Falling out love with Colour

[Lachlan 717]

If colour (E6) was as cheap and as easy as B&W to process, I'd use it a whole lot more.

Especially if you could still get it in ULF sizes!!

[Paul Metcalf]

Well, industry impacted my color pursuits. I was very happy shooting 4x5 transparencies and making enlarged prints on Ilfochrome. My entire color process from capture to print was set and functioning. I learned the processes, a bit through trial and error, as well as observing others who did this. I made the investments in the equipment necessary to utilize this. I was happy and could focus on making new images and not on having to learn or adapt to a new process/processes. Then Ilfochrome went away. I still have some paper and some chemicals, but when that's gone I'm done with large format color. I could adapt but I'm not planning on it. My color work is moving to digital capture (small format), not sure what output because I haven't found anything I like yet (mainly the processes). Maybe I'll pursue some new subject material as well like astrophotography. We'll see. I'd like to think my color side of photography has evolved because of my desire to evolve but that's not the case.

So far, industry hasn't messed with my B&W processes, although the contact printing on silver chloride paper has been "challenged" (mostly getting terribly expensive). The other types of printing I do are still pursuable. Fingers crossed.

[Drew Wiley]

Since I shoot and print both, it's largely a matter of scheduling. Color printing is a little more intensive, so doubt I'll be doing much in the coming year. I'm geared
up to resume it later. I miss Cibachrome but have found a worthy substitute in Fuji Supergloss printed from color negs. I also limit my color printing due to health
concerns. Don't want to get oversensitized to nasty RA4 chem, even though I have the fumes etc far better under control than most labs and dkrms. Have zero interest in digital or inkjet. Different look.

[tgtaylor]

I'd give the C-41 and RA-4 process a close look before giving-up on color film. These two prints were both shot on color negative and printed on Fuji CA at home:

http://spiritsofsilver.com/galleries...genic_c-prints

Both are digital P&S shots of the prints. The print on the left is an un-mounted 16x20 while the one on the right is a mounted 8x10. Both were shot with a Pentax 67II camera in available light.

Thomas

[Paul Metcalf]

Thomas - you have some really great salt prints. I really like that process, so basic, or perhaps elegant is the better term. I use the sun to expose my prints so I get the vagaries around that, which I just love. We'll see about the other color processes, maybe someday I'll get interested. One of the last "color" things I did was to water color paint one of my B&W prints. I've never painted anything (except the house and an old car once). Anything but sitting at a computer (except to post on LFP forum LOL!).

[Darin Boville]

Sort of on topic....in my head I think of myself as primarily a black and white photographer but yet looking back on my work of, say, the last ten years, an awful lot of it, maybe the majority of it, is color.

On the other hand very little of it it is "realistic" color. I have a project ("Waves" : http://www.darinboville.com/waves-color-and-bw/ ) where I have color and black and white images of the same shot. I point out to people that black and white is sort of once removed, sort of abstracted from realistic color, which is part of what gives it its power. Going the other way (turning the color way up instead of way down) is sort of the same move just in the opposite direction--equally abstracted from realistic color.

So maybe you are growing more interested the "abstractedness thing"--you might still find color interesting, just not regular color.

--Darin

[Gary Tarbert]

Sort of on topic....in my head I think of myself as primarily a black and white photographer but yet looking back on my work of, say, the last ten years, an awful lot of it, maybe the majority of it, is color.

On the other hand very little of it it is "realistic" color. I have a project ("Waves" : http://www.darinboville.com/waves-color-and-bw/ ) where I have color and black and white images of the same shot. I point out to people that black and white is sort of once removed, sort of abstracted from realistic color, which is part of what gives it its power. Going the other way (turning the color way up instead of way down) is sort of the same move just in the opposite direction--equally abstracted from realistic color.

So maybe you are growing more interested the "abstractedness thing"--you might still find color interesting, just not regular color.

--Darin

You may be right , i am entering a competition next month entitled photography as art , my entry is a colour image but a very strong colour not at all natural colour tones , maybe i have always been a little in favour of stronger colour when shooting in this medium as velvia was the only film i used .I see my workflow moving forward as majority B&W but when i shoot colour it will be images where the colour creates the mood as much as anything else

[Jac@stafford.net]

B&W is color without hue.
.

[sun of sand]

I prefer the color photo posted. B&w a little too pale and the clear horizon far left sticks out
Both are nice

If I could afford or would afford myself color film and developing and printing I'd do much more color
B&w is quite simple and very affordable as well as being equally beautiful
Digital remains 70% or better color for me

[StoneNYC]

If colour (E6) was as cheap and as easy as B&W to process, I'd use it a whole lot more.

Especially if you could still get it in ULF sizes!!

You can (11x14 from kodak at least in C-41 and other sizes if you order enough through Keith Canham) and Fuji, if you talk to the right people (and again buy enough) will probably cut E-6 in ULF sizes for you, but you would have to buy a lot... If you have the cash I would talk to Kenro Izu, he gets Acros100 cut for him in 14x20 by Fuji.