Why Black and White?

[mfratt]

I'm not looking to start a B&W versus Color debate, nor to suggest that one is better than the other, but I'm interested in the philosophy/reasoning behind black and white photography.

Personally, I do enjoy the aesthetic of black and white for many applications, but I'm curious if anyone has further elaboration or thought behind this aesthetic and why it is so popular and pleasing, especially from those of you who work almost exclusively in black and white.

 

[2F/2F]

I like it for many reasons – some aesthetic/artistic/conceptual, and some technical/practical/economical. I also like color, but almost never for technical/practical/economical reasons. I used to shoot far more color than b/w, but now I do the opposite. The huge cuts in color films, papers, and chemicals really cut into the amount of color I shot.

 

[hugopoon]

Aesthetics and archivability. Also flexibility.

 

[coigach]

It's the way I 'see' landscapes...

 

[sandholm]

Its the way I want to see and feel the world

(I also do color but that is more from a documentary/"photo journalistic" view)

 

[Willie Jan]

In my case black and white is the only way where the whole process can be controlled by the artist. For color (if you do not print yourself) it's often just not what you want if you get it back.

Second B/W must be an interesting picture, with color blue sky and yellow corn for example is already great looking, even when the composition is not good.
So you look harder and learn more.

 

[thegman]

For me, I just think some things look better in B&W. In a very cynical way, it's almost a "cheat" to add mood and grittiness. I very much like colour too though, if I were to go back somewhere like Hawaii, then I'd shoot exclusively Velvia I think.

 

[perkeleellinen]

When I started printing it was obvious that it should be B&W because everybody told me colour was too hard, that was the domain of particularly sadistic home printers. Accepting that as received wisdom I never thought about colour again and if somebody had asked 'why black and white?' my answer would have been what else is there? Now that I know that colour is more or less just as simple as B&W, my decision to use black and white is dictated more by vision and perhaps it's telling that I've only shot about 10 rolls of B&W this year and around 50 rolls of colour.

 

[Steve Smith]

It's a historical thing really. Black and white is a simpler process than colour and was invented first. If it was colour from the start I don't think anyone would have tried to make a monochrome version. As it does exist, lots of people like it and use it.

It's a similar story with the design of amplifiers for electric guitars. A lot of compromises were made and the amplifiers were (and still are) far from perfect. If the the early designs were theoretically perfect and more hi-fi, what we think of today as the standard electric guitar sound would not exist. We would have a clinical perfect sound which we can achieve now but do not want.


Steve.

 

[bblhed]

Black and white Negative, and Color reversal (slides) here because I can process and view them at home. I do shoot C-41 color, but I send that out because I just don't want the hassle of bringing yet another process into my home.

 

[markbarendt]

B&W is many times described as timeless, don't know where the saying came from but here goes. (Paraphrased)

"When you shoot a B&W portrait you take picture of the person, when you shoot one in color you take a picture of their clothes."

 

[Ian Grant]

Colour was very finicky and complex when I started, also rather expensive. I cut my teethe with the Pavelle process, which by then was marketed by Paterson, also doing Ferrania reversal processing.

Black & White was cheap, ex Government/Military surplus materials where readily available and inexpensive so I used films like FP3 and a little HP3 bought in bulk and some early PE (not RC) paper obviously made for fast printing pf aerial work. Many in the UK will remember the suppliers AW Young, Marston & Heard, Harringay Photographic Supplies etc, and 2 modern suppliers have a link back to those days, Martin Reed (Silverprint) used to work for Harringay PS, and Roy of RK Photographics is the son of the owner.

I shot a lot of colour personal work in the 70's and 80's mainly Fuji E6, I'd been processing E4 until the release of E6 and continued to do so until the late 1980's, at that point I decided to concentrate solely on B&W for my personal work.

Black and white simplifies, it takes away the mundane colours, aesthetically it's more pleasing as an art medium.

Ian

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I agree with the above. After shooting black and white for a few years now (due mostly to finances) I find that those images are compositionally superior to my earlier color images. Yes, due to experience, no doubt. But that expereince was in learn to see and shape a photograph, not just to record pretty colors.

