Reading mode: Light Dark

B&W vs Color in fine art

Go to last post
Steve Bingham

Steve Bingham

Forum Pro
Messages
27,683
Solutions
7
Reaction score
6,749
Location
Lake Havasu, az, AZ, US
I wonder if B&W fine art prints outsell color prints? (Assuming both are very well done)

B&W:

1- More traditional - as photographic fine art?

2- Fit more interiors - no wondering about "will it work over our sofa"?

3- More emotional impact? No wonderful colors to bring it together. It must have something special?

4- Fewer and fewer fine art photographers are doing it? And a zillion amateurs are doing color?

5- No screaming sunsets or wild vistas?

What are your thoughts? Would you have a preference as a buyer? As a photographer?
 
Are you talking real B&W silver based prints rather than digital B&W inkjets?

Pt/Pd, Carbon, Ambrotypes and the like?

Real B&W darkroom prints from either B&W negatives or Digital enlarged negatives are fast moving into the Alternative Process catagory.

Few people purchase real prints compared to the numbers who purchase posters and reproductions. Have seen many Ansel Adams calendar images framed and on display. Many more of his posters. Few of his real silver prints.

Those who collect original art or even the signed and numbered 'series' prints have always been a smal group. I don't see that changing.

For many prints of any kind on the wall are decorations and nothing more. Changed when the room is remodeled or the couch recovered.
 
Interesting thoughts. After spending a half century in darkrooms I much prefer the work that can now be done digitally - and your hands don't smell of hypo. :) With B&W digital prints having a potential non-fading life span of 200 years or more, signed and numbered prints should still have value. http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

By the way, none of my numbered prints go above 20 - I am not that good. :)

Few people purchase real prints compared to the numbers who purchase posters and reproductions. Have seen many Ansel Adams calendar images framed and on display. Many more of his posters. Few of his real silver prints.

And these look so cheesy against the originals - and they fade and tear easily.
 
Last edited:
One aspect that the traditional darkoom gives is the feel of "hands on" from the artist.

Yes, some have their darkroom work done by someone else. Many of us do our own work from start to finished print and that adds to perceived value with some who buy original art.

Marketing folk like Thomas Kinkade with his 'my DNA is in every signature because a drop of my blood is in the ink used' and 'limited editions' of 34,000 really screws it up for some who don't understand what they are getting. It also hits those who buy for 'appreciation' and value increase with an eye mainly to resale in the future.

The hand of the artist is important to some just as limited editions are.

Reality for most of us who do darkroom work is that editions are generally much more limited with hand done prints than with digital simply because of the work involved. Making 100 prints in the darkroom is much more difficult than with an inkjet printer - no matter the quality. Making 100 identical prints in the darkroom(other than contact prints) is nearly impossible for even the finest printers. That small variation is 'the hand of the artist' and what some want.

The images are all excellent no matter the process but 'hands on' is preferred by some and effects the final value. I think it will have more of an effect in 50 years when the grandkids go to sell off the old folks collection - Then the hands on images may well be worth more as long as they were worth something when they were purchased.
 
Well said. However, when I think of the hours and hours I spent perfecting a single image - or trying to - and limiting my prints to 20 and only one size (17" x 25") - I kind of feel the hand-of-the-artist is on every print. Although I have hundreds of prints available on my web sites, I only submit my very best to galleries. This is probably much less than a hundred.

So . . . color, or black and white? It would seem that 200+ year permanence rating by Wilhelm Imaging Research should do it on the longevity part (b&w).

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
Last edited:
A few thoughts from me, (probably won't be popular, but hey I'm thick skinned):

1) I don't consider any photography to be fine art.

Sure photos can have a degree of artistic merit, be aesthetically appealing and be creative. Photographs can evoke emotion and draw you into a world of contemplation. But with all that said, at the end of the day they're always going to be a reproduction, a facsimile of a scene, object, person, etc.

I believe the art is in creating something from scratch not pointing a piece of technology at it, changing a few variables on a given scale and pressing a button to photograph it. Anyone and I mean ANYONE given enough practice and instruction can create what some would call "Art" with a camera. The same can't be said for sculpting, painting, singing, etc.

I think there should be a distinction between creating genuine art by manually using tools (paint brushes, chisels, etc) or nothing but the human hands i.e. sculpting, painting, etc vs operating semi-autonomous machinery.

It's a strange distinction but to put it another way almost anyone can run even all but the very fattest and unfit person can to some degree run, but it doesn't make them a "runner", by the same token a photographer can be artistic but not an "artist".

2) I think B&W is over-rated. It is seen as being "artistic" because so many iconic images were created when there was no alternative to B&W and by association we recall numerous B&W images from text books, exhibits, galleries etc and are conditioned to make the link to B&W being the benchmark for any photo deserving of artistic praise.

