Is color a distraction?

[robc]

so what would a field of blazing red poppies look like if photographed in B+W compared to Colour?

Colour can add warmth or coolness depending on the colour. Black and white doesn't. Its up to you to learn how to differentiate between what will work in B+W or Colour.
Colour is not a distraction but a pallete to be used just as is B+W. If you have an image that works in both then maybe it was not ideally suited to either.

[Randall Ellis]

It's hard to state clearly why I think that color can sometimes be a distraction, but I suppose that for some subjects, the main message get obscured by the color. Color can draw my eye away from the main subject to some ancilary object while at others times it seems to just be a non-specific distraction. Black and white images seem to my eye to be more direct; more serious. They present a scene that is, for lack of a better term, pure message. Color works well when it is the subject, like fall leaves or rust or flowers, but the lack of color creates a sense of intent, at least to my eye.

Please don't get me wrong, I like color images, and I appreciate that the world exists in color, but there is something that imparts impact about a crisp black and white image that I have a hard time finding in many color images. I have seen color images that had fantastic impact and that really coveyed a sense of purpose, but I find that in my personal experience viewing photographs, black and white images tend to be more direct, more purposeful, and color images tend to be more subtle, more casual.

- Randy

[Ed Richards]

> Between the film's additional color saturation and the effects of the push, the flame area came out a brilliant earthy red, to which the surrounding dark brown "non-descript" area now provided a wonderful contrast.

You could now scan this negative and convert it to B&W in a why to preserve the contrast. It would be an interesting comparison. Sort of a post exposure chance to change filters on the B&W. You might still like the color better, or perhaps you would like the ideal B&W better.

[Steve J Murray]

I don't know why, or even care acually, but I noticed lately as I shoot more color, that most of my color compositions look best printed as color, and they are not as effective printed black and white. I have to believe that I am learning to view color as a compositional element after having shot mainly black and white for so many years. Its like switching from charcoal to watercolor. The brain makes the adjustment. I'm not just shooting red sunsets or fall leaves either.

[Ken Lee]

Some of the most beloved paintings in the world are those of the "impressionists". The colors are wonderous - and - they often lack the kind of sharp detail that we see in large format photos. I'm not a Cognitive Scientist, but it seems to me that such paintings activate a part of the brain that is half-way between the objective waking state and the subjective dream-world. It's a comforting, non-threating state of mind: hence the universal appeal. This may be what Minor White was describing when he referred to "things for what else they are".

Since B&W images are abstract by nature, they can be razor-sharp, but will always be impressionistic. It's much harder for detailed color photos to do the same, because we tend to view them as representing something. When they succeed, they are great. When they fail, they are just a "picture of something".

[David Richhart]

I have a photograph I took of white roses. Every time I have it in a show there are always several people questioning, "Why would someone take a black and white picture of roses?".

...But at least I still like it

[Kirk Gittings]

Bruce, You show up on my browser in the LF Recent Topics table of contents as Hogarth Hughes!

[Brian Ellis]

With Photoshop of course it's simple to view a color image in black and white and I often try the conversion just to see which way a particular image looks better. The only generalization I've been able to make is that for my tastes my architectural stuff almost always looks better in b&w. Otherwise it just depends on the image.

[steve_782]

A color photograph only works if it has a reason to be in color. The color has to be an intrinsic part of the image, and something that makes the image work. Paulr has it 100% correct, and that's what makes color photography so difficult. Finding the reason to make the image in color.

[Terence Spross]

I agree with Ken Lee - this has to do with cognitive processing. While he didn't directly say that, he described it. Since B&W is a serious distortion of reality (Unless the subject is a snowman that only has coal for the eyes etc.) viewing the print takes the viewer to a different set of attention. It makes the viewer see gradation if the subject has meaning in the gradation. Then I suppose you could say color is a distraction. Remember, two-dimentional prints are a serious distortion of reality, also. We live in a three-dimentional color world. As for me, I like to see in color and I almost never take B&W negs anymore (except Kodalith for an etching process.) (My B&W film stock is seriously out of date, all from last century.) I've thought about conventional B&W a lot more since my daughter had a class in 35mm B&W photography in her high school using Tri-X.

Now that I've reminded myself that 2-dimentions is a distortion and my 35mm stereo shots are viewed with serious peripheral vision limits and grain -- I suppose I'll start a thread inquiring about using LF cameras for color stereo work. :-) / but I'm also taking another look at B&W.

Distortion isn't bad though - it is the artistic alteration that is appreciated by the viewer.