Is b&w still acceptable by the general public?

We are probably not the most objective group among which to seek an unbiased answer, but here goes.

In essence, I’m wondering if black & white is, for all intents and purposes, culturally considered dead. Sadly, I am beginning to suspect it is.

When I was first hired by an industrial product studio in 1970, the default medium was 8x10 b&w, contact-printed onto ferrotyped AZO.

Short-run b&w lithography (Kinkos) and color anything was much too expensive. So nearly all widget photo assignments called for a shot and 500 glossies.

In those days, all model’s head shots and comp sheets were in glorious b&w. Newspapers, driver’s licenses and passports had no color. Highschool yearbooks and quality portraits were routinely done in monochrome.

Fast-forward to today and now (virtually) everything commercial is done digitally. For all its flaws and strengths, the main point is that digital makes color easy. There is nothing in money nor labor to be saved by “limiting” oneself to black and white in this medium. Unless you only want to attract attention with a “special effect”.

Some photographers who still attempt to market b&w photography to the general public do it as a “camp” nostalgic old-fashioned gimmick. They shoot on a vintage wooden camera and may offer “old-time” costumes for the sitters to wear.

But the main point of this post is the question, is it still possible to produce b&w as a modern medium and market it to the general public with a straight face?

I know my old advertising agency buddies have no use for my current b&w efforts any more.

But what about portraits?

Could I offer to make a First Communion photograph of the neighbor’s child out on their front lawn and present the family with a beautiful LF b&w print without getting raised eyebrows? How about a wedding?

Or am I now limited to doing only “personal work” and esoteric arty stuff for the camera club and wealthy private collectors, but nothing intended to be seen by the general public.

Will I, from now on, be labeled by ordinary folk as "that nice old man who still makes funny-looking old-fashioned pictures"?

Don't know about commercial/advertising photography, but I have noticed that in contemporary fine art photography B&W is all but dead. If you pick up a few back issues Blind Spot, for instance, color work outnumbers B&W by a huge margin. I don't think that has anything to do with the advent of digital, since it was a trend well before that in both camps. The parallel trend is interesting, though. B&W still sells or Kodak would have ditched it completely by now. Maybe it's all going to wedding photography and western fine art landscapers?

Hello: Suburban parents who want non-stereotyped baby pics often have B&W stylized (abstract) photographs of their new borns made.The photographers appear to be using roll film.

yours
Frank

I think you also have to consider the demographics of the "general public", John. Although things may have shifted somewhat in recent years, at one time wealthier, typically "old-money" families preferred relatively small B&W prints for portraits, baby shots, and weddings. Less well-to-do folks preferred color, and wanted the prints as big as they could afford. Thus, I think one has to narrow the view of the market, and adjust the technology offered accordingly.

That said, I'm confident that at some time in the future the average "snap shot" will actually be a snap video, or more likely a voice-activated 3-D hologram, stored on a little chip. A still photograph? How quaint! ;-)

I routinely use B&W in 645 and 67 to do school activity related shooting on things that my high school son (and daughter prior to this) is involved in. It's been the perfect chance to test film/developer combos while I'm optimizing homebrews, etc. It's gratifying to see parents use these as centerpiece, primary display photos at their kids' graduation parties. They appreciate them very much and enjoy them over the years even more than the typical color snaps that they accumulate. In fact, as years pass, there is something about the B&W images that draw your eye in and they seem more meaningful somehow. I suppose there is also something to the fact that there a growing uniqueness to seeing B&W as the medium fades from common duties. I also scan and share via email but my favorite time and pastime is my darkroom time and I don't really see that changing for a long while, if ever.

Twenty years ago family and friends used to ask me for color pictures of my kids when I gave them B&W. Now they ask for B&W when I give them color.

It is so different from what people are bombarded with, that they'll stop and look at it (b&w), they'll talk about it. If things are rare. they become special. I have my b&w pictures on my waitingroom- and office walls, and the feedback is very positive, more thasn I ever expected. It leads to a sale every now and then. One person asked me if I am depressed, only working in b&w! I can't comment on the commercial aspects, have no idea if you can make a living in producing b&w, but I am not interested in that anyway.

Here in Omaha and Kansas City the highest paid portrait photographers shoot exclusively B&W, the one in Kansas City specializes in Platinum portraits of Brides, children, senior protraits for about $2000 a pop. The couple who own the studio in Omaha shoot mostly digital but I know they still shoot some film with 8x10.