3) With the current technologies in cameras, computer based post production, printing, etc I would question the skill of the photographer or "artist" if they can't make a subject look "artistic" in colour but instead turn to the cliche of converting it to black and white.
 
Last edited:
RhysM said:
A few thoughts from me, (probably won't be popular, but hey I'm thick skinned):

1) I don't consider any photography to be fine art.

Sure photos can have a degree of artistic merit, be aesthetically appealing and be creative. Photographs can evoke emotion and draw you into a world of contemplation.
Click to expand...
You've just defined the purpose of art.
RhysM said:
But with all that said, at the end of the day they're always going to be a reproduction, a facsimile of a scene, object, person, etc.
Click to expand...
So is all art... that or you left off that art can represent an idea or concept as well.
RhysM said:
I believe the art is in creating something from scratch not pointing a piece of technology at it, changing a few variables on a given scale and pressing a button to photograph it. Anyone and I mean ANYONE given enough practice and instruction can create what some would call "Art" with a camera. The same can't be said for sculpting, painting, singing, etc.
Click to expand...
Paintbrushes, kilns, canvases and Lyrics/notes on paper are all 'technology'. Why is reproducing words and notes with one's vocal cords any different than interpreting and reproducing a scene with the minds eye and a camera?
RhysM said:
I think there should be a distinction between creating genuine art by manually using tools (paint brushes, chisels, etc) or nothing but the human hands i.e. sculpting, painting, etc vs operating semi-autonomous machinery.
Click to expand...
There are distinctions (paint brush users = painters, chisels = sculptors, etc.. cameras = photographers) I don't know of a camera or post processing workflow that operates by itself, so don't get the semi-autonomous bit. Then of course, as not all painters are artists.. some paint fences or crosswalks on the street; likewise not all photographers are artists.
RhysM said:
It's a strange distinction but to put it another way almost anyone can run even all but the very fattest and unfit person can to some degree run, but it doesn't make them a "runner", by the same token a photographer can be artistic but not an "artist".
Click to expand...
Why is the runner not a runner, and the artistic person not an artist?
RhysM said:
2) I think B&W is over-rated. It is seen as being "artistic" because so many iconic images were created when there was no alternative to B&W and by association we recall numerous B&W images from text books, exhibits, galleries etc and are conditioned to make the link to B&W being the benchmark for any photo deserving of artistic praise.

3) With the current technologies in cameras, computer based post production, printing, etc I would question the skill of the photographer or "artist" if they can't make a subject look "artistic" in colour but instead turn to the cliche of converting it to black and white.
Click to expand...
So presumably pen n'ink and charcoal artists are just as likely lacking skill? You realize you could turn your last sentence around and it makes the same amount of sense: "I would question the skill of the photographer or "artist" if they need to rely on color to make a subject look "artistic" and can't find a subject that stands on its own as a black and white."
 
So well saId!!!!!
 
Anyone?
 
It shouldn't be!
 
RhysM said:
It's a strange distinction but to put it another way almost anyone can run even all but the very fattest and unfit person can to some degree run, but it doesn't make them a "runner", by the same token a photographer can be artistic but not an "artist".
Click to expand...
...??...I don't even know what this means...aside from the terrible sentence structure, the analogy is nonsensical at best...
 
Steve Bingham said:
I wonder if B&W fine art prints outsell color prints? (Assuming both are very well done)

B&W:

1- More traditional - as photographic fine art?

2- Fit more interiors - no wondering about "will it work over our sofa"?

3- More emotional impact? No wonderful colors to bring it together. It must have something special?

4- Fewer and fewer fine art photographers are doing it? And a zillion amateurs are doing color?

5- No screaming sunsets or wild vistas?

What are your thoughts? Would you have a preference as a buyer? As a photographer?
Click to expand...
 
>I don't consider any photography to be fine art.<

Interesting perspective. Reading your post, you confuse the medium and the message.

Fortunately, there are FA photography critics, collectors and museums world-wide who disagree with you and vote with their money; a few come to mind:

A. Gursky, Rhein II, $4.3M

C. Sherman, #96 Untitled, $4.0M

J .Wall, Dead Troops, $3.7M

A. Gursky, 99 cents, $3.3M

A. Adams, Moonrise, $600K

On a personal level, my own fine art photography has contributed to a fully funded retirement, financial independence, two well educated kids, a happy marriage of +41 years and a healthy life.

From my perceptive, there is either something to this fine art photography stuff or a lot of people, for a long time, have been scammed.

'....it does seem to me that Capa has proved beyond all doubt that the camera need not be a cold mechanical device. Like the pen, it is as good as the man who uses it. It can be the extension of mind and heart... - John Steinbeck.'

(Having said all that, i do prefer paint over pixels.)
 
