Why do you shoot Black and White over Color?

[adam satushek]

Ok, I've been wondering this for a long time, and I'm trying to find a way of saying this without seeming condescending or judgmental. But I really am curious. For me it has never really been a consideration, once I discovered large format color negative film and decided to stop trying to be an Adams or Weston, I knew color would be my preferred medium. Almost all of the photographers I look up to shoot color, the only real exception being Hiroshi Sugimoto. Now, I am not saying that I have anything against black and white, but that for the type of work I do I have no desire to shoot it. And this in turn leads to my preference for viewing color photographs too.

So, in an attempt at understanding, why do you choose to shoot black and white over color? Is it for aesthetic reasons such as adding a layer of abstraction? Is it process oriented, ie. you like developing and printing in a traditional darkroom? Or because black and white materials are cheaper? Do you think of things in black and white, focusing more on shape, tone, and texture than color? Is it based on the subject matter you tend to shoot?

Also, if you shoot both black and white and color, how do you decide which to use for a particular subject? If you are putting together a body of work (say for an exhibition) how do you mix the two? Or do you? Do you feel ok putting a black and white print next to a color print? Or do you think of them as separate things that cannot be mixed in a series or show?

Sorry for the long winded question, but as a devout color shooter I am just trying to understand......

[bob carnie]

I believe Black and White silver print materials have better archival properties.

though I am now working with colour neg for tri colour carbons so the argument would then be silly as carbon pigments are very good.

[Bruce Watson]

I shoot both, about half and half. As to which I use for a given photograph, it depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. If I'm trying to show the underlying textures and visual rhythms of a scene, then color can camouflage exactly what I'm trying to expose. On the other hand, if the subject is about color or the relationships between colors, then color is the only way to go.

So... is your photograph about the shape of the clouds, or the color of the sky?

[Greg Lockrey]

B&W is art. Color is illustration.

[Jay DeFehr]

The short answer is, I shoot B&W because I prefer B&W. Why do you shoot color? It's not a simple question to answer, and Im not convinced we always know the answers to these kinds of questions. I could regurgitate arguments I've read that seem cogent, or cite precedents that validate the choice, in my mind, or share anecdotes about my formative years, but none would necessarily represent an accurate basis for my preference. Maybe the choice is a simple one for others, but it's not for me. Probably not the response you were hoping for.

[jeffwieser@gmail.com]

For a long time I've always shot a mixture of B&W and color. It is always a little tricky trying to figure out how to display my images. I shoot similar whether I'm using color or B&W and obviously get very different results with each. I really like that I can make fiber prints in my darkroom, but at the same time, I'd rather be out taking photographs than in the dark dealing with chemistry.

Color has an additional creative layer. I find it more challenging than B&W. When I'm looking at other mediums (painting, sculpture, drawings, etc) I'm always more drawn to and impressed by the color work. Interesting color is just as important as composition in my opinion.

[Vaughn]

People see color differently -- color blindness, or just differently. B&W thus tends to be a bit more universal, but there are plenty of exceptions.

I find that a great majority of people using color material do not actually use color effectively in their composition -- just like the majority of B&W photographers fail to use light (light intensity?) effectively in composition.

Fortunately, most of the folks here seem to either of both much better than the average.

Vaughn

[Peter Gomena]

I've known several photographers who have a really good eye for color. I don't. We envy each other.
Give me line, structure, contrast in black-and-white. I do shoot color. I like it almost monochromatic, like b&w. Can't help it.

Peter Gomena

[Leigh]

...why do you choose to shoot black and white over color?
We often got that question from students at school. Our standard answer was...

Black and white is a fantasy.
When someone sees a b&w photo, they know they've been transported into another place and time.

It's a unique art form, interpreting reality in a way that's not possible with more 'realistic' techniques.

- Leigh

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I was a kid, all my crayons were black and white. My sister took all the coloured ones. All my work in my formal training years (drawings, etchings, lithographs) was black/white. I guess I just feel more comfortable in a world of gray tones.

[Duane Polcou]

To photograph color well, I think one must be acutely aware of color. By that I mean you must not just notice colorful things, but analyze the relationships of colors to each other within a composition, and understand how the color temperature, quality, and direction of light either accentuates or mutes these colors. The color of objects is an actual part of the finished package.

To photograph black and white well, I think one must be acutely aware of tonality and tonal relationships. This requires an understanding of how colors will translate to a grayscale, and relies more on the interpretation of things such as form, shape, motion, and texture to create an emotional impact, as color is no longer part of the equation.

One's choice between color or black and white is largely dependent upon what you wish notice when out photographing, or what photographers often refer to as how you wish to "see". I think if colors are of primary impact and enjoyment then one should work in color. If the beauty of tonal relationships is more important, then black and white.

[Heroique]

If you shoot both b/w and color, how do you decide which to use for a particular subject?

I enjoy shooting the landscape’s preference, which is usually wiser than my own.

[Michael E]

If you have to ask, you will never understand :-)

I just like black and white photos, I can relate to them. I know how I get from reality to a black and white image and when I see somebody else's photos, I run through the process backwards. I love to see in black and white. I walk down a street and see black and white images.

Color photos rarely have the magic of a good black and white photo. Or I just have a hard time seeing it. I also have a hard time translating reality to a color photograph of my own. For this matter I am thankful for digital photography, it gives me so much more control over the image. I never came to terms with color film.

Michael

[John Kasaian]

Color dosen't really exist. Oh, Kodak brought out color film some time the 20th century but until then, everything was in black and white. Color is just a passing fancy, I'm afraid. Sometime in the 1930s all the great paintings were colored in by WPA artists for continuity. Dogs, who neither make photographs or paint paintings still see only in B&W (with sepia toner, we're told) Proof that color doesn't exist! Should Kodak and Fuji discontinue color film, it is likely that color will dissappear much like last weeks pay, next months rent, Studebakers and real rock and roll.

[John Flavell]

I thought about the question for about 25 years. I grew up with black and white and trained in black and white, but that was never enough of an answer.

Color always got in the way of the texture. Think about the great faces from the Depression-era photos, then find the color photos made by those photographers and the color photos take your line of sight away from the subject. Walker Evans would be a good one to look at. Simple opinion: Pete Turner is the only photographer I know of who could shoot both the texture and the color successfully in one frame, but that was during the heyday of Kodachrome.

Having said all that, I have to shoot color everyday as a photojournalist and most of the time I see the image in black and white. It's a weird thing to explain at times, but black and white as a documentary and art tool tend to tell stories better than shooting in color simply because color exist.

Good luck with that ramble.

[tgtaylor]

I don't "shoot B&W over color" nor, conversely, do I shoot color over B&W. Some images, I find, will simply work better in one than the other and there are those that will work in both. So I always carry both B&W and color with me.

Thomas

[chris kleihege]

Because I can.

[Brian C. Miller]

"Kodak makes 8x10 Portra special order"
"Kodak discontinues E-6"
Of course, Kodak has made all 8x10 film special order.

Do you know what it feels like buying the last 8x10 color film on the shelf? Knowing that you'll never see it there again? And there it sits in my fridge, waiting for the green leaves of spring. Waiting for a clear, sunny afternoon in Seattle, where I will photograph the Space Needle with Mt. Ranier in the background. Waiting for the sun to shine on Seattle in the evening.

Waiting.

70 sheets of Kodak. 70. And after that, no more Kodak color on the shelves. (No more Kodak black and white on the shelves. No 8x10 on the shelves again. Ever. "Goodbye, Old Paint. I'm-a leavin' Cheyenne.")

If I could, I'd have a ceremony of it. Pipes, drums, a seargant barking orders ("Puulllll slide! Cock shutter! reh-LEASE!"). A pageantry befitting such a format.

But I don't live in Scotland or Ireland. I live in the US West. I know of sagebrush and the foundations of ghost towns. Moose City, Idaho, thriving metropolis of zero. Places like that. Some still have some color, and some do not. It isn't their fault, but that's just the way it is. Wagon ruts, over 100 years old. People came, passed through, and only a memory of a memory remains.

