Color vs Black and White, the eternal debate

[nikos79]

"Do I like the image? If yes, I don't ask many questions."

Thank You MTG!

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

 

[koraks]

a good image should work both on bw and color.

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.

 

[gary mulder]

what I meant that a good image should work both on bw and color.

This expresses an opinion. Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion. Not a opinion sheared with a fast majority never the less. Most people prefer color images. The reason way the majority of the published images are color images.

 

[Don_ih]

a good image should work both on bw and color

An image is colour or is b&w. Taking a colour image and converting it to b&w is turning it into a different image. You perhaps mean composition. But even with that term, if the original composition relied on a certain placement of colours, draining that colour changes the composition (not all composition is about "geometry").

Take a quick example. On the left of my screen, I see (by @pentaxpete)



Are you going to say that would count as the same image if converted to b&w? To say it is but that it "works better" in colour is already discounting colour as a primary focus (and available content) for a photo and making it secondary to whatever idealized "image" you posit.

 

[koraks]

 

[djdister]

I prefer the color version, as I think the greens and yellow-greens add significantly to the overall impact.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've taken quite a number of color neg or chrome originals, which each made superb color prints, and converted them into b&w internegs which also turned out great as b&w prints. Of course, I'm very selective about which ones, and they're just a small percent of my overall color selection (mainly sheet film). Some are based on older chromes before I was even started shooting b&w film. They have their own look, with its own kind of contrast distribution. And there is likely to be some difference in cropping for the final print. It's a nice way to give old chromes a new life.

 

[Vaughn]

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.

 

[GregY]

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.

Yes, & not a really appealing photo in colour or bw.....

 

[nikos79]

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.

I am still asking myself about it that is why I am very curious about all your opinions.

But yes, so far I have come to the conclusion that saying a picture is good only in bw or only in color is like saying it is good only with a high contrast.

The choice of color vs bw cannot affect the essence of a photo

 

[koraks]

The choice of color vs bw cannot affect the essence of a photo

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.

 

[nikos79]

I see it as the same. Usually the color "steals" the show because it is more attractive for the eye.
But if you forget about this effect the two images speak the same to me.
In the first image is this huge bright painterly green that is no nice and beautiful that attracts the eye.
But if you do the mental effort to forget about it you then understand the essence of the photo is a rural portrait with t sense of stillness and an uncanonical horizon that is lost in the sky. Speaks the same in bw and color

 

[koraks]

if you do the mental effort to forget about it

Do you walk up to Bernini's 'Daphne and Apollo' to take a cellphone pic so you can then view the photo on a screen, because the 3-dimensionality of the actual sculpture distracts somehow? That would be really odd, wouldn't it? So if you look at a color photograph, why would you try to look past the color? The only explanation is that you dogmatically assume the color doesn't matter, or is even a distraction. Well, it isn't. The dogma is false.

the essence of the photo is a rural portrait with t sense of stillness and an uncanonical horizon that is lost in the sky.

No, that's not what it's about.

The illustration is so simple (or so I thought). You take a photograph that's about color. Remove the color and the photograph breaks down. Structure and composition remain, but if those are only supporting acts to the headliner, what remains is hollow.

 

[gary mulder]

Some people are not receptible for color. Take the test. Do you see the essential difference between these images ?

 

[nikos79]

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 or content or even form as had been said before.
I simply consider color as an editing choice similar to pumping up the contrast.
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.
Art photography imo is beyond element of color or black and white or editing preferences.
It is about the way a photo encapsulates time and space to create a transformation of the reality.
Very narrow definition I know, but this is the closest I have come so far to define the photography I am attracted to. I don't reject the other types of photography they just do not interest me. I respect a good technically perfect photograph like Ansel Adams for example or National Geographic work but it just doesn't interest me the way other photographs do.

Now, how you can achieve that "transformation of the reality" while using color is my main question and wonder and what puzzles me. Because I find it inherently more difficult with color than with black and white. Hence, my uttermost respect to good color photographers.

 

[gary mulder]

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.

 

[nikos79]

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?

 

[gary mulder]

Can you help me explaining it to me?

It’s better that you ask that question to someone you trust and can describe for you what the difference in composition he or she sees.

 

[koraks]

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?

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.

my uttermost respect to good color photographers.

Your words don't read very respectful to me:

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.

Misguided, confused, incoherent, inconsistent - but hella normative. An unfortunate amalgam.

 

[nikos79]

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. 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."

 

[koraks]

Well I am not being the only one "impaired" into seeing color like that.

I'm sure you're not. Note that Malraux died in 1976 and the quotes (for which you provided no source) likely come from his work from the late 1940s. Color photography at that point was virtually nonexistent in the realm of the arts. Up to 1980 or so, it had suffered from the likes of Malraux who had tried (initially quite successfully) to marginalize it on the basis of shaky, ridiculous arguments that ultimately boiled down to staunch conservatism and an inherent resistance to any kind of change. Despite solid efforts of visionaries like Yevonde, with her "riot of colors". She knew what's up - she was just 60 years too early.

Ask yourself this - did Malraux (or anyone, really) ever make a solid argument why painting in color was permissible in the fine arts, and the Serious Artist (TM) (R) (C) should not be limited to chalk and cave wall?

 

[koraks]

Btw, from a moderator's perspective, I have just reported this thread, in particular due to this phrase:

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.

The reason is that this seems to be in violation of the following rule of this forum:

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.

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.

 

[gary mulder]

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."

Edward Weston stated; Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic. But we all know that it should not be taken literal.

 

[Milpool]

Can you help me explaining it to me?

Why do you keep subjecting yourself to having so much crap thrown at you here?

 

[BrianShaw]

This expresses an opinion. Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion.

THIS ^^^^^^^