Do you ever notice what they hang on the walls in TV shows and movies? It is almost always B&W prints. Maybe this is becuase it is non obtrusive as a background or maybe it is simply a cheap way to hang something on the walls of the set. Or maybe it is Hollywood's idea of what is in right now.

I have always felt that for portraits B&W (if competently done) goes far beyond the artifice of color and is able to better define a person.

I don't know about today, but a couple of years ago PDN had an issue featuring doing New York weddings in B&W and how the B&W shooters were commanding top dollar in the city.

And there is always the popular photographer/artists who shoot with B&W in LF. Greenfield-Sanders comes to mind with his 11x14 B&W film portraits and Jock Sturges who shoots 8x10 on film.

Open up any consumer magazine and you will find plenty of B&W in advertisements. The current flavor is heavily toned and selective focus.

Personally, the more everything switches to color the more uniuqe becomes B&W.

I've noticed that many of the folks I work with who have newborn's or young children bring photos to work to show us coworkers and these are often done black and white. I'm talking about professional people who can afford to get someone to take these photos and make prints for them. They seem to think the black and white images are more appealing than color. Perhaps it reminds them of the black and white family photos they have from thier childhoods. It appears most of these black white photos are done with a digital camera, however. So, I don't think black and white will ever loose its appeal, but the use of black and white film may continue to decline, since black and white is so easy to produce digitally.

If you're interested in taking the pulse of the general public (although I'm not sure why you'd want to) take a look at most publications depicting room environments; these might include home or architectural magazines or catalogues such as Crate and Barrel. The walls are very often decorated with black and white photographs.

There's no general public, there's no one culture, and among smaller groups of people, things like black and white go in and out of style but rarely die.

The people that I show work to (largely dealers and institutions in the new york area) look at black and white work but at the moment see it as kind of retro. Most of the big statements being made in photo in the high art world are in color, so black and white images are less likely to be seen as about Right Now. but this is only a generalization.

I know of at least a couple of major collectors who won't touch color. It's not their esthetic.

The commercial worlds are even more driven by fads than the art worlds. If something's dead at the moment, just wait around a little while. It will be back. My sense is in the commercial world, black and white is still popular as a particular "look," especially when people want a sense of nostalgia. It's annoying that a great medium gets pigeon-holed like this, but commercial art has never been about depth, so it's understandable.

Just don't expect work that looks like early 20th Century black and white formal modernism to ever look fresh again. It won't. The world is used to it. If elements of it come back into fashion, they will do so with a nostalgic, retro vibe. You can never get back the sense of revolution and upheaval that the work carried when it was new.

My observations go along with the others here.

Is it nostalgia? Is it the subtle nuance of light and shadow or the gritty texture of grain in smaller formats? Do people appreciate the longevity of a properly done silver halide photograph of a family member? Is there a appreciation for B&W that offers more to the imagination and less visual noise than color---sort of like a preference for a classic novel compared to a technicolor movie?

I have no idea.

I understand that you are retired and just doing photography for the love of it. If that's true, then you should use the medium you find best supports your vision. What the general public likes shouldn't really be a consideration.

If on the other hand you are trying to sell photography, then you have a choice to make. You can be true to your artistic self and use the medium that best supports your vision and see if the public will buy into it. Or, you can find out what the public likes and try to appease them, regardless of what this does to your artistic statement.

Personally, in my little backwater market, I'm finding that B&W is a hard sell. But then, art in general is a hard sell here. It takes some level of market sophistication for the market to accept photographic art, and the more abstract the art (B&W being more of an abstraction than color), the more sophistication required of the buyer I think. Clearly, YMMV because the markets change semingly unpredictably.

"I'm finding that B&W is a hard sell. But then, art in general is a hard sell here."

It's a hard sell anywhere! None of it's easy, which is all the more reason to do what you love and worry about where the market is later. Somewhere out there is someone who likes looking at things the way you do.

Why care? Or is it a Marketing 101 trick question?

Look at all the Elvis on Velvet that sells. If you want to make the market, all you have to do is reduce your integrity to the middle denominator.

Around where I live, if you take a portrait of a kid and digitally clone some NASCAR driver sitting next to him the stuff sells like umbrellas in a rainstorm. I don't like nascar, and I think those shots are horrible so I guess I'm not marketable and culturaly dead. Oh well.

