Why B&W Forum is 4x More Active than the Color Forum?

[Bob-D659]

I asked for you, (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[cliveh]

I have enough trouble trying to get a black & white image correct and have a problem with coloured images. A black & white image can often convey a greater strength and meaning, as it draws more attention to tonal emphasis, contrast and composition. However, you have to have that black & white mind set to such an extent that even when I use colour I don’t bother to try and adjust to this medium, as I find this too difficult. Colour is just too complicated.

 

[37th Exposure]

Color is now nearly 100% digital. Try DPUG.

 

[Bob-D659]

Color is now nearly 100% digital. Try DPUG.

Not here (my darkroom and apug) it isn't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a darkroom for both black & white and color processing and printing in Los Angeles, but because I work on the East Coast I do not have enough time to use it now. So I have to send my color work out. I have a place in Los Angeles that does only optical printing. They do my custom work.

 

[Chuck_P]

AA said once that with color, he can only control it just so far, then it becomes obviously "unreal"----I hope I got the paraphrase correct.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a darkroom for both black & white and color processing and printing in Los Angeles, but because I work on the East Coast I do not have enough time to use it now. So I have to send my color work out. I have a place in Los Angeles that does only optical printing. They do my custom work.

I develop black & white and color on the East Coast. I have a black & white darkroom available to me on the East Coast too.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

troll, troll, troll....

 

[RedSun]

Everybody is trolling??? What is troll? Funny.

 

[RPC]

I think even if there wasn't digital, there would still be a lot more discussion on the B&W forum compared to the color. As has been said, color processing is standardized, whereas B&W has many more processing variables: more developers, fixers, toners, papers, times, temperatures, contrast control, zone system, etc. The basics aren't too difficult for either, but if you really want to master it, B&W is much more involved and therefore triggers more discussion, but I don't think B&W photography is more popular than color per se.
It is true too, that many think color is much harder, so shy away from it and stick with B&W.

 

[Sirius Glass]

He must be looking in the mirror.

 

[RedSun]

In common sens, color is harder than B&W.
1. The process has to done in total darkness. This takes lot of fun away from home darkroom. With BW, you can see the image emerging. No such excitement with BW.
2. Color requires somewhat more investment than that of BW. The chemical processes are longer and more complex than the BW processes.
3. The BW technology is clearly simpler than that of color.
4. The APUG population is for the die-hard film photographers. You have pros, art students, and a lot of other photography-savvy "photographers". The regular general population is not attracted to the APUG.

The skewness of the APUG population explains majority of the observation.

 

[pentaxuser]

In common sens, color is harder than B&W.
1. The process has to done in total darkness.

You make some fair points but point 1above keeps coming up here on APUG and it's just plain wrong. There are safelights available and the DUKA sodium light in fact gives quite a bright but safe luminosity.

pentaxuser

 

[Roger Cole]

In common sens, color is harder than B&W.
1. The process has to done in total darkness.

You make some fair points but point 1above keeps coming up here on APUG and it's just plain wrong. There are safelights available and the DUKA sodium light in fact gives quite a bright but safe luminosity.

pentaxuser

+1. In fact I think the first three are incorrect and the last one irrelevant:

In common sens, color is harder than B&W.
1. The process has to done in total darkness. This takes lot of fun away from home darkroom. With BW, you can see the image emerging. No such excitement with BW.
2. Color requires somewhat more investment than that of BW. The chemical processes are longer and more complex than the BW processes.
3. The BW technology is clearly simpler than that of color.
4. The APUG population is for the die-hard film photographers. You have pros, art students, and a lot of other photography-savvy "photographers". The regular general population is not attracted to the APUG.

The skewness of the APUG population explains majority of the observation.

1. As above, simply not true. Suitable sodium safelights such as I lucked into years ago tend to be rare and expensive but a conventional safelight can be used with the proper filter. It's very dark and doesn't show much more than outlines, and I'm not disputing it isn't quite as easy or pleasant as working under a B&W safelight, but even seeing outlines is very helpful.

2. Not true in terms of equipment or paper. I've not seen a black and white enlarger, except some very very old ones, without a filter drawer. A set of color printing filters currently costs $18 for 3x3 filters or $40 for 6x6 filters, less than I paid for my fresh set of Ilford MG filters when I discovered my old ones were faded:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/31633-Arista-Color-Filters-3x3-in.-22

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/31636-Arista-Color-Filters-6x6-in.-22

Again, I have made MANY color prints with such filters. It works fine. It's not quite as quick and convenient as a color head but it is far, far from a PITA. The only reason I'd even want a color head is for the diffusion light source. The extra convenience of dial in filtration is a very minor point. Really.

The chemicals do cost more in initial investment if bought in other than the smallest kits, and the smallest kits are quite expensive per print compared to the larger ones. So there is some investment there, but you could easily spend as much or more on a box of 16x20 black and white paper.

3. The technology may be simpler than black and white but the process is NOT. Black and white has far more latitude, so in that sense it is easier but it is not simpler. Black and white has two main steps (develop and fix) plus an optional stop bath or water rinse plus a wash. RA4 has develop and bleach-fix plus, well, an optional but highly recommended stop bath and wash. Wash aids are used with B&W fiber paper, not with RA4. Many of us routinely tone our black and white prints, not color. There's a good case to be made for RA4 being the simpler (but not easier) process. Of course learning to judge color and adjust filtration can be frustrating at first, but it isn't complex, nor really difficult, just takes some time to develop like most skills.