Color is for the roses that still grow at an abandoned farmstead. How long ago did someone live there? Was it the 1930s when they left? How about the two-story house, aged to red, amidst dry wheat under a cobalt blue sky? Color is there, very much so.

Other places are black and white. Two trees, like a gate, leading to a mountain beyond. Black and white. Step through to another dimension.

Some things lend themselves to color, and some things don't. It all depends. But color is going. Disappearing. For how much longer will any E-6 be available? Depends on Fuji, and who knows what they will do.

So for as long as I can, I will use the color film, and then bid it adieu.

[sully75]

It's cheaper and easier.

[Leonard Metcalf]

I really don't know... but here are some thoughts:

When you manipulate the photograph and in particular the tones people don't seem to ask "Is it photoshopped or you must have manipulated that.."
It is more fun...
I shoot in colour these days regardless and then process the scan into colour
Some photos just scream colour, but I don't seem to want to take them any more
BW is easier to print as a photogravure
I love sepia & toning
I love being able to steer the viewer around the photograph via tones and lines...
I love it
It just feels right
I do sometimes do colour too

[Scott Walker]

I see in color. For me, color photography would be like working 15 hour days then coming home to talk to my wife about work for a few hours before bed.

[John Rodriguez]

I shoot both. Which I choose depends on not only whether or not I'm emphasizing color relationships versus tone, but also the mood I'm trying to convey. When I look at two photographs of the same scene, one in black and white and one in color but otherwise the same, the black and white image automatically puts me into a detached mood in comparison. It's like my brain is telling me "ah, this isn't reality, I need to look at this differently". Conversely I find that the same image in color often provides greater emotional impact. From a workflow perspective, I usually make a black and white version of my color images that gets applied as a contrast layer.

The solo exhibition that is my house has b+w and color separated. A wall will either be b+w or color, but not both.

[John Flavell]

Even when I shoot color, I try to find a way to make it black and white. IN the early days of digital cameras for news work, we were taught how to take an image from the old AP NC2000e and convert it to black and white by eliminating the noisiest channel. I still do that today with the modern cameras. The old school types, which means old photographers, had to think in terms of black and white because we worked in it. Now, we just deal with the decision as best we can: johnflavell.com (no 'www')

[jnantz]

because it is less expensive and easier to process
and if i have to .. i can add color later ..

[Struan Gray]

I shoot almost exclusively colour. Even when I did shoot black and white, it was consciously training for colour.

But. Almost all my favourite photographers work in B+W.

I think it's something to do with a strong sense of form, and particularly a feeling for the drawn line. Most colour photographers let the colour take over, or compose with patches or with blocks of texture. The sense of gesture and interpretation I get from my favourite colour painters (Kandinsky and Klee, for starters) is missing. B+W makes these things easier because you can create relationships or counterpoint between tones that do not match or contrast with each other in anything like the same way when seen in colour.

Sometimes though, the sort of deadpan colour work that people here mostly like to deride, does succeed in raising itself to a Siskind or Brett Weston level of composition. Usually though, the formality is less obvious, or less sublime, so a degree of receptiveness and openness is required of the viewer.

[adam satushek]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses thus far! It's very insightful.

A few comments/responses:

Bob Carnie: "I believe Black and White silver print materials have better archival properties." Absolutely, this is a very good point, plus there is something beautifully tactile in expertly crafted B&W fiber print that is lacking in every color (even traditional darkroom) print I have ever made.

Bruce Watson: "so... is your photograph about the shape of the clouds, or the color of the sky?" Interesting question and I understand where it is coming from. However, personally for my work I don't think of it this way. The subject of my photographs are not colors. I want to represent reality and not get distracted by the materiality of the process. So I guess I shoot color because its there, its how I see, and it seems natural to me. To negate color (use B&W) seems like a conscious departure from reality to me. Which is not what I am attempting with my work.


Greg Lockrey: "B&W is art. Color is illustration." This seems very generalized and inflammatory. Care to explain in greater length what you intend by this statement?

Vaughn: "People see color differently -- color blindness, or just differently. B&W thus tends to be a bit more universal,..." This is a very interesting point. Visual communication (in this case photography) can generally be thought of as a more universal form of communication than verbal or written language. There are of course exceptions, as cultures do interpret visual queues differently, but I can see how it may be possible that B&W could be a bit more universal....interesting.....

"I find that a great majority of people using color material do not actually use color effectively in their composition -- just like the majority of B&W photographers fail to use light (light intensity?) effectively in composition." Agreed, there are a lot of ineffective photographs out there, both color and B&W.

Leigh: "Black and white is a fantasy. When someone sees a b&w photo, they know they've been transported into another place and time." Interesting point. And it seems true to me, especially your comment about time. Personally, I can't help but see the decision to shoot B&W as a form of nostalgia. It always reminds me of the past, but that's not to say that nostalgia cannot be a very powerful and effective tool.

Duane Polcou: "One's choice between color or black and white is largely dependent upon what you wish notice when out photographing, or what photographers often refer to as how you wish to "see". I think if colors are of primary impact and enjoyment then one should work in color. If the beauty of tonal relationships is more important, then black and white." Well put! This seems pretty spot on to me.

Michael E: "If you have to ask, you will never understand :-)" Ha! this is probably very true, I have resigned myself to not understanding a lot of things.

John Kasaian: "Should Kodak and Fuji discontinue color film, it is likely that color will dissappear much like last weeks pay, next months rent, Studebakers and real rock and roll." Ha! This is what I am worried about.....less the Studebakers, and more the discontinuation of color film.....

ohn Flacell: "It's a weird thing to explain at times, but black and white as a documentary and art tool tend to tell stories better than shooting in color simply because color exist." So black and white tells a story better because its separate from reality? The black and white photograph becomes something apart from the thing itself? I can see this point of view but have to respectfully disagree. Personally, I find the lack of color in a photograph distracting from the story. Where as a color photograph is what I am used to seeing and that makes it easier for me to focus on the subject matter rather than the materials and process. But, I suppose it has a lot to do with the particular story you are trying to tell...

Brian C Miller: "Kodak makes 8x10 Portra special order." "Kodak discontinues E-6." "Of course, Kodak has made all 8x10 film special order." I don't think this has happened yet has it? I believe 8x10 Portra is still readily available......but I guess I could have missed something...

"So for as long as I can, I will use the color film, and then bid it adieu." And then what? ....this is my concern too, will I start shooting B&W? I don't know, I sort of doubt it. But I have a lot invested in my LF system and scanner....so who knows. Either way it will be a long time before a digital back capable of what I want will be readily available to me.

Scott Walker: "I see in color. For me, color photography would be like working 15 hour days then coming home to talk to my wife about work for a few hours before bed." Nice analogy, so again B&W represents a departure from reality. And that is the incentive for shooting it.

John Rodriguez: "When I look at two photographs of the same scene, one in black and white and one in color but otherwise the same, the black and white image automatically puts me into a detached mood in comparison. It's like my brain is telling me "ah, this isn't reality, I need to look at this differently". Once again a departure from reality. For my work I try to avoid detachment from reality, so I guess it makes sense that I shoot color. I don't believe it can be argued that any photograph is not a departure from reality, but a B&W seems like a greater departure than color. I guess color is just enough removed to suit my needs, while depending others may desire more.


Thanks again for all your thoughtful responses! Keep them coming!

[Brian Ellis]

Color tells us what things look like. B&W tells us what they felt like (I have no idea if that's true but it sounds good to me).

These days I photograph in color most of the time because I use a digital camera a lot and I find that I can't see in b&w when I have color capability in the camera. And I enjoy color and appreciate a good color photograph. But to me there's nothing in photography as beautiful as a really well-made b&w print.

[Greg Lockrey]

''Greg Lockrey: "B&W is art. Color is illustration." This seems very generalized and inflammatory. Care to explain in greater length what you intend by this statement?''

Art is about inflaming.... Illustration is about recording....

What Brian said....

[rdenney]

Black and white is a fantasy....

It's a unique art form, interpreting reality in a way that's not possible with more 'realistic' techniques.

You nailed it, Leigh. B&W is uniquely photographic, and distinguishes itself from, say, painting just by being monochrome. Even when people paint in shades of gray, it looks photographic (if they do it well enough). It gives the photographic medium a raison d'être.