 

[MaximusM3]

For me it is very simple...for the most part, I find color to be distracting. It can surely be pleasing in many situations but, overall, and unless it is a very simple, minimalist composition, I almost always feel that it detracts from an image.

 

[Bruce Watson]

For me it is very simple...for the most part, I find color to be distracting.

+1. Color, for many of my photographs, is distracting.

In particular, color can be camouflage that inhibits the viewers' ability to see the underlying patterns, textures, and visual rhythms. When you remove color, it's easier to see.

That said, color has its place. In particular, when the character of a scene is about color itself, B&W won't work well.

 

[jacarape]

I think the reason may be rooted in the simple concept of biology. We have a vision that does not include color, and that leads us to explore that vision. If we had UV vision, or X-Ray vision we would also image in these realms. Though I have to admit, I did buy a pair of X-Ray glasses out the back of a magazine as a kid, but propriety prevents my from posting those photos.

 

[ehf]

I've noticed that people sometimes ooh and aah over the color of a photo rather than the subject of it, excepting when the color is the subject, of course. When you take away the color, your subject is, in a manner of speaking, seen in another light.

 

[ic-racer]

Its a good artist medium because it is based on simple concepts (like projection of shadows), it is easy and inexpensive and it offers massive control over the representation of the values that were in the scene.

Color is based on a much more complicated emulsion, is more expensive (especially for large prints) and not as easy to process and the control over values with contrast masking is far from straight forward or easy.

 

[Jim Jones]

It is impossible for one person to convey to another in words or images exactly what he sees, thinks, and feels. Something is always lost in the effort. This loss can be destructive, or it can be constructive by eliminating nonessential information. Color can be nonessential in expressing what one person thinks and feels about the subject. So are too many words. Consider the Japanese haiku: 17 syllables to convey the soul of feeling. Consider some Picasso and Modigliani drawings: a few lines to suggest the entirety the subject. And so it is with monochrome photography.

 

[jeffreyg]

We see in color so printing in B&W or perhaps a better term would be Monochrome Shades imparts something of an obligation for the viewer to look deeper into the image to grasp the photographer's message.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I just like B&W, nothing more nothing less!

Jeff

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

1) I live in Cleveland. It's a black & white town. Not much color most of the year, so may as well shoot B&W. And it saves money - Cleveland doesn't have much money.

2) B&W is meat. Color is spice.

3) We see form in black and white. Color informs us of the quality of the form.

4) Black and white removes the distraction of color.

5) Black and white captures the soul of a person. Color captures the pancake & lipstick.

OTOH - sometimes I look at B&W and see death. Form without quality.

 

[ntenny]

Second B/W must be an interesting picture, with color blue sky and yellow corn for example is already great looking, even when the composition is not good.
So you look harder and learn more.

Very well said. This is one of my strongest reasons too---b&w really encourages attention to things like composition and light, rather than "look, a pretty subject!", which is all too easy to do with colour.

Also, b&w processing is a nice combination of simplicity and flexibility; easy to do in the home darkroom, suitable for tweaking in all sorts of interesting ways.

-NT

 

[ntenny]

Don't forget that b&w isn't *entirely* an artificial view---we do have a monochrome component to our vision (the "rods" in the retina, vs. the "cones" which see colour; the rods are more sensitive to low light, which is why you can't see colour well at night), and apparently some people actually dream in black and white, so there is *some* organic precedent.

-NT

 

[Vaughn]

I've noticed that people sometimes ooh and aah over the color of a photo rather than the subject of it, excepting when the color is the subject, of course. When you take away the color, your subject is, in a manner of speaking, seen in another light.

With my B&W prints, I hope people ooh and aah over the light of my photos rather than the objects photographed. But as you mentioned, light is usually my subject.

IMO, many images (B&W or color) fail when the quality of light (rendered in B&W or color) is more or less ignored for the sake of the subject.

And IMO, good color is as difficult, if not more so, than B&W. One must come to grips with the emotional power of color as well.

Vaughn