Does anybody else think B&W photography is overused these days?

I look at what people post and I see series of black and white photos too often. I understand cases when colors may distract from shape, or light conditions were dull/dark, or when author wanted to make image more dramatic. But, IMO, such cases when conversion to B&W is required are rare and most of B&W photos are unnecessary converted.

I am talking about cases when authors deliberately disregard colors and convert everything to B&W. Street photography is probably a bad example as it may be a tradition which I don't understand, but even there statistically more than 50% of it is always in B&W regardless of the subject.

I don't want to point to specific sets of photos in order not to upset authors but here are few example photo series that I recently saw so you could see what I'm talking about:

• Hawaii ocean fun, beaches, surfers, bright sunny pictures - B&W.
• Cuba travel pics (I've been there, very colorful country), pictures aren't meant to show dark mood, but everything is in B&W.
• Fine art, like gold vases with colorful precious stones - B&W.

Just a few examples and IMO many of the photos were screaming to be shown in full colors. Am I alone seen this, and if not, why do you think there are too many B&W conversions?

I think since B&W was a technology limitation for decades many people developed too strong habit for it. Is it mostly a generation thing? Mostly done by people who were used to B&W film and developed a "vision" for it?

Naturally, people see in color and looking back at the art centuries ago - it was always in color. This is what you see in museums from all famous painters except very few graphite sketch artists. B&W was temporary artificial limitation and that technology limitation has been gone long ago.

BTW, I developed B&W film myself when I was young in 80s. I also like retro, but I like it in colors. Trying to find justification for B&W but can't.

I also think it became a sort of cliche and some people think their work will automatically look more artistic (I would call it artsy) if it's converted to B&W. What do you think?

It depends on what the photographer is trying to depict.  B+W is sometimes better if you want to emphasise shapes, patterns or people's relationship to their surroundings in situations where colours would otherwise distract.  B+W often makes the viewer think more about what is going on in the scene rather than just seeing something which is visually appealing.

I believe there is a place in modern photography for both colour and B+W.  I find that my best shots often work equally well in either.

--
Confused of Malvern
'The greatest fool can ask more than the wisest man can answer'

I do see a lot of B/W photos where I can't help but wonder what it would have looked like in colour. They just seem that they should have been colour. Like a forest or a tree or a flower...

But some people like B/W and shoot it almost exclusively. Each to their own.

I tend to only do B/W for special occasions Often in the dry season here when the colours are really crap... Or a graveyard. They look cool in over contrasted B/W

I'm not a great B&W fan, but it can create atmosphere in some instances.....say for portraits or architectural studies, historical effects and so on.

I wish I was able to understand this - "Each to their own". In some cases B&W makes me think - this guy just couldn't handle white balance properly so he decided, like, heck with it, let's make it B&W. But then (sometimes) I look at his gallery and I see that he (or she) can work perfectly with colors, on other pictures he shows bright natural colors just as I like it. Then somehow he switches to B&W for some unknown reasons.

And yes, I understand "shape vs color" thing. There may be cases when colors may distract but these can't be that often. Colors normally don't distract me in real life, so why do some authors insist that I don't need to see colors? Can't authors just mute colors instead of eliminating them?

Again, I'm talking statistically, I don't mind to see few B&W photos when they make sense, I just think there are too many of them unjustified.

For example, what's good in B&W portrait unless it's meant to be depressing or posted in obituary notice? IMO things like slight eye color variations, lips, skin colors are important to picture a person, that how people see and remember. Nobody sees in B&W. Why to shoot B&W portrait unless you want viewer to have a depressing mood?

To me B&W works best in very good prints and loses a lot when viewed on a screen.

That was not annoying to me, annoying was another thread trying to equat that mount to Leica.

--
::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

yes

--
PixelsPainting.com

Even in color film days I mostly shot BW so I have no problem with it.

In fact I still wish they'd introduce a BW only sensor.

No ... No ... a thousand times .... NO!

--
Zone8: Although I am a handsome genius, when I stand in front of a mirror, I vaguely recognise the ugly idjit standing on the other side!
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm
Cleaning DSLR Sensors, including Kodak DSLR Factory Cleaning method:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/KodakDCS-sensorcleaning.htm
Solving back/front focus problems on Sigma and most other DSLRs
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=35565277
PDF format list of lenses you can print or download - covers Italian Flag YES/NO for DCS 14n but applies to others. http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/ItiFlagLensList.pdf

I think most people don't really understand how to make a good B&W image.  It's more that a simple greyscale conversion ( or tone mapping or heavy contrast ).

--

StephenG

• Homeless man - always B&W.
  

You're right. I'd certainly like to see Cuba in glorious color.

Photography itself might fall into that category.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

I think you are correct...it's probably a bit overdone these days. Me personally, I love color because we live in a colorful world. However, I've seen some B&W images these days which are riveting... so... I guess it's like anything else... appropriately applied, it will result in a powerful image.  I've yet to do it myself... color is one of the things that makes me bring out my camera.  What I really think is overdone (and horrible!) these days are images where folks have their picture control setting on 'Vivid'.  It is just so unnatural... my opinion... others would disagree I'm sure...  it's all personal taste of course.

Less than 1% of the pics I see are B&W, so I say no.

--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

Totally agree with you. In fact, the onslaught of B&W images has become so enormous that when I see a gallery or set of B&W images, I often just skip it automatically, unless there's something immediately gripping about the images, which there rarely is.

Like someone else said, many people also just don't know how to do proper B&W images (I don't know how to do them properly either, but then maybe 1/1000th of my images makes me think it'd look better in B&W, so I'll probably never learn).

I love colour (when used sensibly)!

A big part of the problem is the light. The best light for BW can be problematic for color, and conversely a picture which looks good in color can be quite boring in BW. Usually you need more  contrasty  light in BW, in color you often need flat or diffuse light which boosts the colour saturation.

When you watch BW movies made by master cinematographers  there is lot of scenes where big parts of the picture are really black and really white. This can be used only sparingly in color.

There are photographs which look good both in BW and color, but others make sense only in color or in BW.

I do not think  BW is overused, but that there are lot of color pictures converted to BW without understanding BW lighting.

Some scenes have almost no colour in them or the colour could be considered as superfluous so they lend themselves to a rendition or not. Just my opinion.



It's all about personal artistic vision.  Personally I despise HDR and the blurry moving water shots that we all experiment with from time to time.  I am filled with contempt for anyone who does that sort of shot more than once.

--
I still like soup. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos

Whilst I accept that is YOUR opinion Glen - surely you are open minded enough to accept that people SHOULD do what THEY want to do.  Variety is the spice of life.  One man's meat is another man's poison - etc. etc. etc.

I personally care not one jot nor one tittle what others think of what I do photographically.  I make pictures to please ME. 

--
Zone8: Although I am a handsome genius, when I stand in front of a mirror, I vaguely recognise the ugly idjit standing on the other side!
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm
Cleaning DSLR Sensors, including Kodak DSLR Factory Cleaning method:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/KodakDCS-sensorcleaning.htm
Solving back/front focus problems on Sigma and most other DSLRs
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=35565277
PDF format list of lenses you can print or download - covers Italian Flag YES/NO for DCS 14n but applies to others. http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/ItiFlagLensList.pdf