Why Black & White

[Sirius Glass]

As the mother of a 15-, 14-, and 10-year-old, I'd like to point out that they hear much worse language at school, in movies, on TV, and in general daily life. I don't think the occasional mild expletive is out of line on a site full of thousands of adults, particularly since it's an international one with a wide variety of standards regarding what is and isn't appropriate language.

- CJ

What she said.

I heard worse at school when I was in third grade.

Steve

 

[jovo]

all.

I think that we must realize that in a forum such as this, all levels of knowledge and a vast array of social behaviors find their way into print, simply because there are minimal consequences for lack of clear thinking, lack of knowledge, or lack of grace. My hope is that we can be tolerant and that we take some care in keeping our criticism constructive and congenial, but NEVER to be satisfied with ourselves failing to say what we feel needs saying.

Some of us are smart, some gifted, some imaginative, some rather dull, some boorish, some may well even be stupid...but then there are a few who are wise! Good on ya, Bowzart.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Some of us are smart, some gifted, some imaginative, some rather dull, some boorish, some may well even be stupid...but then there are a few who are wise! Good on ya, Bowzart.

I may included in most of the categories you mention. I hope someday to attain the last you mention.

Thanks, John,

Larry

p.s. Everything is not black and white. There are grays.

 

[Worker 11811]

There has been research which shows that people who know how to swear judiciously progress farther in business than those who do not swear or who swear too much.

An executive who never swears, even when provoked can be seen as ineffectual and weak. An executive who swears too much can be seen as boorish and overbearing. However, an executive who knows how to use a well-placed "damn" or "hell" can progress farther in business than those in the other two groups.

If, when confronted with misleading information, he says something like, "That's bulls***!" he is forceful and doesn't take any garbage from other people. But, unless he knows the limits of the company he is in, one wrong word and he can put himself behind his other colleagues who do not swear.

So the theory that one should never swear doesn't always hold water. On the other hand, the person who swears had better know his company and had better know their limits or else he will be damning himself.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

"Carlin Words"? I can probably guess most of them but, just to let non-UK residents know, there are no such "rules" on UK TV. After the 9pm watershed (how quaint to believe that all the children are tucked up in bed by 9pm) it's pretty-well anything goes on British telly. It usually needs to be contextual - i.e. they tend to refrain from using "Carlin Words" as part of a commentary on an evening football (soccer) game - although I wish they would use some occasionally just to spice things up a bit.

Ultimately (and I suppose this is the subject for another thread) these are just words. Personally, I don't use them excessively or even regularly but using them isn't violent or even harmful. Infact, many of these words have Anglo-Saxon origins and were in regular usage until the Victorian prudes took a hissy fit and all-but banned them from polite society. Indeed, there were some very interesting street names which included certain "Carlin Words" in London until the 19th century.

Why Black and White?

Because I tend to prefer the look of what I take in black and white to most of what I take in colour. Probably because it allows me to concentrate on shape, light and texture without the distraction of colour.

 

[Worker 11811]

It was George Carlin's comedy act "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" which started the whole mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

This is a transcript of the monologue which was broadcast on the radio:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/filthywords.html

(Caution: Profanity)

 

[smieglitz]

B&W seems more real to me. I don't think color films reproduce a natural look to anything. At least black and white can have the luminance close.

I think the standard senior portraits in color against a blue background are just hideous.

It's strange to me that I feel this way because I'm probably a better color photographer than I am b&W. But then, I'm not going for "real life" or natural when I shoot color.

B&W also affords more control and options in the final printing.

 

[keithwms]

B&W seems more real to me. I don't think color films reproduce a natural look to anything.

Please expand on this. Real in what sense... real in a representative way? Real in terms of emotional impact? ....?

As I wrote some time ago in my blog comment on this topic, the 'unreality' of b&w photography may be the reason so many see it as intrinsically more artistic. Yet when we look at photography's nearest cousin in the visual arts -painting- there are very few examples of b&w, so few that most of us can only name one. So many painters thought it perfectly normal to sketch in b&w but complete their work in vibrant colour! This despite the fact that the b&w pigments are easier to obtain and less technically problematic... and have been throughout history. (All you need is ash, whereas the full set of colour pigments used by most painters were very hard to locate and they were quite precious)

The only argument I was able to construct for why b&w appears real / natural is that in low light, when our eyes transition to scotopic vision, the colours are dehued. Then and only then do we actually see in b&w. (of course, it has been argued that we dream in b&w, but I'm not sure that I buy that) But apart from that, it's really not clear why b&w works so well for so many of us.