With color, which is most of what I have done for the last couple of decades, the question always has to be asked, "what makes this image photographic, and would painting have been a better medium?" It's not an easy question for me to answer, though better artists are able to.

Rick "a mediocre artist easing back to black and white to avoid having to answer that question" Denney

[John Rodriguez]

It amazes me how insecure photographers are about their art work. "Is black and white more artistic then color?" "Am I more of an artist because I develop myself?". Maybe it's feelings of insecurity because you're not painting?

Most of my artistic background comes from music. I played guitar in metal bands when I was younger, then DJ'd professionally during the rave scene hay days in San Francisco. In the music world you hear the same sort of insecure comments from veteran DJs now - "I'm more of an artist because I use vinyl instead of computers". My response is A) you're still not playing an instrument b) it doesn't effing matter - do you enjoy what you do? Do others? GREAT!. I hear the same thing from guys that play in punk bands - they look down on electronic musicians because they "don't play real instruments". Dude, you're whole musical movement was based on getting completely AWAY from the virtuosity of hard rock, and you can't play a decent solo to save your life. However, it doesn't effing matter. Just enjoy your art, and let others enjoy theirs. Your art is no better.

By contrast, my friends that are comfortable with their musical abilities tend to be much more open minded about other forms of music creation. A guy that plays metal has no problem jamming with a jazz musician, or an electronic one. They just want to play anything they can get their hands on.

[Greg Lockrey]

It amazes me how insecure photographers are about their art work. "Is black and white more artistic then color?" "Am I more of an artist because I develop myself?". Maybe it's feelings of insecurity because you're not painting?

Most of my artistic background comes from music. I played guitar in metal bands when I was younger, then DJ'd professionally during the rave scene hay days in San Francisco. In the music world you hear the same sort of insecure comments from veteran DJs now - "I'm more of an artist because I use vinyl instead of computers". My response is A) you're still not playing an instrument b) it doesn't effing matter - do you enjoy what you do? Do others? GREAT!. I hear the same thing from guys that play in punk bands - they look down on electronic musicians because they "don't play real instruments". Dude, you're whole musical movement was based on getting completely AWAY from the virtuosity of hard rock, and you can't play a decent solo to save your life. However, it doesn't effing matter. Just enjoy your art, and let others enjoy theirs. Your art is no better.

By contrast, my friends that are comfortable with their musical abilities tend to be much more open minded about other forms of music creation. A guy that plays metal has no problem jamming with a jazz musician, or an electronic one. They just want to play anything they can get their hands on.

I never met an ''artist'' who had to describe his art in terms of what pencil he draws with or the brand of paint or brushes. Photographers on the other hand are "craft" oriented and the detail is in the materials.

[William McEwen]

For me, the world of photography is a black and white one.

But I still love color.

I always liked Irving Penn's pix taken of native tribes in Africa. Printed and reproduced everywhere in black and white.

Then I ran across a Vogue magazine, 1970ish, and saw them as they were first published -- in color. And wow, those photos sang in a beautiful new way.

I devote a chapter to the subject of black and white v. color in my book.

Question: How many of you have had someone look at one of your black and white photographs and remarked, "Too bad it's not in color!"

[Greg Lockrey]

Question: How many of you have had someone look at one of your black and white photographs and remarked, "Too bad it's not in color!"

That's because they are idiots!

[William McEwen]

That's because they are idiots!

Are you calling my twin sister an idiot? :D

[Greg Lockrey]

Are you calling my twin sister an idiot? :D

only if I can take her in a fight.... :) :)

[William McEwen]

In 1987 or so I photographed a woman named Vicki. I used a Rolleiflex (sorry!) and shot on Tri-X.

A few days later I gave her a contact sheet and said let me know if you want any prints.

She told me she'd talk to her mom, and she'd want the prints to be in color.

I gave her the bad news that there's no way to get color prints from black and white negs.

A few days later Vicki told me, negs 3, 5, 7, (or whatever) and that she wanted them in color.

I said, "Vicki, there's no way to get color prints from black and white negs."

She said, "I KNOW you said that, but my mom said you was wrong."

(Forgive me if I've already told you that story, and for you hand-coloring folks, forgive me for my stance.)

[William McEwen]

only if I can take her in a fight.... :) :)

She's a lovely woman and you'd change your mind if you met her. :)

[Greg Lockrey]

She's a lovely woman and you'd change your mind if you met her. :)

I'm looking.... ;) ;)

[adam satushek]

Greg Lockrey: "Art is about inflaming.... Illustration is about recording....

What Brian said...."

Brian Ellis: "Color tells us what things look like. B&W tells us what they felt like (I have no idea if that's true but it sounds good to me)"

Thanks Greg for the reply. From my experience this is a fairly widespread belief. However, I still take some issue with it. No photograph is actually what something 'looks like.' While color may be closer to what we expect from "reality" I believe it is just a better disguised departure from reality. However, I will not argue that B&W is 'more' of a departure from reality than color.

[adam satushek]

Greg Lockrey: "I never met an ''artist'' who had to describe his art in terms of what pencil he draws with or the brand of paint or brushes. Photographers on the other hand are "craft" oriented and the detail is in the materials."

I totally agree that this is the case, and see it as a problem. When displaying my photographs I have no interest in describing my process, materials, or technique. However, that is what a lot of viewers want to know....especially those with DSLR's around their neck. It should be all about the works subject matter....but in photography there are often other distractions.

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg Lockrey: "Art is about inflaming.... Illustration is about recording....

What Brian said...."

Brian Ellis: "Color tells us what things look like. B&W tells us what they felt like (I have no idea if that's true but it sounds good to me)"

Thanks Greg for the reply. From my experience this is a fairly widespread belief. However, I still take some issue with it. No photograph is actually what something 'looks like.' While color may be closer to what we expect from "reality" I believe it is just a better disguised departure from reality. However, I will not argue that B&W is 'more' of a departure from reality than color.

Ok.... if it's pinhole and in color I'll call it "art".... :)

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg Lockrey: "I never met an ''artist'' who had to describe his art in terms of what pencil he draws with or the brand of paint or brushes. Photographers on the other hand are "craft" oriented and the detail is in the materials."

I totally agree that this is the case, and see it as a problem. When displaying my photographs I have no interest in describing my process, materials, or technique. However, that is what a lot of viewers want to know....especially those with DSLR's around their neck. It should be all about the works subject matter....but in photography there are often other distractions.

it didn't start with dSLR's Guys with Leicas have been comparing images to 4x5's from the start. Photography is more about the "craft" than about "art". Photographers want to think of themselves as artists and try to overlook the craft to call it art when in reality it is just the opposite. Just as learning to draw is a craft too. Art is something else entirely.

[adam satushek]

William McEwen: "Question: How many of you have had someone look at one of your black and white photographs and remarked, "Too bad it's not in color!"

Interesting question....as I counter point I have never had anyone look at my color photographs and say they with they were B&W. However, I have had a grant proposal rejected on the basis that my work was not 'art,' but was merely documentation and exercise in composition. (note: I should have known that a organization with the word 'craft' in their name would prefer the photographer that shot collodian wet plate images of their grandmother in a white dress in an abandoned house to my large color inkjet prints.....). Each is entitled to their opinion....and I am very entrenched in my own.

[Greg Lockrey]

William McEwen: "Question: How many of you have had someone look at one of your black and white photographs and remarked, "Too bad it's not in color!"

Interesting question....as I counter point I have never had anyone look at my color photographs and say they with they were B&W. However, I have had a grant proposal rejected on the basis that my work was not 'art,' but was merely documentation and exercise in composition. (note: I should have known that a organization with the word 'craft' in their name would prefer the photographer that shot collodian wet plate images of their grandmother in a white dress in an abandoned house to my large color inkjet prints.....). Each is entitled to their opinion....and I am very entrenched in my own.

That's because most people understand "illustration" and confuse it with "art". Each requires a certain level of "craft". Both have their place.

[adam satushek]

Greg Lockrey: "Photography is more about the "craft" than about "art". Photographers want to think of themselves as artists and try to overlook the craft to call it art when in reality it is just the opposite. Just as learning to draw is a craft too. Art is something else entirely."

