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

[Manuel Madeira]

Just wandering about your thoughts on the majorityt of photos being in black and white and why people find it more attractive.

 

[MattKing]

The vast majority of photographs are in colour.
But not here (this site), because this is a part of the world where there is a relatively unusual concentration of people who use black and white.
A very, very long time ago, when colour photography was rare and difficult, black and white photography was the first photography to be appreciated as Art (by some).
As an abstraction, it has always remained a usable medium for those who have artistic intentions.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is much more difficult to get good color photography. Now it is more on talent side, but before it was also complicated technically.
I have seen VM color wotrk, is great. Frank Herzog color photos were printed decades later with more advance technology available.

I won't say I prefer BW. I started with ORWO slide films and then used c-41 films and optical prints were norm back then, not scans.
Time and else has change and on film it is more simple to do it BW, including darkroom prints.
I do C-41 and E6 as well, but analog prints are mission impossible. Using digital instead for color. Not as good as optical color prints from the past, but much more easy with inkjets.

 

[MattKing]

Fred Herzog actually.
And if you lived in Vancouver, he regularly showed his slides in places like church basements, and people did pay to see them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

To do either well takes work. If a composition is weak, then color may make it good enough to be acceptable. Black & white photography must be carried by the composition alone. It depends on ones taste. I do both and have great photographs with both. I will often shoot one at a location and then to the other at the same location.

 

[awty]

Colours just distraction, things are more clearer in mono.

 

[tballphoto]

its the

its not pornographic if its shot on FILM dilemma

that became the

its not porno, its in BLACK AND WHITE film

 

[AgX]

This questioning depends on what the OP considers "higher-level-photography".

If I look for instance at contemporary photographs considered art and hanging in art galleries over here, the majority is colour.

 

[bdial]

B&W is easier to work with for all the steps past clicking the shutter. At the same time, it’s harder to make a good B&W photograph. I’d suggest that it’s mostly photo geeks that find it more attractive, the rest of John Q. Public has a taste for color.
Case in point, some years ago, I had an Ansel Adams calendar pinned to my cube wall at work, a colleague stopped by, looks at the photo for a bit, and says “nice picture, too bad it’s not in color”

 

[guangong]

Black and white has an abstract quality that allows the viewer to participate in the details, much like a drawing or etching. Color can often provide too much information or be too realistic, thus allowing too little participation. I believe that many later movies, almost all shot in color, would have been more powerful if shoot black and white. Except for artificial setups, the photographer has little control of the composition of the colors. Color is a difficult beast to control.

 

[Horatio]

Color is a bourgeois concept. It sells a lot of lipstick and nail polish.

 

[ic-racer]

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

Thank you for calling B&W photography 'higher level!'

My take on it is that Eggleston, Shore, Parr, and others of that generation, ended the reign of B&W a long time ago.

 

[removed account4]

I don’t think there is a highest level..
People can argue all they want about b-w color
Puppies rainbows emotion soot and chalk 32 greys
Instead of pulling swords out of sand we should be
Making photos of unicorns..

 

[Stats]

Black and white photography explores a myriad of subject matter. So often in color photography, color IS the subject, and as such seems limiting, in my opinion.

 

[Auer]

Color is a bourgeois concept. It sells a lot of lipstick and nail polish.

Outstanding, that made my day

 

[KenS]

Just wandering about your thoughts on the majorityt of photos being in black and white and why people find it more attractive.

Basically, (I believe, anyway) is that with B/W negatives, the contrast/density can be adjusted to meet the needs of he/she who made the exposure.. a 'something' much 'easier' than changing/modifying the colour negative.

Ken

 

[pentaxuser]

Black and white photography explores a myriad of subject matter. So often in color photography, color IS the subject, and as such seems limiting, in my opinion.

Action shots at the Liverpool v Everton games could be confusing however.

pentaxuser

 

[RPC]

As was said earlier, the vast majority of photographs are in color.

Therefore, I have to believe the masses out there prefer color to black & white.

However from an artistic viewpoint, many do prefer b&w, such as you find on this site.

