Why is the higher level photography mostly black and white??

When I started - BW was cheaper. Now - color darkroom is more than I want to mess with (at this time!)

The true question to ask is "why do you believe "higher level photography" is only black and whtie"?

Although im trying to figure out what the hell "higher level' photography is supposed to mean.

tballphoto said:

The true question to ask is "why do you believe "higher level photography" is only black and whtie"?

Although im trying to figure out what the hell "higher level' photography is supposed to mean.

Click to expand...

well...I mean, higher level photography is the same as higher level sports or something, it means that it is superior than the regular things evolving the area, I believe that Sean tucker photography is on a level above the random instagram selfie right?? And for example here in this aite I see almost every picture in B&W such as in the professional photographers like Daido Moriyama Sean Tucker, Alan Schaller, Nobuyoshi Araki etc... And im not stating tha higher level photography is ONLY in B&W, what I am trying to say is that, the majority of the higher level photography that i am exposed to is in fact black and white

I think its all a matter of taste
there are a plenty of photographers who are "heavy hitters" who works in color
and they might take offense to someone suggesting black and white is superior...

I will try to avoid pseudo-psychology (navel gazing?) with this, but I believe my brain works differently when I am shooting black and white to those times when I have color in my camera.

With 'monochrome' I look mostly for highlights and shadows and watch the interplay between the two. With color I look for - color.

My travel and happy-snapping image are almost entirely color. I still shoot architecture and until a few years ago I sold almost as much b&w as I did color, but I have sold only color images since 2015. I greatly prefer my mono work but that is me. My clients seem to think otherwise. though two years ago one printed several of my old slides of 18th century colonial buildings in Indonesia as b&w in a book. They looked most excellent. I asked for and got paid the color fee for those images.

Of course I am talking business here and not 'art'. In my experience the two are rarely compatible...

All anecdotal. I have never looked as b&w as 'superior' in any way to color. Just - different.

jnantz said:

I think its all a matter of taste
there are a plenty of photographers who are "heavy hitters" who works in color
and they might take offense to someone suggesting black and white is superior...

Click to expand...

oh no, I am not implying that XD I'm just saying that I am most used seeing professional photographers using black and white, not that it is superior, I was just asking why that happens, so please do not misunderstand my words, the last thing I want to do is causing an argument about wich one is better, I think both are bretty beautifuul when used correctly.

There are many, many reasons why it seems high-level photographers used more black and white film than color throughout the history of photography. Most have to do with cost, availability, marketing, quite a few practical matters, and, although far from primarily, esthetic reasons. Won't (and can't) go through all of them, but here's a few, brief examples.

Cost and availability are easy to cover. Compared to color, black and white film is easy to manufacture, and the chemicals needed to develop it are easily available, to a point that many famous photographers made their own from formulas that were widely distributed. Many, including some on this website, make their own emulsion.

Making color film was always more complex. There were two methods, additive, which came with a slew of problems and difficulties, and subtractive. Problem was that the patents for the subtractive process were owned by Kodak and used for their Kodachrome film, and they didn't make these patents available until the 60s (patents for the additive process were owned by Agfa, but they made them available right after the war). This made high quality color film not readily available (the Fuji films didn't appear until the late 20th century), and quite expensive - early 35mm Kodachrome films were sold 3,50$ a box, which amounts to over 40$ today... Color also needed expensive and elaborate machinery for development.

On the practical side, there are also quite simple explanation. For photojournalists, shooting black and white was the obvious choice because newspapers were printed in, well, black and white. Another practical reason is range. Kodak, with the introduction of Tri-X in 35mm in 1954, gave photographers a fast film with huge exposure and development latitude, that you could push or pull to quickly adapt to lighting condition and still have a usable negative, and to which you could give a special and individualized look depending on both the shooting and development process you chose (it's fascinating to see how distinctive it gets whether it's used by photographers as different as Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Koudelka or Moriyama). All of a sudden, with the same film, you could shoot in daylight, inside in low light (think jazz bar), in the jungle (think Vietnam), in the street at night and a whole bunch of other lighting situations that slower black and white films couldn't handle, and for which, still today, you need two or three different color films to handle. For reportage, for street photography, that was major.