Again a very generalized statement. I see what your getting at but totally disagree. Photography can be art, but is not necessarily. Its all about intent. This kind of comes back to, I believe it was Weston, who demanded to be called a "photographer" instead of an "artist," somehow implying that they former is more valid. Personally I think that whole discussion is irrelevant, some photographers do it for the craft (craftsmen), and others do it to say something (artists). This distinction has nothing to do with chosen materials. And while I place myself firmly in the latter, I will not waste my time trying to convince anyone else of this. Its a pointless pursuit.

[William McEwen]

"Art is concerned about space. Illustration is concerned about things." - Martha, Michael A. Smith's first wife.

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg Lockrey: "Photography is more about the "craft" than about "art". Photographers want to think of themselves as artists and try to overlook the craft to call it art when in reality it is just the opposite. Just as learning to draw is a craft too. Art is something else entirely."

Again a very generalized statement. I see what your getting at but totally disagree. Photography can be art, but is not necessarily. Its all about intent. This kind of comes back to, I believe it was Weston, who demanded to be called a "photographer" instead of an "artist," somehow implying that they former is more valid. Personally I think that whole discussion is irrelevant, some photographers do it for the craft (craftsmen), and others do it to say something (artists). This distinction has nothing to do with chosen materials. And while I place myself firmly in the latter, I will not waste my time trying to convince anyone else of this. Its a pointless pursuit.

Ok... how about this: a "photographer" is a mechanically inclined "artist" .... ;) ;)

[Greg Lockrey]

"Art is concerned about space. Illustration is concerned about things." - Martha, Michael A. Smith's first wife.

I ditto that....

[adam satushek]

Greg Lockrey: "Ok... how about this: a "photographer" is a mechanically inclined "artist" .... " Totally, I agree that they should be....I have seen work that suffers greatly from a lack of mechanical inclination. There is not doubt in my mind that to be a successful photographer one must be somewhat mechanically inclined, its probably part of the reason many of us gravitate toward photography in the first place.

[adam satushek]

William McEwen: "Art is concerned about space. Illustration is concerned about things." - Martha, Michael A. Smith's first wife.

Interesting quote...I'm curious if you might elaborate what you understand it as meaning. I ask because I am having a bit of a hard time deciphering it. I guess I don't understand the distinction between 'space' and 'things.' The way I see it 'things' are just solidified 'space'....and 'space' is just that which is void of 'things.' This may be another discussion........

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg Lockrey: "Ok... how about this: a "photographer" is a mechanically inclined "artist" .... " Totally, I agree that they should be....I have seen work that suffers greatly from a lack of mechanical inclination. There is not doubt in my mind that to be a successful photographer one must be somewhat mechanically inclined, its probably part of the reason many of us gravitate toward photography in the first place.


and the fact that most photographers can't draw....:rolleyes:

[adam satushek]

Greg Lockrey: "and the fact that most photographers can't draw...."

Ha! totally

[William McEwen]

William McEwen: "Art is concerned about space. Illustration is concerned about things." - Martha, Michael A. Smith's first wife.

Interesting quote...I'm curious if you might elaborate what you understand it as meaning. I ask because I am having a bit of a hard time deciphering it. I guess I don't understand the distinction between 'space' and 'things.' The way I see it 'things' are just solidified 'space'....and 'space' is just that which is void of 'things.' This may be another discussion........

I hesitate. I doubt I can word it any better than she did...

[adam satushek]

I hesitate. I doubt I can word it any better than she did...

Fair enough.

I suppose I just don't believe that art cannot be concerned with things (objects) and illustration cannot be concerned with space. Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me, and thus a quote that doesn't really tell me anything. I may be missing something....

[Vaughn]

William McEwen: "Art is concerned about space. Illustration is concerned about things." - Martha, Michael A. Smith's first wife.

Interesting quote...I'm curious if you might elaborate what you understand it as meaning. I ask because I am having a bit of a hard time deciphering it. I guess I don't understand the distinction between 'space' and 'things.' The way I see it 'things' are just solidified 'space'....and 'space' is just that which is void of 'things.' This may be another discussion........

I guess it is along the same lines as saying that I photograph light. Some might argue that all photographers do, I would say that most do not -- they photograph things. A subtle but important difference. And the difference is not of the material world, but the mental world of the artist.

[K. Praslowicz]

It amazes me how insecure photographers are about their art work. "Is black and white more artistic then color?" "Am I more of an artist because I develop myself?". Maybe it's feelings of insecurity because you're not painting?

Most of my artistic background comes from music. I played guitar in metal bands when I was younger, then DJ'd professionally during the rave scene hay days in San Francisco. In the music world you hear the same sort of insecure comments from veteran DJs now - "I'm more of an artist because I use vinyl instead of computers". My response is A) you're still not playing an instrument b) it doesn't effing matter - do you enjoy what you do? Do others? GREAT!. I hear the same thing from guys that play in punk bands - they look down on electronic musicians because they "don't play real instruments". Dude, you're whole musical movement was based on getting completely AWAY from the virtuosity of hard rock, and you can't play a decent solo to save your life. However, it doesn't effing matter. Just enjoy your art, and let others enjoy theirs. Your art is no better.

By contrast, my friends that are comfortable with their musical abilities tend to be much more open minded about other forms of music creation. A guy that plays metal has no problem jamming with a jazz musician, or an electronic one. They just want to play anything they can get their hands on.

This whole reply makes me several kinds of happy.

[adam satushek]

This whole reply makes me several kinds of happy.

Agreed...and makes me want to listen to metal...

[Brian C. Miller]

"Art is concerned about space. Illustration is concerned about things." - Martha, Michael A. Smith's first wife.

Let me put it this way:
"Hey, Mike! Michelangelo! Yeah, you, Simoni! That David is just an illustration! Nyah nyah nyah nyah!"
Are astronauts and cosmonauts the only true artists? Is NASA the only truly artistic agency? Is astrophotography the only truly artistic photography?

At one time "art" was only applied to that which had to be performed. The art of music, the art of discourse, and so on. An inanimate object was not art, but an object produced by an artisan. (That's how I look at it. The print is not art, it is a print produced by a person performing the art of printing.)

Who was the artist? Salvador Dali, Michael Escher, or Vincent van Gogh? By the definition above, van Gogh wasn't producing art. How about Pablo Picaso? Was he an illustrator or an artist? Was Auguste Rodin an artist? Can any sculptor be an artist?

Since the Dada movement has basically overwhelmed everything, why bother making the distinction between art and illustration?

[adam satushek]

Brian C. Miller: "why bother making the distinction between art and illustration?"

I couldn't agree more!

[bigdog]

It amazes me how insecure photographers are about their art work.

Me, too.

As well as threads like this ...

[adam satushek]

bigdog: "Me, too. As well as threads like this ..."

I fully agree that many photographers are insecure about their work and its a shame. I'm not sure what you intended by your second comment, but I assure you that my reason for starting this thread is not insecurity. I am just trying to understand why so many people (especially on this forum) seem to prefer B&W while I am the complete opposite.

I have said for years that your favorite photographer should be yourself, and I can honestly say that I am my own favorite photographer. I prefer my work to that of anyone else. If that is not the case, than you are doing something wrong and should look at why you do the work that you do. However, that is not to say that you cannot have influences and others that admire.

[Jay DeFehr]

bigdog: "Me, too. As well as threads like this ..."

I fully agree that many photographers are insecure about their work and its a shame. I'm not sure what you intended by your second comment, but I assure you that my reason for starting this thread is not insecurity. I am just trying to understand why so many people (especially on this forum) seem to prefer B&W while I am the complete opposite.

I have said for years that your favorite photographer should be yourself, and I can honestly say that I am my own favorite photographer. I prefer my work to that of anyone else. If that is not the case, than you are doing something wrong and should look at why you do the work that you do. However, that is not to say that you cannot have influences and others that admire.

And yet, you've not bothered to share your reasons for choosing color over B&W. You must have very definite and easily articulated reasons, or you wouldn't expect the same of those who choose B&W. I think your thread is a (very) thinly veiled declaration of superiority, not only of color over B&W, but of your photography over everyone else's. Smug, arrogant, and juvenile; you frame the entire medium within your own narrow interpretation of it. You might have more accurately titled this thread: Why my photography is superior to yours (and it's not only because it's in color).