I process and print both (mostly color) and I find the color processing easier overall because the processes are standardized. When printing, you must learn to color balance the print but that is mastered with experience.

With b&w, there can be many variables involved in producing a photo, with the different films, papers and developers. One can get quite involved with contrast control, different times, different dilutions, rc & fiber based papers, warm/cold tone papers, toning, zone system,archival processing, the list goes on.

However, these variables and thus the control that is possible is what makes b&w attractive to many who use photography on an artistic level.

Personally, I find the simplicity of color processing and printing and relative lack of control not a problem for me, as the the standardized color processes give high quality when done correctly, and the only thing I then have to concentrate on is finding subject matter that will make a great photo, produced in color, which I think most viewers would prefer.

 

[DonW]

The question itself indicates that the OP might consider taking some art history courses that relate to photography.

Photrio for the most part doesn't represent a wide appreciation for non f64 type photography. Nothing wrong with that, it's just the culture here.

 

[Paul Howell]

The last time I was in Gallery with a photo exhibit (maybe 2 years ago in LA) the photos on display were color inkjets, nice, but according the manager not selling. She thought that collectors wanted black white from negatives, printed not scanned. First reason was they do want an image that can easily be found on line, second an analog photo is not as likely to be mass produced, and a black and white that is properly fixed, washed and toned may last up to 300 years. A color print with Fuji color paper maybe 75 years. Slides, collectors want prints on walls not a slide that needs specialized equipment to be viewed. That's not to say that there are not any great color images, either analog and digital at very high level. From an historical preceptive, reproducing a color print that matched a transparency was very difficult and expensive. As part of the last Ansel Adams traveling show that came to town there were 2 color prints made from a 4X5 color transparency taken in Monument Valley, one was Cibachrome the other dye transfer. The guide stated that AA much more preferred the dye transfer as it as the closest the transparency and the Cibachrome had too much contrast. Dye transfer were very expensive to make, so Black and White was the norm for collectors.

 

[Horatio]

A child once quipped, “What was it like when everything was black and white?” referring to the early days of TV broadcasting.

 

[Helge]

One answer is that photography is the art of cutting.
Cutting with the view frustum of the lens.
Cutting out a slice of time, being it fuzzy or razor sharp.
Cutting with DoF.
Cutting with occlusion culling.
And cutting out colour is another.

As opposed to an additive art like painting where you are free to add whatever you want in principle.

This is perhaps why the Japanese took to photography so readily early on, and has held on to B&W perhaps to a larger degree that the rest of the world.
It’s a clearly defined and ingrained “axiom”, or aesthetic idiom or even paradigm in their cultural vocabulary and idea space.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kireji
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercutting#Japanese
https://www.artdetama.com/blog/japanese-aesthetics-part-7/

But monochrome imagery is the oldest and most steadfast type of graphic representation with humans in general.

Contrast and edges is far more important for our making sense of the world than colour is.

Often it can be very refreshing to see a photo in black and white, as it takes away the often random emphasis of colour.

Of course it’s never that simple, as there is all kinds of historical and both ignorant and snobbish echo chamber tropes surrounding the idea of black and white photos.
For good and for bad, sometimes both it is important to note.

 

[gone]

B&W is abstract, while color is realistic, mostly. We see in color every minute of our life, but when something is only B&W it grabs our interest because it's so unusual, and our eyes also go to contrasty images. B&W gives the greatest contrast available. A B&W photograph in a "fine art" setting implies (often guarantees) permanency. All the color photos made w/ dyes have faded away, while B&W is archival. We know that one from our own experiences growing up. If you buy a B&W Lang or Weston, you know it can be passed down to the next generations.

 

[Vaughn]

We all see color very differently -- better chance of a uniform audience response with B&W tonality?

When one is dealing primarily with light intensity (tonality) as the main compositional force, the emotional impact of color on the viewer becomes part of the image and can over-power or strengthen what one is trying to do. A basic green environmental scene becomes a jungle of tonality...5x7 carbon print

 

[Pioneer]

I have not yet mastered black and white.

I'm not ready to add color.