In comparison, Kodachrome was 64 ASA, Ilfochrome and Ilfocolor were 32 ASA. Just did not give you the same possibilities.

Don't have the price of Tri-X for the late 50s and 60s, but considering it's about 8 bucks today, you can imagine the film was pretty cheap back then, compared to color film.

On the esthetic point of view, color is not something superimposed on subject matter, but an essential element of the composition, and sometimes as much subject matter than the subject matter. This is what makes color photography so difficult to master.

But, as others have suggested, many have mastered it, and more than you think have worked with both color and black and white (including Moriyama, but his color photography is done with a digital camera).

If I had to make a list of my favorite, it would have the names of Saul Leiter, William Eggleston, Alex Webb, Stephen Shore, Alec Soth, Jamel Shabazz and Eliot Porter on top, but I'd quickly add those of Evelyn Hofer, Fred Herzog, Joel Meyerowitz, Joel Sternfeld, Rebeccas Norris Webb, Dawoud Bey and hundred of others.

Color film reflects reality to some extent. A good color print may look similar to just looking out the window. I don't live in a Velvia world, but most other films are fairly realistic.

On the other hand, few of us live in a monochrome world. Even most color-blindness is really just different colors. As a result, most B&W shooters have to conceptualize their photos in abstract ways and speak with a monochrome vocabulary. Even novice B&W photographers quickly learn that colorful scenes do not necessarily translate to effective monochrome images. It is perfectly reasonable for a photographers to conceptualize color with the same attention, but it is also very easy to simply capture a pretty scene.

Manuel Madeira said:

what I am trying to say is that, the majority of the higher level photography that i am exposed to is in fact black and white

Click to expand...

The important words in this excerpt are "that I am exposed to".
In this world where there is seemingly infinite access to an infinite set of possibilities, what often matters the most is how we edit (curate?) the options available to us.
Most likely, you are choosing sources that appeal to you. Those sources have made choices that affect what you get to see.
Your choices might be reflecting certain realities in the art market, or the editorial market, or the fashion market, or a whole bunch of separate, smaller markets.
They might even be reflecting the algorithms built into platforms like Instagram.
Amongst many of my friends, my appreciation for black and white is well known. There are still some who are surprised when they see a photograph from me in colour - that is despite the fact that I have shot thousands. It all turns on what I might be sharing with others, and when.

Manuel Madeira said:

well...I mean, higher level photography is the same as higher level sports or something, it means that it is superior than the regular things evolving the area, I believe that Sean tucker photography is on a level above the random instagram selfie right?? And for example here in this aite I see almost every picture in B&W such as in the professional photographers like Daido Moriyama Sean Tucker, Alan Schaller, Nobuyoshi Araki etc... And im not stating tha higher level photography is ONLY in B&W, what I am trying to say is that, the majority of the higher level photography that i am exposed to is in fact black and white

Click to expand...

Sorry, not sorry, but the concept of higher level photography or sports is truly hogwash. No difference in the end between some 13 year old bouncing a basket ball or baseball versus a 35 year old doing the same thing except getting paid 20 million a year to do it. In fact the 13 year old doing it for fun is actually a more pure form of the sport.

I had to look that guy up, and surprisingly he DOES quality for average quality instagram or twitter selfies. Sure he has a bizarre interest in using a very thin focal plane that leaves MOST of the photos on his website filled with people that have odd and twisted proportions, optically his sight may have given me a migraine starter. joy...

Manuel Madeira said:

well...I mean, higher level photography is the same as higher level sports or something, it means that it is superior than the regular things evolving the area, I believe that Sean tucker photography is on a level above the random instagram selfie right?? And for example here in this aite I see almost every picture in B&W such as in the professional photographers like Daido Moriyama Sean Tucker, Alan Schaller, Nobuyoshi Araki etc... And im not stating tha higher level photography is ONLY in B&W, what I am trying to say is that, the majority of the higher level photography that i am exposed to is in fact black and white

Click to expand...