[adam satushek]

And yet, you've not bothered to share your reasons for choosing color over B&W. You must have very definite and easily articulated reasons, or you wouldn't expect the same of those who choose B&W. I think your thread is a (very) thinly veiled declaration of superiority, not only of color over B&W, but of your photography over everyone else's. Smug, arrogant, and juvenile; you frame the entire medium within your own narrow interpretation of it. You might have more accurately titled this thread: Why my photography is superior to yours (and it's not only because it's in color).

Hi Jay, I am very sorry to have offended you. The goal of this thread is honestly so I can gain insight and understanding about the artistic choices of others, I am very sorry if I came off differently. I do not think my work is 'better' than anyone elses, or that color is better than black and white. Its simply what speaks to me. So thats what I do.

For what its worth, I believe I did explain why I chose color, " I want to represent reality and not get distracted by the materiality of the process. So I guess I shoot color because its there, its how I see, and it seems natural to me. To negate color (use B&W) seems like a conscious departure from reality to me. Which is not what I am attempting with my work."

Again, I am very to have offended. Just wanted to get into a discussion about this question I have had several years, and was excited to have a lively discussion about artistic choices as opposed to photographic gear. But maybe this is not the correct venue.

Once again, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you or anyone else, it was not my intent.

[rdenney]

I never met an ''artist'' who had to describe his art in terms of what pencil he draws with or the brand of paint or brushes.

Wrong comparison. The analogue to the brand of pencil or paint is the brand of camera or film--just a choice of tools and not even central to craft. The difference between B&W and color is like the difference between, say, oil paints and charcoal--a choice of medium. Artists choose one or the other for expressive or practical reasons.

And wrong in its conclusion, too, at least in my experience--nobody claimed that anyone describes art in terms of craft. I said we define art in terms of medium, which is not the same thing.

On the subject of craft, photographers talk to photographers about craft because that's what we can talk about, and it's what we share. Painters discuss craft among themselves, too, and so do musicians, even the hippest. Just because you never hear it doesn't mean they don't.

Rick "who has discussed the craft of music with many world-class performers, despite being no better at music than at photography" Denney

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Jay, I am very sorry to have offended you. The goal of this thread is honestly so I can gain insight and understanding about the artistic choices of others, I am very sorry if I came off differently. I do not think my work is 'better' than anyone elses, or that color is better than black and white. Its simply what speaks to me. So thats what I do.

For what its worth, I believe I did explain why I chose color, " I want to represent reality and not get distracted by the materiality of the process. So I guess I shoot color because its there, its how I see, and it seems natural to me. To negate color (use B&W) seems like a conscious departure from reality to me. Which is not what I am attempting with my work."

Again, I am very to have offended. Just wanted to get into a discussion about this question I have had several years, and was excited to have a lively discussion about artistic choices as opposed to photographic gear. But maybe this is not the correct venue.

Once again, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you or anyone else, it was not my intent.

I'm sorry Adam -- maybe I'm too cynical. Please disregard my inappropriate reaction, and accept my sincere apology. Sometimes I get it completely wrong.

[bigdog]

bigdog: "Me, too. As well as threads like this ..."

I fully agree that many photographers are insecure about their work and its a shame. I'm not sure what you intended by your second comment, ...

Obviously, it was a comment about the thread and its 60+ posts, not about you. One must not take everything personally.


I can honestly say that I am my own favorite photographer.

Oh ...

[rdenney]

It amazes me how insecure photographers are about their art work.

Most artists are insecure at some level. That insecurity feeds their quest for insight, and their creative curiosity. In fact, I don't think I've ever known an artist of any caliber who didn't constantly experiment with and hone their expression, and who didn't try to see their work as others do, even if they are deeply committed to their message and their expressive approach.

Those who are without insecurity often seem to me as either charlatans or megalomaniacs.

Rick "who knows more painters who question their art than photographers" Denney

[adam satushek]

bigdog: "Obviously, it was a comment about the thread and its 60+ posts, not about you. One must not take everything personally." Sorry I misunderstood that, i often have a difficult time understanding peoples tones in writing.

And just to clarify, my statement that "I can honestly say that I am my own favorite photographer," while I can see that it can seem arrogant and it is not intended that way. All I mean by that is that the work I make comes from me, and because it does, it speaks to me in a way that is more inline with my ideas than anyone elses work. I know for certain that it is not 'better' because such a statement is so subjective that it is useless. I also do not intent to say by any means that I am not insecure about it in certain ways, or that I am not constantly trying to improve, just that because my work comes from me i have a personal connection to it. That seems natural to me.....but other may have very different opinions on this. I fully recognize that my work is not special or unique, but I make it because I like it and it means something to me.

[evan clarke]

It's what I like...

[Alan Gales]

I started drawing before I could write. I have worked with pencil, charcoal, pen and ink, ink and brush on the B&W side. I have worked with chalk, oil pastels, water color, acrylics and oil painting on the color side. When I was in Art school many years ago I don't remember any distinction being made between b&w and color mediums unless it was a Commercial Art project that had to be b&w to save money when it was printed in a magazine. They were all just different ways of expressing yourself.

I fell into photography by accident and loved it. I'm both artistic and mechanical minded so photography fit me well. To me there is no b&W versus color issue. It's just two different ways to express yourself.

[rdenney]

When I was in Art school many years ago I don't remember any distinction being made between b&w and color mediums unless it was a Commercial Art project that had to be b&w to save money when it was printed in a magazine.

When I studied art, I don't remember any value distinction. One was as valid as the other. But I certainly remember a distinction. Each imposed a completely different approach to rendering and modeling.

And there is no doubt from the art shows and galleries I've visited that paintings get more consideration than drawings when price is assigned to works of art, other things (artist, size, importance, subject matter, etc.) being equal.

Rick "who could also draw before he could write" Denney

[John Rodriguez]

Most artists are insecure at some level. That insecurity feeds their quest for insight, and their creative curiosity. In fact, I don't think I've ever known an artist of any caliber who didn't constantly experiment with and hone their expression, and who didn't try to see their work as others do, even if they are deeply committed to their message and their expressive approach.

Those who are without insecurity often seem to me as either charlatans or megalomaniacs.

Rick "who knows more painters who question their art than photographers" Denney

Insecurity that drives you to better yourself is one thing. So much insecurity that you need to begin qualifying whether or not someone else's work qualifies as "art" is another level entirely.

[adam satushek]

rdenny: "When I studied art, I don't remember any value distinction. One was as valid as the other. But I certainly remember a distinction. Each imposed a completely different approach to rendering and modeling."

Agreed, I don't see any value distinction, and have never thought of it in that manner. But I see them as conscious decisions, and ones that I am curious at understanding. Yes, they are both different and relevant and are distinct choices to be made by the image maker.

rdenny: "And there is no doubt from the art shows and galleries I've visited that paintings get more consideration than drawings when price is assigned to works of art, other things (artist, size, importance, subject matter, etc.) being equal."

While I agree that this may be true in certain communities, I think it is a shame. Some of my favorite works of art by accomplished artists use only graphite pencil on paper to achieve subject matter I can only hope in my wildest dreams the achieve with my photography. All medium is relevant, as long as the artist knows what to do with it.

Just wanted to say thanks for the lively discussion! I have really appreciated this, I am very happy to continue this discussion, but just wanted to acknowledge that I have gotten a lot out of this so far!

[adam satushek]

John Rodriquez: "Insecurity that drives you to better yourself is one thing. So much insecurity that you need to begin qualifying whether or not someone else's work qualifies as "art" is another level entirely."

This is a very good point John, and certainly not the intent of this thread. None of us here, and no one in anywhere has the authority of passing this type of judgment. As long as the work one does speaks to them and they get enjoyment and insight out of it, I consider it art. I think the purpose of art is education, whether that is self education or to educate others doesn't matter.