That aside, I don't think we can set aside the simple fact that b&w's proponents typically "own" every step of the b&w workflow, from start to finish. Even with a very modest darkroom and quite limited technical training. This is (unfortunately) not true for most of us who do c41 or e6. Ownership of the whole workflow implies complete ownership of the creative process too... an essential part of refining the art, I think.

Your comment about luminance is interesting, perhaps you could expand on that. Do you perhaps mean continuity of the tones across the tone scale... or something else?

On the topic of colour: the literalism of it is what I think makes it so difficult to elevate into the realm of art, as opposed to 'capture.'

 

[Larry Bullis]

...Yet when we look at photography's nearest cousin in the visual arts -painting- ...

This statement surprises me. Mezzotint and charcoal are the only other media that really come close to photography's continuous tone scale, while painting goes all over the place. How does Jackson Pollack relate to photography?

Not that it's all that important; just surprising.

 

[anon12345]

. . . But apart from that, it's really not clear why b&w works so well for so many of us.'

Here's a thought on why monochromatic is interesting when first viewed. Most of us see in color all day long. An image in a single color or hue could be considered as abstract, unnatural, or unfamiliar. This initial moment of contact with abstractness creates new connections in our brains which is stimulating. Once the connections are fixed, the abstractness and the stimulation subsides.

Case in point: For years I imagined how stimulating it would be to see a group of prints by a certain photographer. I had seen images of many prints hundreds of times in books and posters, but very few originals in person. I finally got the opportunity. By the time I had viewed the third print out of over 130 on display I was so let down I was ready to leave. My opinion is that the images of these prints were already "fixed", leaving no opportunity to new brainiac connections to be made. They were not new to me, but very familiar.

I would apply this theory to color images also, where the color is unnatural with abstractness. Color images that look natural rarely stimulate me. This may be because I have seen similar images elsewhere at a previous time. Anyways, that's my thought on that one.

 

[keithwms]

This statement surprises me. Mezzotint and charcoal are the only other media that really come close to photography's continuous tone scale, while painting goes all over the place. How does Jackson Pollack relate to photography?

Not that it's all that important; just surprising.

Well, okay, I could have just as easily have written that painting is a near cousin of photography. But just for the sake of finishing the thought, there are reasonable arguments that Vermeer was the first photographer

Pollock, well, that's Pollock... we probably can't relate it to anything else and probably shouldn't even try! But I see no reason why photography can't be similarly abstract.

I would apply this theory to color images also, where the color is unnatural with abstractness. Color images that look natural rarely stimulate me.

I agree, I feel the same way about it. I have seen and used literal colour and I usually don't care for it, except for case of journalism.

 

[Larry Bullis]

... there are reasonable arguments that Vermeer was the first photographer

Vermeer and his contemporaries really can be considered photographic, even though the actual marks they made were done by hand, unless you can't accept Hockney's thesis regarding their use of the camera. Some art historians can't give up the notion that they were superhuman, so, of course, there is controversy. But why wouldn't they have used it?

Pollock ... I see no reason why photography can't be similarly abstract.

No argument there.

 

[BetterSense]

It's easier to match B&W to room decor, and for me, that's what picture are for. Decoration. Color prints are a whole different ballgame when it comes to room decoration.

 

[michaelbsc]

...This initial moment of contact with abstractness creates new connections in our brains which is stimulating...

I think this is a large part of why B&W images work so well. And because it works so well, it's a natural medium to work in.

As others have noted, color photographs have a lot of other "distractions" from the point being made with the image. And unlike a color painting I cannot easily accentuate one part while subduing other parts of the image in color.

A painter's work, whether in acrylic, oil, or pastel could very easily just leave out the distracting details. In fact, I've been reading up on bromoil processes for precisely this reason, so that I can just remove distractions.

So, on the one hand, not only is B&W easier to process on our own environment, and less expensive to boot. But on the other hand it gives us far more freedom and control to make a point.

So, in essence, I use B&W because it's the tool I can use to get the desired image. Color is too complicated to give me the result I want, both in the presentation and in the process.

...I would apply this theory to color images also, where the color is unnatural with abstractness. Color images that look natural rarely stimulate me. ...

And I agree with this. I find color night images shot with say Tungsten balance film to be quite interesting. Precisely because the color is part of the tool.

