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 (http://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.

[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.

[bruce terry]

Color. You can't get away from it, not even in black and white.

I struggle with 8x10 platinum/palladium ziatypes - black and white, right? But the subliminual elephant in the room is always the "color" of the print, buried in the blacks and greys and whites. Color not there....but clearly there.

The process, in my hands anyway, is unpredictable and unreliable and my failures are many, but every now and then I make the perfect black and white contact print my brain has envisioned - because the "color" is right!

I came into the printing game late in life, and have never done traditional silver, but even in that colorless Valhalla, is there not the same dilema of color?

[Paul Coppin]

"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."

I think this statement is silly, and even just a little pretentious. Great colour photographers make great colour photgraphs, just like great B&W photogs make great tonal photos. We see in colour, so we tend to discount what we're looking at in colour photos because we process the images differently. Tone in B&W is what connects strong graphical or compositional elements. In colour, both tone and hue bind compositional elements, and they can deliver mixed messages to our eyes. So yes, colour CAN be a distraction if it causes a disconnect in how your eye sees the composition.

The vast majority of colour images we see are not printed as "art"- they're simply for informational exchange, tweaked occasionally to redirect the way we respond to images. Its certainly not impossible for a good composition to look good in any number of ways: B&W, colour, or even more exciting - monochrome in something other than B&W :). IMHO thats how you know you've got a good shot - it looks good no matter how you print it (at least to somebody...:)

[Patrik Roseen]

B&W vs Color, Art vs Realism, Sadness vs happiness...
As B&W photography was invented and widely spread...some artists (painters) thought it being so realistic that they abandoned traditional way of painting and created expressionism/impressionism. Today B&W is nolonger treated as pure realism but more as an expression of art.
Color photographs have made their way into our daily newspaper lately and with modern technology we get world wide news coverage in color. There was a discussion about this in Sweden related to the dreadful tsunami 16 months ago, and some saying that a picture in B&W would have shown the tragedy in a really 'black' way wheras the pictures we received were sunny and bright with the sea turning blue again...we struggled with conflicting emotions as we looked at the sea and read the news.
I have eagerly looked at many pictures lately, enjoying the photosites where people publish their pics for comments/critique. It seems that 'normal (realistic)' colors are not enough to draw attention and positive comments, the colors should be different from what we usually expect to see in the pictured scenery...the extreme being IR-pics which are extremely popular, almost regardless of the subject pictured. Some colors are more popular than others - blue, yellow and red. Many color pictures only include a few distinct colors, e.g a building in shadow, a black sky and golden sunlight.
Just to see what happened if I added color to a B&W photograph I played around in PS and ended up with this:
closed down industry (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4032476&size=lg)

It's still not a color picture, but some would say it's more lively than the B&W original.
The B&W version received the comment: "the light gives that sense of disuse"...so I guess we should treat color/B&W in relation to what we want the picture to say.

[tim atherton]

I wqrote this on a fairly similar thread elswhere recently:

the difference between lets call it the Dykinga approach to colour and the Eggleston approach is an absolutely fundamental one.

Although it is not quite as simple as this, the first essentially sees colour as a cosmetic element of the overall graphic composition of the photograph - it adorns and embellishes (you can see this on many what have been called "calendar" type shots - take away the colour and they work reasonably well in B&W) - that is the photographer basically ensures they "colour inside the lines" - the colour is contained and dominated by line. Such scenes are also often relatively easily described in words

In the second approach, colour is itself the essence of the form, it is the substance of the photograph, not just the surface. The essence of an Eggleston or a Shore photograph isn't so easily reduced to description - in contrast with the first approach, the colour takes over where the words run out. It goes far beyond simply being coloured chiaroscuro

You could sum it up by saying the former use colours whereas the latter uses colour