Do you have any idea just how stupid, and how culturally, artistically, and creatively empty the general public is? Color or B&W? Huh? Well, color's purtier, ain't it? That b&w stuff looks like that trunk o' crap that grandma left me. For a peek into the stereotype, just turn on the television or note voting trends. On the plus side, they'll listen and believe anything you tell them if you make it sound like the daily news. No, I'm not an elitist snob and these are not my opinions. Just observations from having been around long enough.

Everyone I know prefers B&W except for one bimbo who has a lot of money but no taste!

I don't know about any kind of generalized "public" but I do know the reactions of the people I meet. I carry a small book of my photographs around with me when I shoot: I have found it useful to be able to show examples of what I'm doing when people ask. In almost every case, the second question I hear is, "do they still make black and white film?" (The first question is often the one most photographers using a view camera in public hear!) People seem delighted to see the prints and know that they are still being made. No one ever lingers over the few color prints (maybe I'm a lousy color photographer, I don't know,) but they do spend a few moments looking at the B&W. They're usually smiling when they do so, so I believe that it is a pleasant experience for them.

I don't have a clue about collectors or galleries: they aren't the people I deal with. A few years ago when I did a few weddings, I sold more B&W prints than color, and at a premium price. Similarly, when I photograph friends and family members they are (at least, they seem to be,) eager to get prints and happy to have them. And it's not like a century ago, when having any photograph of a family member was a special treat: anyone and everyone can have as many inexpensive color photographs of friends, family, pets, etc. as they desire for practically no expense these days. So many people have cameras built into their cell phones that a photograph has become a ubiquitous object (at least, in mid-western US, where I live.)

So if forced to answer the question I would have to say that it is my opinion that B&W photographs are generally more accepted, possibly because they are rather unusual today. Color snapshots are so common that in large part they have become part of the unquestioned background of our society. B&W isn't so common, so it stands out, and what is considered unusual gets more attention than what is thought common.

Dear John,
You have to get out more. Black and white photography is no more old fashioned than oil painting is. Virtually every artistic meduim that has been in use ever is still in use today. I know some people who make a living creating frescoes and others, Daguerreotypes, and even others who make a living as gilders. Even cave painting is alive and well in one sense on the outside walls of buildings all over the country. People still read Dickens and watch and enjoy silent movies and learn to play and sing music written several hundred years ago. Black and white photography isn't going away anytime soon.

It is true that people's tastes change but what goes around comes around and artists will drive the marketplace in the long run.

I think the movies serve as a useful parallel example. Ted Turner was actually ahead of the curve when he colorized those old movies. You can't show a b&w movie on tv except on the specialty stations. New b&w movies come out around 1-2 a year, and they generally are aiming for a historical or nostalgic or somehow backward-looking look. The (few) people I know under 30 can't imagine why anyone would ever watch a b&w movie; what's the point?

The local portrait photographer shows nothing but B&W prints in his store window. They are all very, very, well done.

Fours miles away is a large mall with three department store "studios" and one "glamour" studio.

The local B&W guy rocks. The mall stores suck. The local stays in business by having talent and skill. How much longer he can last with the dumbing down of America is the question. It helps that the area has money. Just a two second look walking by tells you who is the "professional".

The way I see it, B & W is just one of many options out there to be chosen from when producing an image. Historically, B & W was prefferrable for all kinds of applications due to its stability and the relative instability and 'clunkiness' of the colour process.

We live in exciting times now where there are a myriad of choices of media on which to produce images. It all depends on what you are trying to say. People will read those choices and that will provide extra 'meaning' to your images. I thinks its important to decide what is trying to be communicated and to whom you trying to speak, then decide whether to use colour, b & W, inkjet, silver, PP, carbon etc. The various 'camps' tend to be nostalgia based and inflexible (read uncreative) in their thinking. There is only the artists choice!

I just got back from the last day at the Photo New York expo ... it's like AIPAD, but less dominated by blue chip galleries, and it also wecomes a lot of publishers. I saw a full range of work, from vintage black and white, to wannabe vintage black and white, to contemporary looking black and white, to shiney magazine-looking color, to eggleston and stephen shore looking color, to 80s scratch 'n sniff, cut 'n paste postmodernist looking color, to contemporary, big, exploring-my-private-world kinds of color.

I saw silver prints hanging next to platinum prints hanging next to inkjet prints. It all seems to have an audience.

Just keep in mind it's not all the same audience. No matter where your work falls on this huge spectrum, you're going to have to find the people whose tastes it might appeal to.

"Do you have any idea just how stupid, and how culturally, artistically, and creatively empty the general public is?" . . . . . .