4. This is true, but I've no idea what it has to do with the balance of black and white versus color.

I think the fact that black and white has such tremendous range of ways you can vary and control the process is a very big part of the reason. The fact that a black and white image is more of an abstraction than is a realistic looking color image is part of the appeal as well.

 

[kuparikettu]

The answer is simple. Color is so simple that it needs not be discussed. 'nuff said.

Really, I don't shoot bw because it's too complicated and the colors aren't vivid enough for me. But the color process (RA-4 especially) is so simple that even someone doing it for the second time can handle it without any help. When doing RA-4 color prints I never worry about the temperature of the chemicals (Kodak chemicals work in room temperature), I process in trays and I have never done it in complete darkness -- dim yellow LEDs light the darkroom I use.

Now then, there could be more discussions about more advanced color techniques (such as masking) but I guess people are either too pro to need to discuss them or too beginner to even know about them... which seems, to be honest, to be true about many things concerning darkroom color work, if judged by the amount of myths surrounding it being repeated even in this thread.

 

[Roger Cole]

 

[Bill Burk]

I always appreciated that I could buy black and white paper chemicals and film in one millennium... and use them in the next... while maintaining the syntax of two millenniums ago...

 

[Peltigera]

"while maintaining the syntax of two millenniums ago..." Err, that would be the syntax of 0012, then - classical Latin?

 

[RedSun]

The answer is simple. Color is so simple that it needs not be discussed. 'nuff said.

Really, I don't shoot bw because it's too complicated and the colors aren't vivid enough for me. But the color process (RA-4 especially) is so simple that even someone doing it for the second time can handle it without any help. When doing RA-4 color prints I never worry about the temperature of the chemicals (Kodak chemicals work in room temperature), I process in trays and I have never done it in complete darkness -- dim yellow LEDs light the darkroom I use.

Now then, there could be more discussions about more advanced color techniques (such as masking) but I guess people are either too pro to need to discuss them or too beginner to even know about them... which seems, to be honest, to be true about many things concerning darkroom color work, if judged by the amount of myths surrounding it being repeated even in this thread.

Is this a joke?

For color, in addition to density and contrast, you'll have to consider color balance. The darkroom practices are also harder: safelight is not safe with color, more stringent requirements on chemical temperature and the faster aging of color paper.

For BW, everything is simpler and easier: safeligh; low requirements on temperature; tray processing and you can see the images; simpler processing (no bleach). You have complete control on the entire BW process.

I think I somehow started the discussion in the wrong forum. Some of the folks here so biased toward the only thing they do...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Colour photography is a technical discipline. It requires the ability to see with the camera (not through it!), and the scene balanced visually and aesthetically to appeal, then enunciate it from the lens and the film's point of view (especially challenging with high contrast, vivid palette film like the Velvias). B&W is one-dimensional and interpreted by tone with many, many variations in darkroom-based practice. Many people will master and stick with B&W, others will master colour only (such as myself) and rarely dabble in another type of film. I once used only B&W but got bored, even with darkroom production, and needed the challenge of colour, without which I felt very unfulfilled.

On the other hand, you can get an idea of the stuff the colour forum folk are rabbiting on about by paying a visit to the various undead Kodachrome threads. Seems nobody is going to allow it to rest in peace.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Is this a joke?

For color, in addition to density and contrast, you'll have to consider color balance. The darkroom practices are also harder: safelight is not safe with color, more stringent requirements on chemical temperature and the faster aging of color paper.

For BW, everything is simpler and easier: safeligh; low requirements on temperature; tray processing and you can see the images; simpler processing (no bleach). You have complete control on the entire BW process.

I think I somehow started the discussion in the wrong forum. Some of the folks here so biased toward the only thing they do...

One is not simpler than the other. Both have their challenges. Both are relatively simple to learn, but both require more time and knowledge to master. But they're also two very different processes. It's not really fair to compare one to the other.

 

[RPC]

Is this a joke?

For color, in addition to density and contrast, you'll have to consider color balance. The darkroom practices are also harder: safelight is not safe with color, more stringent requirements on chemical temperature and the faster aging of color paper.

For BW, everything is simpler and easier: safeligh; low requirements on temperature; tray processing and you can see the images; simpler processing (no bleach). You have complete control on the entire BW process.

I think I somehow started the discussion in the wrong forum. Some of the folks here so biased toward the only thing they do...

I see by your posts in other threads that you are new to color processing, so how can you judge it as truly harder? Many things seem hard when you first do them, but with experience they get easier as you work out the problems. I do both color and B&W and but I have done a lot more color and it seems easy now but with B&W I am still working out problems I have with it, but as time is going by I am solving the problems. Perhaps it is true that one is not simpler than the other but I think B&W with its larger number of variables is potentially more involving.

 

[Roger Cole]

I give up. He keeps repeating nonsense and is apparently immune to learning any different.

 

[RedSun]

I give up. He keeps repeating nonsense and is apparently immune to learning any different.

What you said is completely nonsense. You just like to argue, the same old.....

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I give up. He keeps repeating nonsense and is apparently immune to learning any different.

troll, troll, troll.....


I said it earlier.