assume it was just an unfortunate formulation.
Color affects people in different ways. To an extent this can change/develop over time, assuming someone has the ability to perceive color to begin with. Even so, there will always remain differences in how we perceive color. Still, people can 'wake up' to something even if they're not presently appreciating it. One of the comments above I think is a good illustration. One person may see 'a whole lot of nothing' and thereby overlook the subject of the photo, focusing on auxiliary image elements and mistaking their structure for the subject.The choice of color vs bw cannot affect the essence of a photo
if you do the mental effort to forget about it
No, that's not what it's about.the essence of the photo is a rural portrait with t sense of stillness and an uncanonical horizon that is lost in the sky.
Some people are not receptible for color. Take the test. Do you see the essential difference between these images ?
Of course I see the differences.
But I I don't believe that color is an element of composition
Evidently you don’t see the difference in correlation with the composition. For you it simply is’n there.
Can you help me explaining it to me?
How would you explain the emotional response to Bach's second violin partita to someone who was born deaf?Can you help me explaining it to me?
Your words don't read very respectful to me:my uttermost respect to good color photographers.
if a photograph relies only on color to stand as a good one it might be good for fashion, advertisement, gallery art, sports photography, national geographic, life magazine, etc. but not for art photography.
How would you explain the emotional response to Bach's second violin partita to someone who was born deaf?
Your case is probably more optimistic in the sense that the physical capability is probably there to an extent, but you'll have to start with allowing your brain to connect to your eyes. So far, you're resisting while kicking and screaming along the way. Don't expect others to overcome your own unwillingness.
So far in this thread you've spent about 7x more words on formulating an increasingly dogmatic (and ridiculous) position on why you believe color in photography is a marginal subject. Yet, you keep asking people to explain it to you. It's evident that you've dug into your position - why would anyone feel compelled to change your views? Apparently you've not woken up to color. That's your loss (and boy, is it a big one for a photographer!) Maybe you never will, the likelihood of which is increased by your stubborn resistance to change your rudimentary views on the matter.
Let me put it this way - if one day you find yourself standing in front of, I don't know, one of Yves Klein's blues, one of Rothko's gradients or something else that's really about color and not much else, and you realize yourself thinking/feeling "Jesus God, holy fu..." - at that point, we can start to talk. Mind you - it doesn't have to be any of these particular names. I really don't care. As far as I'm concerned it's the oppressive pink or blue of one of Koons' ridiculous dogs (or the more muted pink in his doggy-style pics for that matter) that wakes you up. But there's no explaining anything until you find that spot somewhere in the area of your midriff that responds to hue. Words can only serve as communication between two minds who share that sensation - they're not a substitute.
Your words don't read very respectful to me:
Misguided, confused, incoherent, inconsistent - but hella normative. An unfortunate amalgam.
Well I am not being the only one "impaired" into seeing color like that.
The reason is that this seems to be in violation of the following rule of this forum:And if a photograph relies only on color to stand as a good one it might be good for fashion, advertisement, gallery art, sports photography, national geographic, life magazine, etc. but not for art photography.
An honest exchange of views on the merits of certain technical choices is of course fine, and this thread has had the benefit of the doubt up to this point to continue as such. But the quoted phrase above suggests that the central position underlying the thread is of an exclusive nature, and we may not allow that. I've asked the other moderators to have a look at this.4. All photography is valid. There is no need to argue that one particular breed of photography, approach, technique, etc. is better than something else (e.g. analog/digital discussions). Discussions along these lines tend to follow the pattern of religious and political debates and generally don't end well. We, therefore, don't encourage them and will generally put a stop to them.
Well I am not being the only one "impaired" into seeing color like that. And if I am poor and of limited mental capabilities I am sure you cannot say thay about the brilliant mind of Andre Malraux:
"Malraux saw color as central to the emotional and symbolic power of painting, but he also considered it more ephemeral and culturally variable than form or composition."
"For Malraux, black-and-white photography could transcend the literal and enter the realm of art, while color tended to anchor the image in reality — making it more illustrative than imaginative."
Can you help me explaining it to me?
This expresses an opinion. Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion.
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?