And I also find color a good tool if you can control lighting such that you accentuate the subject, but that's hard for me to do. I'm usually outside using natural light.


MB

 

[Morry Katz]

I work in black and white because monochrome images are a first level of abstraction of our colour-infused world. My objective is to interpret the world, not to replicate it. Removing the element of colour focuses the viewer's attention on shape, light, tones and textures which are my primary interest.
Morry Katz - Lethbridge, Alberta

 

[Sirius Glass]

From:
http://everything2.com/title/The+world+was+black+and+white

CALVIN: Dad, how come old photographs are always black and white? Didn't they have color film back then?
CALVIN'S DAD: Sure they did. In fact, those old photographs are in color. It's just the world was black and white then.
CALVIN: Really?
CALVIN'S DAD: Yep. The world didn't turn color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was pretty grainy color for a while, too.
CALVIN: That's really weird.
CALVIN'S DAD: Well, truth is stranger than fiction.
CALVIN: But then why are old paintings in color?! If the world was black and white, wouldn't artists have painted it that way?
CALVIN'S DAD: Not necessarily, a lot of great artists were insane.
CALVIN: But ... but how could they have painted in color anyway? Wouldn't their paints have been shades of gray back then?
CALVIN'S DAD: Of course, but they turned colors like everything else in the '30s.
CALVIN: So why didn't old black and white photos turn color too?
CALVIN'S DAD: Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?
(CUT TO: EXT. Tree limb, Calvin talking with Hobbes)
CALVIN: The world is a complicated place, Hobbes.
HOBBES: Whenever it seems that way, I take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner.
Written by Bill Watterson, © Universal Press Syndicate.

 

[apconan]

Why do so few people like Black and White for it's own sake?

So many replies have been "i shoot black and white because color is _________"

Reminds of the snobbery that the color photographers faced in the 70s. I'm looking at my books but I can't find the quote I'm thinking of right now, but it's some art-fart B&W photographer telling Stephen Shore that what he was doing was wrong.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

We read paleolithical typology lesson at archaeology class. Men used stone and created a extremelly slow developing culture to find out how to carve out and how to use stones in 2 500 000 years.

May be bw is like a stone and we learned to like it in time.

Camera is a tool like a stone and whatever canon do , we like the angular designs as Leica and feel better.

Best ,

Mustafa Umut Sarac

Istanbul

 

[michaelbsc]

We read paleolithical typology lesson at archaeology class. Men used stone and created a extremelly slow developing culture to find out how to carve out and how to use stones in 2 500 000 years.

May be bw is like a stone and we learned to like it in time.

Camera is a tool like a stone and whatever canon do , we like the angular designs as Leica and feel better.

Best ,

Mustafa Umut Sarac

Istanbul

I like Mustafa's comparison.

Men use stone for thousands of years, then the Greeks use stone for art that we still admire. (No slight to other Oriental cultures that use stone for art. I just know the Occidental history better.)


Men use B&W for decades because that's all there is. Then one day we use B&W for art because we prefer it.

MB

 

[eddym]

Why do we have to have a reason?

 

[jovo]

Why do we have to have a reason?

Because all too many of us are so significantly left brained that we can't help it.

 

[bdial]

Years ago I had one of the AA calendars on my cube wall at work. One day one of my co-workers came in, looked at that months photo for a bit, then said "nice picture, too bad it's not in color".

 

[Worker 11811]

What do you mean? That picture IS in color! It's just the scenery that was black and white.

 

[ruilourosa]

guy debord directed films in red wine, do what you please, you could even stay put...

 

[Dave in Kansas]

There are likely multiple reasons many people enjoy black and white.

Maybe in some way, black and white helps to satisfy our desire of the past when life was more simple. There are some scenes that to me seem more fitting, in black and white. Say an event celebrating pioneers with people dressed in period clothing, or maybe an old steam locomotive in action. I can think of other examples too that just seem more fitting in black and white, perhaps because that is the way we expect to see them since old photos were black and white.

I think black and white also allows our imaginations to work, letting our minds assign colors to clothes or other objects in the scene. Do you ever listen to an in depth news report on the radio describing a war zone or earthquake aftermath? Such audio reports can be more gruesome than a similar report on television because our imaginations can be more vivid.

And certainly one reason I love black and white is because it is something I can do that is both relaxing and gives me a sense of satisfaction. Not that color couldn't do that too if I took the time to learn it, but b&w presently serves that desire/need. I have nothing against color and continue to also shoot transparencies.

Dave