Great answer. Thanks. Just looking for other opinions. I was selling 1-2 a month ($500) framed (out of one gallery in a small town) but lately sales have dropped way off. I have a few B&W but mostly color. Trying to figure out why! Maybe I need to find a gallery in a big city?

As I am permanently retired and pretty well fixed, money isn't the issue. I think I need to change my game plan. :)

cplittleton said:
Steve Bingham said:
I wonder if B&W fine art prints outsell color prints? (Assuming both are very well done)

B&W:

1- More traditional - as photographic fine art?

2- Fit more interiors - no wondering about "will it work over our sofa"?

3- More emotional impact? No wonderful colors to bring it together. It must have something special?

4- Fewer and fewer fine art photographers are doing it? And a zillion amateurs are doing color?

5- No screaming sunsets or wild vistas?

What are your thoughts? Would you have a preference as a buyer? As a photographer?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
RhysM said:
A few thoughts from me, (probably won't be popular, but hey I'm thick skinned):

1) I don't consider any photography to be fine art.

Sure photos can have a degree of artistic merit, be aesthetically appealing and be creative. Photographs can evoke emotion and draw you into a world of contemplation. But with all that said, at the end of the day they're always going to be a reproduction, a facsimile of a scene, object, person, etc.

I believe the art is in creating something from scratch not pointing a piece of technology at it, changing a few variables on a given scale and pressing a button to photograph it. Anyone and I mean ANYONE given enough practice and instruction can create what some would call "Art" with a camera. The same can't be said for sculpting, painting, singing, etc.

I think there should be a distinction between creating genuine art by manually using tools (paint brushes, chisels, etc) or nothing but the human hands i.e. sculpting, painting, etc vs operating semi-autonomous machinery.
Click to expand...
So . . . wouldn't a computer be considered a tool? I operate it with my right hand - as I do a paintbrush when painting. I don't record, I conceptualize. My images come from my mind as opposed to recording a scene. I think your explanation is overly simplified.

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

These examples are a little over the top (and don't sell well), but they illustrate my point.
RhysM said:
It's a strange distinction but to put it another way almost anyone can run even all but the very fattest and unfit person can to some degree run, but it doesn't make them a "runner", by the same token a photographer can be artistic but not an "artist".

2) I think B&W is over-rated. It is seen as being "artistic" because so many iconic images were created when there was no alternative to B&W and by association we recall numerous B&W images from text books, exhibits, galleries etc and are conditioned to make the link to B&W being the benchmark for any photo deserving of artistic praise.

3) With the current technologies in cameras, computer based post production, printing, etc I would question the skill of the photographer or "artist" if they can't make a subject look "artistic" in colour but instead turn to the cliche of converting it to black and white.
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
Last edited:
I have been doing a fair amount of Black and White work lately. I find that I can accomplish more using the Silver Efex plug in than I did in my B & W darkroom. However, I cannot get the same feel of B & W prints from a fairly high quality ink jet printer. If I have a print to sell I have it printed by a local company in Belmont MA, Digital Silver Imaging. They print digital files using silver b& W chemistry. Their prints are very high quality, and if pick up you prints in person, the lab smells like my old darkroom.

One other point. I have shot nudes on occasion and I think "artistic" nudes lend them selves to B & W.

Just look at the work of Edward Weston, or Ruth Bernhard
 
RhysM said:
A few thoughts from me, (probably won't be popular, but hey I'm thick skinned):

1) I don't consider any photography to be fine art.

I think there should be a distinction between creating genuine art by manually using tools (paint brushes, chisels, etc) or nothing but the human hands i.e. sculpting, painting, etc vs operating semi-autonomous machinery.

\
Click to expand...
This is a bit like claiming poetry composed on a typewriter is not art....
 
Blake Cook said:
RhysM said:
A few thoughts from me, (probably won't be popular, but hey I'm thick skinned):

1) I don't consider any photography to be fine art.

I think there should be a distinction between creating genuine art by manually using tools (paint brushes, chisels, etc) or nothing but the human hands i.e. sculpting, painting, etc vs operating semi-autonomous machinery.

\
Click to expand...
This is a bit like claiming poetry composed on a typewriter is not art....

--
Blake in Vancouver
Canon and Zeiss Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows stuff.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you've got the mental capacity and logical reasoning ability of a turnip.
 
Last edited:
General question...what is the difference between fine art and art? I always believed that anything done well at a very high level is at least some kind of art. Cooking, plastic surgery, wrist watches, auto design, music, writing, painting (including house painting!), conversation as in "the art of conversation", and the list goes on and on. Even some of the tools used to create art can be considered art...some old optics are considered "art lenses". I knew Andy Warhol's brother, he signed a laser copy of an Absolut Vodka ad for me. Would that one of a kind signed collectable be "art"?
 
There are so many variables, both technically and from perception standpoint, it's difficult to say.

Personally, I prefer B&W, as my favorite photos are B&W.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top