Regarding Sean Tucker, you should be aware that he's shooting digital, that he shoots in color and later edits them in black and white in Darkroom. He has a video about his process on hisYouTube channel.

High-end photography? What is your criteria for determining "high-end?" I saw the comparison to sports--but that is paid, professional vs young amateur. Pros in photography today work as much or more in color than in black and white. Just look at books, magazines, art galleries and museums. Social media? Are you kidding? There is more garbage there than what is floating in the oceans and in the landfills. I do agree that most of the social media trash is in color vs black and white, but in the end it is the photo and the viewer that defines the appeal, not the palette.

Pieter12 said:

High-end photography? What is your criteria for determining "high-end?" I saw the comparison to sports--but that is paid, professional vs young amateur. Pros in photography today work as much or more in color than in black and white. Just look at books, magazines, art galleries and museums. Social media? Are you kidding? There is more garbage there than what is floating in the oceans and in the landfills. I do agree that most of the social media trash is in color vs black and white, but in the end it is the photo and the viewer that defines the appeal, not the palette.

Click to expand...

ok, im sorry this question was a mistake, I never intended stating that black and white is superior or something like that, i was just asking people in this platform for example, why they choose B&W, I dont know why some people got so offended, jesus dont get so worked up by this question, I am new to this, and the most type of artistic photography I see is in black and white and I wanted to know what people think about that.

Pieter12 said:

High-end photography? What is your criteria for determining "high-end?" I saw the comparison to sports--but that is paid, professional vs young amateur. Pros in photography today work as much or more in color than in black and white. Just look at books, magazines, art galleries and museums. Social media? Are you kidding? There is more garbage there than what is floating in the oceans and in the landfills. I do agree that most of the social media trash is in color vs black and white, but in the end it is the photo and the viewer that defines the appeal, not the palette.

Click to expand...

And regarding your question about "High-end photography" I think you can see difference in the work of a one year photographer over a lifetime photographer, even in photography classes, you study composition, color, light etc... I think that people who are aware and use that theory effectively are instantly one step above people who dont even know what shutter speed mean.

I don't want to upset you or anyone else. In black and white photography, lighting, texure and composition become more evident. Good color photography IMO is actually more difficult because of the distraction of color, unless color is the subject. Color photographs (especially of people) can be more challenging to print as well.

I'm guessing that there may be a bit of a language issue here.
I think the issue people are having is with the phrase "higher level", which in English implies a hierarchy of value and importance, and tends to imply that colour photography isn't as important. I don't think that is what you meant.
If the question had been in reference to "lasting impact" (as an example), which I think is closer to what you intended to ask, you would have probably got more of what you are looking for.

Maybe it's not that most high end is B&W, but that there millions of people making bad color photos and very few people making any B&W photos at all, good or bad.

I would put this view point down to "Lag, and false perspective", and argue that the statement isn't true.

Traditional Black and White photography is held up on a pedestal and frequently declared the 'vastly superior medium',... In communities dedicated to traditional black and white photography.

Improvements in colour photography and printing has been shifting B&W photography to a smaller and smaller market share over the years. It is still strongly entrenched in the world of "Serious professional artistic photography", because it is a wonderful and accessible medium with its own distinct artistic features and functions that aren't found in colour photography. But it is not by any objective stretch of the imagination 'the superior' medium for photographic art. No more than a large format is 'superior' to a 35mm, or that film is superior or inferior to digital, or that painting ranks higher or lower than sculpture.

They're merely different mediums and used for artistic expression in different ways.

If you were to flip through books on photographic fine art history, you're going to find loads of historic and vitally important photographers who worked almost exclusively in black and white. But it isn't the 1920s when commercially available colour photography options were few and far between. It isn't even the 1980's when colour photography was viewed as an ephemeral medium shockingly prone to fading. It is now the 2020's, and serious and excellent fine art photographers working in various colour mediums are abundant and popular.

A little over a year ago I had a tour of a client's office building, and they highlighted the extensive art collection on site - Paintings, sculptures, and a wide array of amazing photographs.
Out of the dozens of photos they showed off I initially thought there were only two in black and white. But one was actually a full colour photo of a very muted tree and barn...