[Moopheus]

For me a big consideration is the fact that I am actually color blind. I can barely register green; it's more of a theoretical concept for me than an actual color. It's hard for me to distinguish close shades. I shoot color film sometimes, and I enjoy the colors I actually see, but there's no way I could ever be as good at color darkroom printing (it's a tiny bit easier to compensate with scanners and digital color-management). And I enjoy the process of printing, it's fun. I've seen plenty of color work by others that I thought was quite fine, but for my own darkroom work, I'm going to stick to b&w.

[rdenney]

Insecurity that drives you to better yourself is one thing. So much insecurity that you need to begin qualifying whether or not someone else's work qualifies as "art" is another level entirely.

Well, photography, either color or black and white, can be used for non-artistic purposes, so the boundary between what is and is not art will always attract legitimate discussion. I think it comes down to intention, but that cannot always be determined. Most color photography in the world is probably not intended as art. That was true for black and white photography 50 years ago and more, when color was not in popular use. But now, nearly everyone (except for a diminishing few newspaper photojournalists, perhaps) who uses black and white for displaying their photography has artistic intentions even if they are banal. It has probably gotten to the point where one can reasonably imply that a photographer who displays in black and white intends the work as art, and thus it is usually accepted as such. That assumption cannot be made with color.

So, displaying in black and white is a way of making a statement: I intend this as art. And that definitely, um, colors the perceptions of the viewer.

Making that statement with color (outside of the display context) is not as automatic, and therefore the work has to go further to be perceived as art. (Obviously, if it's hanging in a gallery, it's intended as art, but that's the display context thing.)

Those who try to define as non-art what others intend as art, particularly because of their choice of medium or standards of craftsmanship, are perhaps expressing insecurity--no argument there. But they are invalidating a medium--just what I agreed with Alan was rigorously avoided when I studied art.

Rick "not all of whose photography is intended or should be considered as art" Denney

[Alan Gales]

When I studied art, I don't remember any value distinction. One was as valid as the other. But I certainly remember a distinction. Each imposed a completely different approach to rendering and modeling.

And there is no doubt from the art shows and galleries I've visited that paintings get more consideration than drawings when price is assigned to works of art, other things (artist, size, importance, subject matter, etc.) being equal.

Rick "who could also draw before he could write" Denney

Rick, what I meant was that there was no distinction when it came to the importance of the medium.

As far as consideration at Galleries and Art shows, you do make a very valid point. The problem is "who" is making that consideration. It's not you or me. It's probably someone who has never used a pencil or brush.

Alan "who maybe doesn't always write as clear as he should" Gales

[adam satushek]

Moopheus:
"For me a big consideration is the fact that I am actually color blind. I can barely register green; it's more of a theoretical concept for me than an actual color. It's hard for me to distinguish close shades. I shoot color film sometimes, and I enjoy the colors I actually see, but there's no way I could ever be as good at color darkroom printing (it's a tiny bit easier to compensate with scanners and digital color-management). And I enjoy the process of printing, it's fun. I've seen plenty of color work by others that I thought was quite fine, but for my own darkroom work, I'm going to stick to b&w."

This is a fascinating perspective! Thanks for contributing! It really makes me wonder whether the colors I see are different than what other see. I see this as a very good argument for B&W being a more universal medium. Fascinating!

ps. I am currently watching an X-Files that is presented entirely in black and white. the lighting is awesome, and the episode, while a departure from what I am used to is very intriguing.

[adam satushek]

Well, photography, either color or black and white, can be used for non-artistic purposes, so the boundary between what is and is not art will always attract legitimate discussion. I think it comes down to intention, but that cannot always be determined. Most color photography in the world is probably not intended as art. That was true for black and white photography 50 years ago and more, when color was not in popular use. But now, nearly everyone (except for a diminishing few newspaper photojournalists, perhaps) who uses black and white for displaying their photography has artistic intentions even if they are banal. It has probably gotten to the point where one can reasonably imply that a photographer who displays in black and white intends the work as art, and thus it is usually accepted as such. That assumption cannot be made with color.

So, displaying in black and white is a way of making a statement: I intend this as art. And that definitely, um, colors the perceptions of the viewer.

Making that statement with color (outside of the display context) is not as automatic, and therefore the work has to go further to be perceived as art. (Obviously, if it's hanging in a gallery, it's intended as art, but that's the display context thing.)

Those who try to define as non-art what others intend as art, particularly because of their choice of medium or standards of craftsmanship, are perhaps expressing insecurity--no argument there. But they are invalidating a medium--just what I agreed with Alan was rigorously avoided when I studied art.

Rick "not all of whose photography is intended or should be considered as art" Denney


Rick, as in many previous posts i have read of yours, this is spot on. Black and white is maybe more apparently intended as art, but color has its place too though it may be more difficult to achieve. Thats of course is not intended to pass any judgment, but the fact that many of the images we are forced to 'consume' are color, cannot be denied, and sets B&W apart.

and yes context in incredibly important! it really cannot be negated.

[Brian C. Miller]

So, displaying in black and white is a way of making a statement: I intend this as art. And that definitely, um, colors the perceptions of the viewer.

Making that statement with color (outside of the display context) is not as automatic, and therefore the work has to go further to be perceived as art. (Obviously, if it's hanging in a gallery, it's intended as art, but that's the display context thing.)

William Eggleston immediately leaps to my mind. When I see what he's done, I immediately think to myself, "But why would anybody want to look at that in the first place?" I really wonder about the "the work has to go further to be perceived as art" concept. There's a lot of photographs hanging up that I wonder about. What is the point? Really, that is what I think.

Adam, I started photographing not because of looking at photographs or because of camera gear, but because of driving home one evening, and being entranced by moonlight. The moon was full and bright, and I thought to myself, "I'd like to photograph that." Nothing more than that. One evening walking home from the grocery store, I saw that the moon and clouds had formed a pagoda. Seriously, there was a small cloud at the top for the point, a larger cloud beneath it, the moon, and then three more clouds, each larger than the next. It was a genuine triangle, looking like a pagoda framing the moon. It lasted about a minute, and then the wind dispersed the clouds, and it was all gone. And so I keep experimenting with photographing the moon and clouds at night.

Am I my own favorite photographer? In a way, yes. I am driven to photograph by myself. Again and again. I can't put down the camera. I can't stop using film.

I think my color-to-b&w ratio is actually about 50/50. Some things are good in color. Some things are good in B&W. But some times all I have loaded is color, and some times all I have is B&W. Then I go and look for color photographs, or I go look for B&W photographs.

But I think that the most important thing is to go and look. If you don't go and look, then you'll never know what's there.

[Moopheus]

Moopheus:

This is a fascinating perspective! Thanks for contributing! It really makes me wonder whether the colors I see are different than what other see. I see this as a very good argument for B&W being a more universal medium. Fascinating!



I live every day with the notion that "color" is a creation of the mind, an interpretation of sensory signals, and not actual reality. (Though generally a reasonably close interpretation; if it were not, we'd have a hard time moving around in the world!). The interesting thing is that the colors I see are different, but different in a measurable and consistent way. But this includes, really, "black" and "white" as well. And remember that b&w prints are rarely perfectly neutral monochrome. When you talk about "warm" or "cold" tone, or toning, or many other types of manipulation, you are talking about the use of color. A completely neutral gray print would look even duller than printers' ink. It may be that this is color you are adding to your photo, rather than color used to represent what was seen, but still. You can't completely get away from color. B&W is not more "universal" in that sense. Technically, for me, it is easier to work with. That's all. I've seen many photos I've liked and thought were good in color, and many in b&w; the empirical evidence suggests that arguing over which has more artistic value is pretentious blah-blah of no value.

[ic-racer]

1) Contrast control is easy with B&W while it is near-impossible with color.
2) B&W can be easily processed in a home darkroom.
3) There has never been a 'standard' color process. Various methods have come and gone. Currently spraying dyes is popular. However, the B&W process of using silver to block light has been the standard since the first photographs. The ability of silver to block light and make images can be imitated but I don't see it ever being replaced.

[jeffwieser@gmail.com]

Lately I have been shooting a lot of color film. Reading through this thread I think I have a much better understanding of the possibilities of B&W photography as well as its implications. B&W photography has huge creative potential and now I feel more capable of harnessing all of its power when I do choose to use it.

