Color vs Black and White, the eternal debate

[nikos79]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

In either, B&W or color... "A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space" - Gary Winogrand 1974.

I guess I just don't think about it too much. I understand your position and don't disagree at all. Rather than using both B&W and color film at the same time I use one or the other, depending on which seems more likely to result in good images in the chosen subject environment, and then "think and see" in that medium. As to which is better, for me it comes down to individual images rather than generic "this vs that" generalization.

 

[Saganich]

I never saw it as a one vs another because i see color as the form part of the 'form and composition.' Without those two elements in the equation nothing is to be done after.

 

[loccdor]

Personally, I believe a good photograph is mainly about the form and composition and will be good in both black and white and color.

I disagree with this. I have seen many pictures that are only appealing in one or the other but not both.

One example was a scene of a street with buildings and parked vehicles. The pictured worked so well because the photographer was able to find different instances of red, blue, and yellow in different objects in the picture and tie them together harmoniously. Aside from these 3 primary colors, the rest of the image was a muted tan. That picture would be pretty unremarkable in B&W, but when I saw it in color it became an instant favorite.

A reverse example is an image that needs strong cloud definition to succeed. You wouldn't get that if you kept it in color, but if you converted it to B&W with a simulated red filter, or shot it that way originally, the image would have a dramatic sky.

One is not better than the other generally - but one is usually better when the subject is taken into account. That's why I like to use both.

 

[Milpool]

Usually I can decide pretty easily before making the picture during my scouting/planning phase if it’s B&W or colour but occasionally I do both and try to decide later. I might have a few examples in the gallery here but I can’t remember for sure.

Most of my stuff is B&W but it’s less about arty pros/cons and more about the fact I’ve always been a darkroom worker and I really do not enjoy colour darkroom processes. If I ever have the wherewithal and time I’d love to get into inkjet and make more colour pictures (and hybrid process B&W too) but for now when it comes to colour I’m still basically stuck shooting reversal film and snapping a photo of the positive on a light box with my phone. What sucks is how expensive Kodak colour film is.

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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I use both and I think the topic is like "digital vs. analog" in its effect on the discussion culture of a photo forum. Nobody will change their mind because of such a debate. People are going to defend their preferences and there is little value in having such a discussion,

 

[koraks]

I think the topic is like "digital vs. analog" in its effect on the discussion culture of a photo forum.

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.

 

[Milpool]

FFS.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Like many things, we are talking choices here, so by default something highly personal and subjective.

I am fighting the analog vs. digital, b/w vs. colour battle, everyday - with myself. It often ends up in a draw.

To the OP: I think I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree. Removing one dimension (here: colour) seems(!) to simplify and focus things...but does it? Or does it shift the "problem" (here: from colour to greyscales, tonality, shadows, whatever).

I somehow believe that the "B/w makes things more essential" train of thougth might be too simple. I guess there is more complexity to it.

 

[GregY]

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.

 

[nikos79]

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.

 

[GregY]

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

 

[nikos79]

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

 

[GregY]

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

You didn't really "ask" anything. Rather you made a few statements reflecting your personal point of view...
I don't think it's more difficult...just different.
Elliott Porter. Steve McCurry.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[GregY]

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 Drew. Absolutely an artificial debate....not really eternal....

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[djdister]

I've seen good color photographs and bad color photographs. I've also seen good B&W photographs and bad B&W photographs. It's not one or the other...

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

 

[GregY]

Agreed. It’s an entirely artificial debate. Neither is it “eternal” but it is certainly persistent, leading nowhere, offering nothing.

& how about that Richard Avedon...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Who ???? Was that one of John Wayne's fill-in sidekicks before color movies?

 

[nikos79]

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?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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?

First of all, that's a huge "if".

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.

 

[nikos79]

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

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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

Still a huge "if".

Be careful not always taking photographers' statements at face value. Especially Winogrand's. He was an expert at irony and self-depreciation, not to forget that some of his statements — "There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described" — have that typical Yogi-Berra-ish ring that he obviously enjoyed using, half seriously, half to confound people. He seemed to have had quite a mischievous sense of humour.

There is in fact much evidence that he liked working with colour — he certainly liked it enough to leave quite a lot of negatives —, but that he didn't pursue it mostly for reasons of costs, as transparencies were more expensive than black and white negatives, and Winogrand was far from rich.

What's interesting with Winogrand's colour experiments is, as the editors of the recent book Winogrand: Color point out, that it forced him to work differently, that is, much slower due to the lower ISO that he got from black and white film. The results still bear Winogrand's curiosity about American people and American culture, but with something a bit more deliberate in them.

I like his colour photographs. They show possibilities, what could have been. And they are much better than a lot of his later, California photographs. He obviously had a sense of the role of colour in the American psyche, but expressed in a very different way than a William Eggleston or a Saul Leiter, to name two other great colour photographers.