Is color a distraction?

[Bruce Watson]

A while back I found an interesting scene that had both strong graphical elements and nice color elements. It's an almost idyllic landscape. I made a photograph using 5x4 150PortraVC. As an afterthought, I exposed a sheet of Tri-X as well (with a medium yellow filter).

I processed both sheets, and printed the color one. I was happy with it; I was able to make a print that was pretty much what I had in mind when I made the photograph. That's a good thing, yes?

Months later (as in yesterday) I pulled up the Tri-X version and made a print. I was happy with this print also as it did a good job of showing the graphical elements that drew me to the scene in the first place. That's also a good thing, yes?

Then I did a bad thing. I placed the two prints side-by-side and compared. I was shocked to find that I liked the B&W version better. When I showed the two prints to my wife, she liked the color version better. She says that the color makes it look "more alive." The best I've come to articulating my preference is that I find the color distracting - that I can see more of the structure in the B&W print.

Is there a point to this story? Actually, no. There isn't. But I'd like to hear what the group has to say on the aesthetics of color vs. B&W: Can color be distracting?

[Randall Ellis]

It can be, but it depends on the subject and the feel you are trying to capture with the image. Some subjects have more impact in color and others more in black and white, at least to my eye.

- Randy

[Bruce Watson]

Randall,

Why do you think that is?

[Terence McDonagh]

After ten years of using B&W almost exclusively I have a hard time "seeing" color photographically. They're two different art forms in my mind. One's not better than the other, but I'm drawn to the B&W.

[Herb Cunningham]

just like all these threads, the answer is: It Depends!

I think b/w is a better medium to evoke a reflective feeling, whereas color is more of a gotcha.

IMHO

[Eric_6227]

To me, color is about the experinece. Black and white is about memory.

[paulr]

color is a distraction whenever it isn't serving the image. you could say this about any other element of a photograph, too. what makes color hard is that it's a whole additional element, but the medium of photography (in its most traditional interpretations, which don't include compositing or hand painting) offers few controls over it. this is why there have been so few photographers in the history of the medium who have been able to use color brilliantly. or even to achieve standards that would be considered competent in other color media, like painting.

a lot of photographers make color pictures that are pretty, or bold, or at least non-offensive. very few use it in a way that's innovative or powerful, that creates color relationships to strengthen or even create the meaning in an image, the way painters do, or the way great black and white photographers use tone.

a critic in the 70s pointed out that the color in most photographs suffers from one of two flaws: irrelevence, or obviousness. both are forms of distraction.

this isn't a dig against color photography ... just an acknowledgement of the challenges anyone faces if they want to do great color work.

[Eric Leppanen]

I recently had a similar epiphany with regard to B&W versus color in a photograph.

I have photographed the Mule Canyon "flaming ruin" (see www.photographamerica.com/art4mule.htm) in southeast Utah many times, and had always regarded that subject as best suited for B&W (I had also seen color versions of it which never impressed me much). Late last year I lugged the 8x10 out there and photographed it with my usual TMX and, as an experimental afterthought, one sheet of pushed Provia 100F. After I got my film back from the lab, I realized that I erred in the TMX composition in that I did not get close enough to the subject: I had included too much of the surrounding non-descript cliff-face, which possessed neither the lines, texture or interest of the flames, nor provided enough tonal contrast to frame (or provide contrast with) the flame area. I was stunned however, with how the Provia shot turned out. 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. For the color shot the composition I had selected was absolutely ideal.

So in general when should one use color versus B&W? I think it comes down to spending a few additional moments before exposure thinking through what exactly makes the composition work. I have found that this is a complex question that doesn't always conform to the "for shapes and texture use B&W" mantra. And because I can never entirely predict how saturated color film will react to a new composition, when in doubt I try to shoot it in both color and B&W, just to capture any serendipitous surprises!

[fred arnold]

I'm not sure this qualifies as an answer; more probably an anecdote.

I have hanging in my office a picture I made in color several years back on the Maine coast. It's of particularly neutral-grey rocks (probably limestone), leading into a tide-pool filled with neon-green algae. There are really only about three colors in the picture, two of them being members of the grey family, but it's the screaming algae that emphasizes the pure neutrality of the rock greys. In mono, the textures of the rocks are right, but the bottom-third of the image, which was green algae, doesn't carry its weight anymore. It's just kind of bright grey, without the interactions between various shades of green, yellow-green, and brown-green.

On the other hand, I've shot pictures in color (because it's what I've had with me at the time) that I've known ahead of time that I intended to convert to monochrome, but toned. The compositional elements are correct in mono, but the mood is wrong if there isn't a shift away from neutral grey. Once upon a time, these would have been the B&W subjects that were reserved for being printed on Ektalure or Portriga.

So, I would say I come down on the side of color being an integral part of the composition, even when the color in question is pure grey.

[John Kasaian]

I don't think color is a distraction unless the color is so awful it is a distraction. I do find color photos tiring to look at. A beautiful color picture can take my breath away maybe twenty or a hundred times before I get color complacient---the yellows don't seem to "pop" and the reds cease to "snap" and the greens and blues start to get muddy. It is kind of the same sensation as looking at ferrarris in a dealer's show room or a being in a night club with exotic dancers---once familiarity sets in, I find there is a "cooling off" when it comes to passion, appreciation and imagination. B&W I find is more straightforeward in that while it may take a while to really "look" at a B&W photo, I'll rarely tire of it if it was interesting in the first place, and often I find I'll see things I had missed in earlier viewings. Its kind of a paradox: "boring" B&W becomes more alive while "lifelike" color suffers a slow agonizing demise(FWIW, as I'm typing this I'm looking at a 8x10 winter sunset print framed on my office wall, from a Kodachrome 64 transparency which I shot on Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef in the 1980's ---it in no way resembles how beautiful it really was, or how I felt at the time!) Maybe I'm just wierd.