Sometimes color can detract from a piece and I can see how in this case we are better off using B&W for sure.

I think it is really cool when you see a photograph and know who took it just by the aesthetics (and I'm not talking about processes). That is the kind of style I want. Shooting color and b&w it would be very challenging to hone a style since they are two very different mediums. Both are great, but it feels like I would be better off choosing just one or the other or keeping them as two separate bodies of work.

[K. Praslowicz]

And yet, you've not bothered to share your reasons for choosing color over B&W.

Here is mine.

Mostly, I feel that the photos I make, how they will serve 100, 200 years from how as part of the historical record is just as important as all the artness I try to cram into them. I don't see a need to strip out that layer of information. Just look how bonkers the web goes anytime color photos from before 1940 turn up. Doesn't even matter if the photos are good.

The thing now though is that since color is the standard in photography, and there is tons of photos out there where no attention is paid to the role that the colors play in the composition, we've grown kind of jaded to it. The "like working 15 hours a day" point made earlier. So now I sort of see using color in a way that can catch the eye of people accustomed to seeing it all the time in photos as another level of challenge in making a good photograph.

I've just sort of reached a point where black & white photos often just looks incomplete to me. Like eating pancakes without syrup or something.

[redrockcoulee]

I never really did photography prior to taking a course in college where we shot B&W and learnt developing and printing. The very first image coming up in the developer was magic and the ones that appeared on paper yesterday are still magic. That is part of the appeal; seeing a negative whose positive you could only imagine to actually come into existence. I see many subjects as black and white ones that would have no appeal to me in colour.

I shoot colour cause I like the interaction a colour has with other colours and some subjects I just think need or "deserve" colour. I never shot much colour in 4X5 and now that there is no local processing and I do have a Nikon scanner for MF and shoot digital as well but do not have a scanner for LF negs my colour is MF or smaller.

In printmaking the artist almost always specifies the medium and/or the method such as Lithography or Serigraph and I am more likely to follow this traditional, especially as my wife is a printmaker, than another art although I believe painters as state if it is an oil or acrilic and perhaps watercolour although that one is hard to mistake for the others. I do not shoot monochrome because I think it is more of an art, I shoot and print because I enjoy doing so.

I think I understand why some one might only shoot one or the other but for me I shoot B&W because I see images I would like to make a B&W print of and shoot colour when I see some thing I would like to either have a colour print or to have the image if I ever want to do something else with it. Not being able to do both to me would be a lose.

[Frank Petronio]

I didn't read all the discussion, I'm sure it was enlightening as always ;-p

I shoot mostly color and will convert to B&W if the subject lends itself. I find that working from color gives me a lot more options in how to create the B&W. Obviously I am a proponent of scanning, cropping, and gross manipulation - I love silver prints too but when it comes down to it, I prefer having control over absolute print quality (in an ideal world I'd pony up and have Elevator (http://www.elevatordigital.ca/) in Toronto make me some of their wonderful silver prints from digital files - they are the bomb!)

Nowadays I mix color and B&W, as well as large and small formats. It feels more modern and of this time period that we can do that - years ago it felt like a no-no but maybe things are looser. At least I am.

[E. von Hoegh]

Along with the archival properties of B&W, there is this.

With monochrome you have form, texture, and light to work with. A "mundane" object or scene can become something else by working with these three ingredients, you can also concentrate on any one of the three and create something unique.

[John NYC]

Nowadays I mix color and B&W, as well as large and small formats. It feels more modern and of this time period that we can do that - years ago it felt like a no-no but maybe things are looser. At least I am.

I would go so far as to say that is one of the things that defines this era in photography. In X years, film will be mostly gone. I know people here don't want to admit it, and there definitely will be some forms of film photography going on, but the world will have moved on, and with it the truly innovative artists of tomorrow will have little interest in only recreating the past. So, being ambivalent about which medium is the one to use for your expression in this day and age is completely what we should be doing. I think once historians sort through the billions of attempts at photography as it has been democratized by the digital age, this period will be one of the richest yet that the medium has had to offer. It is hard to see now because the signal to noise ratio is so high.

[tgtaylor]

I know people here don't want to admit it, and there definitely will be some forms of film photography going on, but the world will have moved on, and with it the truly innovative artists of tomorrow will have little interest in only recreating the past.

But that's not the case with many of today’s “innovative artists” who have “rediscovered” the “alternative” methods of the past and are creating a unique art that is heads and shoulders above the typical and mundane digital output of today. This is analogous to the "rediscovery” of Ragtime piano music in the 1970's brought about by the movie The Sting and the similar “rediscovery” of New Orleans jazz in the late 1940's by the Turk Murphy Band in San Francisco. True classics never really die. Like the proverbial diamond in the ruff, they lay hidden only to be "rediscovered."

Thomas

[John Kasaian]

Turk Murphy? I remember listening to them bck in the 70's! Good times :D

[ROL]

Ok, I've been wondering this for a long time, and I'm trying to find a way of saying this without seeming condescending or judgmental. But I really am curious. For me it has never really been a consideration, once I discovered large format color negative film and decided to stop trying to be an Adams or Weston, I knew color would be my preferred medium. Almost all of the photographers I look up to shoot color, the only real exception being Hiroshi Sugimoto. Now, I am not saying that I have anything against black and white, but that for the type of work I do I have no desire to shoot it. And this in turn leads to my preference for viewing color photographs too.

So, in an attempt at understanding, why do you choose to shoot black and white over color? Is it for aesthetic reasons such as adding a layer of abstraction? Is it process oriented, ie. you like developing and printing in a traditional darkroom? Or because black and white materials are cheaper? Do you think of things in black and white, focusing more on shape, tone, and texture than color? Is it based on the subject matter you tend to shoot?

Also, if you shoot both black and white and color, how do you decide which to use for a particular subject? If you are putting together a body of work (say for an exhibition) how do you mix the two? Or do you? Do you feel ok putting a black and white print next to a color print? Or do you think of them as separate things that cannot be mixed in a series or show?

Sorry for the long winded question, but as a devout color shooter I am just trying to understand......

Because the color is better.

[Greg Lockrey]

Because the color is better.

When it's an inkjet print.... :)

[Old-N-Feeble]

When I finally start shooting LF film again, this weekend I hope, I'm not going to call it "art". Life is too short to put ourselves under so much pressure. ;)

My first subject is going to be a delapidated old bridge near my house. I think I need to clear some tall weeds at one end of the bridge. Does anyone know what size (watts) power inverter I'll need to operate a mid-sized weed whacker powered by my car battery? Hey, I have to do SOMETHING to make the image more hands-on artistic because I'll not be wet-printing. :D

[adam satushek]

Old-N-Feeble: "Does anyone know what size (watts) power inverter I'll need to operate a mid-sized weed whacker powered by my car battery? Hey, I have to do SOMETHING to make the image more hands-on artistic because I'll not be wet-printing."

Ha, thats very hands on! I like it......may be easier to find an old 2-stroke weed wacker though.....or sythe

[rdenney]

When I finally start shooting LF film again, this weekend I hope, I'm not going to call it "art". Life is too short to put ourselves under so much pressure. ;)

My first subject is going to be a delapidated old bridge near my house. I think I need to clear some tall weeds at one end of the bridge. Does anyone know what size (watts) power inverter I'll need to operate a mid-sized weed whacker powered by my car battery? Hey, I have to do SOMETHING to make the image more hands-on artistic because I'll not be wet-printing. :D

The label on the weed whacker should show power consumption. It might be expressed in watts, in which case you have your answer. If it's shown in amperes of current, multiply by 120 to get watts. Near as I can tell, 500 watts is a typical value. I'd use an 800-watt inverter.

Rick "who'd rather work with the weeds than clear them" Denney

[Old-N-Feeble]

Old-N-Feeble: "Does anyone know what size (watts) power inverter I'll need to operate a mid-sized weed whacker powered by my car battery? Hey, I have to do SOMETHING to make the image more hands-on artistic because I'll not be wet-printing."