Art sales I've been to are almost exclusively colour these days. Those working in black and white seem few and far between. And more than a few of those artist hold their work in far higher status than the work likely deserves... But we all know that couldn't possibly be in any way related to their working in the far rarer black and white medium... Right?

The last exclusively photographic exhibit I went through at the Royal BC Museum that contained work from the last decade was all colour. The majority of recent photographic work I've seen at the Confederation Centre in Charlottetown has also been colour.

Luckless said:

I would put this view point down to "Lag, and false perspective", and argue that the statement isn't true.

Traditional Black and White photography is held up on a pedestal and frequently declared the 'vastly superior medium',... In communities dedicated to traditional black and white photography.

Improvements in colour photography and printing has been shifting B&W photography to a smaller and smaller market share over the years. It is still strongly entrenched in the world of "Serious professional artistic photography", because it is a wonderful and accessible medium with its own distinct artistic features and functions that aren't found in colour photography. But it is not by any objective stretch of the imagination 'the superior' medium for photographic art. No more than a large format is 'superior' to a 35mm, or that film is superior or inferior to digital, or that painting ranks higher or lower than sculpture.

They're merely different mediums and used for artistic expression in different ways.

If you were to flip through books on photographic fine art history, you're going to find loads of historic and vitally important photographers who worked almost exclusively in black and white. But it isn't the 1920s when commercially available colour photography options were few and far between. It isn't even the 1980's when colour photography was viewed as an ephemeral medium shockingly prone to fading. It is now the 2020's, and serious and excellent fine art photographers working in various colour mediums are abundant and popular.

A little over a year ago I had a tour of a client's office building, and they highlighted the extensive art collection on site - Paintings, sculptures, and a wide array of amazing photographs.
Out of the dozens of photos they showed off I initially thought there were only two in black and white. But one was actually a full colour photo of a very muted tree and barn...

Art sales I've been to are almost exclusively colour these days. Those working in black and white seem few and far between. And more than a few of those artist hold their work in far higher status than the work likely deserves... But we all know that couldn't possibly be in any way related to their working in the far rarer black and white medium... Right?

The last exclusively photographic exhibit I went through at the Royal BC Museum that contained work from the last decade was all colour. The majority of recent photographic work I've seen at the Confederation Centre in Charlottetown has also been colour.

Click to expand...

There is art and there is “art”.
Art has in many respects and realms devolved into a cargo cult.

Bayer sensor cameras are frankly piss poor for B&W too.

Helge said:

There is art and there is “art”.
Art has in many respects and realms devolved into a cargo cult.

Bayer sensor cameras are frankly piss poor for B&W too.

Click to expand...

Cargo cult? You are definitely living in a different dimension. And the statement about sensors is a non-sequitur...you are quite a broken record!

Pieter12 said:

Cargo cult? You are definitely living in a different dimension. And the statement about sensors is a non-sequitur...you are quite a broken record!

Click to expand...

So debayered sensors are just stupid?
Show me a sensor that can outdo TMax 100 in the same format for instance.
And it’s beyond discussion that the “art” world is highly contaminated by speculation and politics. More so than a hundred years ago, and even just thirty years ago.

Helge said:

So debayered sensors are just stupid?
Show me a sensor that can outdo TMax 100 in the same format for instance.
And it’s beyond discussion that the “art” world is highly contaminated by speculation and politics. More so than a hundred years ago, and even just thirty years ago.

Click to expand...

Sensors are not part of the discussion here. And neither, really, is art. Start your own thread.

Photography came to be considered a serious art form as a purely monochromatic medium. In a sense, it gained its highest level of respectability as that - with people like Stieglitz, Adams, Strand, Weston. Also in a sense, it is not really a respectable art form any more. It's a spray of vomit you see in every conceivable direction for every conceivable use.

Pieter12 said:

Sensors are not part of the discussion here. And neither, really, is art. Start your own thread.

Click to expand...

I’m offering reasons and explanations to the original question, and the subsequent answers.

If you have an axe to grind, go to PMs and I’ll decide if you are worth ignoring or not.