"I'm not an elitist snob . . . "

Glad you cleared that up.

"but i have noticed that in contemporary fine art photography b&w is all but dead" If you go to Blindspot's web page and click on back issues you'll see that the first 6 or 7 cover photos are black and white. If you know what it means to get the cover I would hardly consider that "dead".

As I travel the road of life, I am struck by how quickly and how many things change. And no longer a student in a large school nor employee in a large corporation, I have no daily contact with crowds of people to give me advance warning of imminent changes.

So one day, I drive through an unfamiliar part of town and am dumbfounded to observe that my beloved three-story brick highschool is now a field of grass.

Or I drive past my late father’s favorite Plymouth dealership to discover it is now selling Daewoos. What are those, anyway?

I was never allowed in church as a child wearing anything but my special “Sunday-go-to-meeting” navy blue suit, polished wingtips and starched white shirt. The other day, while out for my Sunday morning walk, I passed the local Roman Catholic cathedral to see the congregation leaving Mass. Many were wearing shorts and sweat pants. When did that start?

So many ordinary, standard, unremarkable, every-day common things suddenly become bizarre, unique, eccentric and strange, seemingly overnight.

My wife pointed out a man at the shopping center the other day who, strangely, was wearing a felt hat. I hadn’t noticed him. Men have worn fedoras all my life. Nothing that unusual nor eye-catching to me.

It’s nice to have a reality check now and then to see whether I need to catch up. When children and ordinary people wrinkle their nose at my weird b&w prints, is it them or me?

Very embarrassing to making b&w prints, thinking they are still perfectly “normal” when my neighbors are wondering if I may be a warlock with a darkroom full of magic potions.

Kind of like accidently having your artistic fly open.

Glad to hear that I can continue to work in this medium without feeling like an oddball. At least for a little while longer...

John, the good news is that people will still accept B&W. But if you are using film they wont think of it as photography, because everyone knows you do that with a telephone.

John sir, I shoot color on my 4x5. I shoot BW on my medium format. I like the character of both. However I have noticed recently that many television ads are using black and white. Some are using a combination. Like all things in life they cycle. Go with the flow of both mediums

Regarding headshots--in New York, B&W still says "professional" for the theatre, but the film and TV commercial market has gone more toward color. Maybe theatre itself is a nostagic practice.

David, that is very interesting, indeed.

I have always thought of studio b&w photography as a matter of intricate light and shadow, achieved through the skillful manipulation of Fresnel spot lights.

Perhaps an equally accurate description of theatrical stage lighting technique.

Color film photography requires soft, shadow-less, nearly non-directional flat light, generated by what I like to refer to as “fog-lights”.

Black & white photography created using lighting maximized for color looks remarkably poor and uninteresting. This may account for the technically yucky pseudo b&w images created by digital cameras with the saturation turned off.

Thus, theater people must surely have a better understanding of the technique of b&w photography than many color photographers.

Perhaps b&w photographers have an understanding of drama which approaches the level of stage actors.

Thus, theater people must surely have a better understanding of the technique of b&w photography than many color photographers.

B&W IS color - without hue. But we all know that.

It is true that some B&W motion-pictures often used light that even Ted Turner wouldn't dare colorize. I'm thinking in particular of Orson Wells' work, and A Touch of Evil is a good example of stark lighting that if it were color, might burn the brain, drive out the audience. "Shooting on the toe" for B&W cine is something still photographers might appreciate. It is a bit easier to pull off in cine than stills because the former has motion clues. I love it.

However, translating that light to the stage... well, I have discussed this with a set designer and it was too daunting. A _lot_ of the success of such B&W films was such because it used angles that were purely photographic - you can't have the audience moved about at various heights and angles looking through a lens. Sergi Eisenstein broke that ground when our grandfathers were tikes.

John,

On the subject of B&W portraits, it reminded me of a very talented young lady who is married to my cousin. She started taking B&W children's portraits as a side business so she could work at home. Last year she had to stop becaue she was so inundated with new business it was interfering with homelife.

Another lady in my town started offering 8x10 platinum portraits and marketed her services in pricey women's boutiques----a display of a few sample portraits of irresistable children, nicely framed and matted with a pretty hefty price list and an explanation of the achival track record of platinum.

Both my recently married nieces had B&Ws taken as part of their wedding photography 'package---the B&Ws were of the photojournalism 'speed graphic' tradition.

To paraphrase W.C. Fields, I think reports of B&W' s death have been greatly exaggerated.

Cheers!