Ha, thats very hands on! I like it......may be easier to find an old 2-stroke weed wacker though.....or sythe

^^^ Oh... a sythe. Yeah, that would be VERY hands-on... maybe even enough that I can call the resulting image "art" after all!! :p

Thanks, Rick. :)

[adam satushek]

^^^ Oh... a sythe. Yeah, that would be VERY hands-on... maybe even enough that I can call the resulting image "art" after all!! :p

Thanks, Rick. :)


heck even with an electric weed wacker you could probably get away with calling it performance art!

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Oh... a sythe. Yeah, that would be VERY hands-on... maybe even enough that I can call the resulting image "art" after all!!


heck even with an electric weed wacker you could probably get away with calling it performance art!

Yeah, maybe if I dance around nekked while I'm whackin' the weeds... but I'd hate to be responsible for causing insanity or blindess to innocent onlookers just for the sake of art. But... maybe my posts are becoming a bit too colorful.

Oh... to be on-topic... I'll be shooting exclusively color but will often convert to grayscale. IMHO, the choice is both personal and subject dependent. Sometimes an image can be very mundane in color but quite interesting in B&W... and vice-versa.

[Drew Wiley]

I earned my reputation on color, but for the last twenty years have worked in both. I don't
think of one better than the other. Color is certainly more of a financial and time committment in the darkroom, so I tend to print it seasonally. Black and white chem can
be formulated in minutes, and several nice prints made in an afternoon. Color involves nasty chemicals, so I won't process it indoors, but only in good weather in an outdoor drum
rig. I get moody and want a change of pace from time to time. And I inevitably need to control the supplies budget too. Color film is getting expensive. In the field, it just depends
on the lighting and my mood at the time. I generally carry both color and black and white
film, at least for view camera work.

[f90]

To me there is very little sense of three dimensionality in modern colour film subtractive processes - I get a far stronger sense when looking at a black and white image. I am not well versed in the absolute science behind this, but there are a number possible causes, such as:

The longer dynamic range - gives better tonal gradiation, more detail in highlights/shadows.
The fact that black & white are complimentary can give a higher clarity of vision.
The section of our brain that deals with perspective & the visual layout of our surroundings functions entirely on a b&w model.

I can see how the better tones could give three dimensionality but im just spitballin with the other two. The only colour photographs I have seen that convey a sense of three dimensionality like b&w film are autochromes, which im sure most of you know feature no dyes, only filtered b&w film.

[David Beal]

This may sound screwy, but ...

A few years ago, at a younger than usual age, I developed cataracts.

My ophthamalogist operated both eyes a month apart, replacing the natural lenses with plastic ones. When he removed the dressing from the first operated eye, I was amazed to discover that what I saw through the remaining "natural" lens was like looking through a yellow filter. He explained that human natural lenses tend to take on a yellow color. This effect, he said, manifests itself in the colors used by painters who work into their old age.

When the second natural lens was removed, my perception of color changed, but so did my perception of contrast.

And now, I don't "see" well in color. I "see" better in black and white. My wife, who still has her natural lenses, "sees" better in color than I do.

So I shoot black and white because when I tried to shoot color it just doesn't look right.

God bless those of you who can do both.

/s/ David

[John NYC]

This may sound screwy, but ...

A few years ago, at a younger than usual age, I developed cataracts.

My ophthamalogist operated both eyes a month apart, replacing the natural lenses with plastic ones. When he removed the dressing from the first operated eye, I was amazed to discover that what I saw through the remaining "natural" lens was like looking through a yellow filter. He explained that human natural lenses tend to take on a yellow color. This effect, he said, manifests itself in the colors used by painters who work into their old age.

When the second natural lens was removed, my perception of color changed, but so did my perception of contrast.

And now, I don't "see" well in color. I "see" better in black and white. My wife, who still has her natural lenses, "sees" better in color than I do.

So I shoot black and white because when I tried to shoot color it just doesn't look right.

God bless those of you who can do both.

/s/ David

My Ophthalmologist said that when you get an interocular lens your color perception and contrast perception actually gets much better and more accurate due to the lens being perfectly clear.

[Michael Alpert]

I fully agree that many photographers are insecure about their work and its a shame. I'm not sure what you intended by your second comment, but I assure you that my reason for starting this thread is not insecurity. . . . I have said for years that your favorite photographer should be yourself, and I can honestly say that I am my own favorite photographer. I prefer my work to that of anyone else. If that is not the case, than you are doing something wrong and should look at why you do the work that you do. However, that is not to say that you cannot have influences and others that admire.

Adam,

I was not going to enter into this discussion; but your statement here prods me into tricky territory. After looking at your website and reading your "artist's statement" I think that your lack of self-doubt is without justification. You'll never go anywhere as an artist without some attitude reappraisal. I strongly recommend insecurity. It is of great benefit to artists. Concerning your failure to understand black-and-white photography, you'll never understand it if you don't see your own work as part (i.e., an extremely small part) of photography's artistic history and culture.

[Michael E]

After looking at your website and reading your "artist's statement" I think that your lack of self-doubt is without justification.

I can't comment on Adam's insecurity or lack thereof, but I consider his statement and his images highly relevant and very enjoyable.

Michael

[John NYC]

Sorry for the long winded question, but as a devout color shooter I am just trying to understand......

Only you can answer your question, I believe.

I would just comment that -- to me -- this image (to take just one example from your portfolio) might work as well or better in black and white:

http://adamsatushek.com/photo.php?id=36

[John NYC]

I can't comment on Adam's insecurity or lack thereof, but I consider his statement and his images highly relevant and very enjoyable.

Michael

I agree. Really enjoyed looking at the work. And, despite my comment above, I see no need to shoot any differently than what he does. It just becomes about personal choices.

[adam satushek]

David Beal: "My ophthamalogist operated both eyes a month apart, replacing the natural lenses with plastic ones. When he removed the dressing from the first operated eye, I was amazed to discover that what I saw through the remaining "natural" lens was like looking through a yellow filter. He explained that human natural lenses tend to take on a yellow color. This effect, he said, manifests itself in the colors used by painters who work into their old age."

This is very interesting! Its fascinating how people perceive differently.....it really makes me wonder how my perception differs from others.


Michael Alpert: "I was not going to enter into this discussion; but your statement here prods me into tricky territory. After looking at your website and reading your "artist's statement" I think that your lack of self-doubt is without justification. You'll never go anywhere as an artist without some attitude reappraisal. I strongly recommend insecurity. It is of great benefit to artists. Concerning your failure to understand black-and-white photography, you'll never understand it if you don't see your own work as part (i.e., an extremely small part) of photography's artistic history and culture."

I apologize if I came off as full of myself....it truly was not my intent, and I am not full of myself. As to my supposed 'lack of self doubt,' again it was not my intent to come off like that, I doubt myself and my work constantly. All I was trying to get at in earlier posts is that I have arrived at the method and materials that I think best suits the work I like to make. The whole purpose of this thread was to try to understand why others choose the materials and methods they do. I don't 'fail' to understand black and white photography, I understand it as a conscious choice and was just trying get a better handle on what may lead one to make that choice. As to my 'artist's statement' I am not here to defend it or my work or my ideas, if you would like to discuss and critique this in greater depth I would be happy to do so over PM. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I don't see my work as part of photography's artistic history and culture. And it my be a 'small part' of that history as you state, but I would argue that it is not extremely small. There are a lot of us who admire and strive to follow many of the early color shooters.


Thank you Michael E, and John NYC for your compliments!

Just a general clarification, this thread was not intended as an attack on anyone who chooses to shoot black and white, or an attempt to justify my own choices in materials (or my work). They are both conscious decisions by the shooter that I am trying to better understand. Partly due to the fact that I am nervous (mainly because of the Kodak situation) that my preferred material (4x5 and 8x10 color neg) might not be available too much longer. (This is of course speculation, and hopefully my concerns are unfounded). But should that day arise...I will have to make decisions and I would like them to be well informed.


Thanks again to everyone who has contributed and has voiced their opinions! I feel I have come away from this better informed.

[eddy pula]

I'm sure this has been said before but LATITUDE AND ATTITUDE brother!
71898

[katebaldwin123456]

I m very new to photography , i have no idea where to get help for becoming professional photographer.any help or suggestions would be appreciated.