No
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is Black and White photography better?
- Thread starter Rambow
- Start date
robgendreau
Forum Pro
Maybe I missed it, but a reason to do monochrome is that it is sometimes easier to give viewers a uniform experience. Color perception varies with individuals, quite often by a lot. And that's even before you get into the differences in gamut, etc with each display device, and of course the fading or casts in prints and negs/slides.
Also, colors interact in ways that can either distract or add to the story of an image and what you're trying to get across. When they clash, but it's still a good scene, then perhaps monochrome is better.
Also, you can manipulate luminance in BW in ways that are different than color. Some colors are perceived as brighter even if their luminance is actually equal to other colors. And our eye has a bias for green.
But note that sometimes all this works in the opposite direction, where we only have BW but need to add color to make more sense of an image. That's why IR shooters do color swaps, or add color, from amateurs here to the astronomers shooting with the JWST.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Obviously, B&W is in no way "better", just different.
jaberg
Senior Member
Photographers choose black and white when it’s the tool that best tool with which to realize their vision. (Sometimes, in my case, because I pushed the ISO so high to “get the shot” that I feel it’s the best/only/right choice.)
(I’m sure someone has made this point but I’m not reading this thread to completion or dropping any further down this rat hole.)
(I’m sure someone has made this point but I’m not reading this thread to completion or dropping any further down this rat hole.)
Rambow
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,010
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,157
Thank you for participating.
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
I consider black and white photography to be a more "artful" medium than color, but definitely not because turning a color photo into monochrome automatically makes it art. Rather, it takes more art to make a pleasing black and white image than color.
I think that color is an easy way to add appeal to an image, and there's nothing wrong with that. Color is almost always more pleasant, and there is some sense of monochrome being more melancholic: perhaps literally, because the root word 'melan-' means black.
Frequently I see beginner photographers offer two photos side-by-side, one in color and one converted to black and white, and they ask which is better. Almost always, the color one is better, and I suspect that they feel likewise, otherwise they wouldn't have asked, but they must have some notion about black and white being art, but they just don't see why in their own images. Getting a good monochrome image simply takes more work and a better eye.
In some senses, I think that black and white photography is more of an "insiders" or enthusiast medium. Just like some films are loved by the critics, or generally by those inside of the industry, but hated by the people, and so for sure some genres are more popular in the photo-world than by the general viewing public.
I think that color is an easy way to add appeal to an image, and there's nothing wrong with that. Color is almost always more pleasant, and there is some sense of monochrome being more melancholic: perhaps literally, because the root word 'melan-' means black.
Frequently I see beginner photographers offer two photos side-by-side, one in color and one converted to black and white, and they ask which is better. Almost always, the color one is better, and I suspect that they feel likewise, otherwise they wouldn't have asked, but they must have some notion about black and white being art, but they just don't see why in their own images. Getting a good monochrome image simply takes more work and a better eye.
In some senses, I think that black and white photography is more of an "insiders" or enthusiast medium. Just like some films are loved by the critics, or generally by those inside of the industry, but hated by the people, and so for sure some genres are more popular in the photo-world than by the general viewing public.
To me it's a bit like comparing music created with acoustic instruments and human voices in e.g. folk style vs. say, ambient electronica or a contemporary pop song. Whether one is better than the other is pretty much down to personal preferences. Personally, I enjoy both good traditional music performances as well as synth-heavy stuff.
... emphasizing the design elements in an image which are not color. If one is really trying to bring out elements of light, texture, line shape, tone, etc than more often than not a B&W treatment will bring out those things more. I'm a graphic designer and I'm always thinking about these design type elements when I shoot and for me B&W is a great way to emphasize those kinds of things. To be fair, color is a design element as well and there's certainly a lot that can be done with it, but by using that one can be distracted from everything else that's going on. B&W really focuses the viewers attention to the fundamental structures of the image.
B&W too also has the effect of abstracting the image a bit so that one isn't really thinking quite as much about what the photo is referencing, but of the photo itself.
Though this want part of the question, whenever B&W photography is brought up, I always feel the need to bring up the fact that shooting for B&W doesn't necessarily mean presenting the work in only shades of black. Traditionally photographers who shot in B&W would very often tone their prints, often very subtly so that it was pure black that was seen in the final image. The photographic paper used was often not producing anything like a pure black either. I use the same kinds of techniques when I process digitally and in fact do something that in the along photography world was known as "split toning," where the mid-tones are "toned" one color and the shadows another. I find that with the right image that it can ad some dimension to the scene.
I'll also say that one a more philosophical level, that B&W can have the effect of creating a timeless kind of feel. I say "timeless' rather than "old" as that's kind of the cliche; that B&W photography makes things into antiques, or something like that. I see it more like with color a scene is really a slice of time, but is more likely to reference a specific time in the viewer, where they might think "that was probably taken in the mid 90s." A B&W shot of the same scene though is, I believe, less likely to make the viewer think so much about the era of time that it was shot in... and I like that. Again, it's all about focusing the viewers attention on the fundamental aspects of the scene...
--
my flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
B&W too also has the effect of abstracting the image a bit so that one isn't really thinking quite as much about what the photo is referencing, but of the photo itself.
Though this want part of the question, whenever B&W photography is brought up, I always feel the need to bring up the fact that shooting for B&W doesn't necessarily mean presenting the work in only shades of black. Traditionally photographers who shot in B&W would very often tone their prints, often very subtly so that it was pure black that was seen in the final image. The photographic paper used was often not producing anything like a pure black either. I use the same kinds of techniques when I process digitally and in fact do something that in the along photography world was known as "split toning," where the mid-tones are "toned" one color and the shadows another. I find that with the right image that it can ad some dimension to the scene.
I'll also say that one a more philosophical level, that B&W can have the effect of creating a timeless kind of feel. I say "timeless' rather than "old" as that's kind of the cliche; that B&W photography makes things into antiques, or something like that. I see it more like with color a scene is really a slice of time, but is more likely to reference a specific time in the viewer, where they might think "that was probably taken in the mid 90s." A B&W shot of the same scene though is, I believe, less likely to make the viewer think so much about the era of time that it was shot in... and I like that. Again, it's all about focusing the viewers attention on the fundamental aspects of the scene...
--
my flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
Music by all instruments is good as long as it's not computer generated. Music needs the human element of creativity.
A computer though is really just a tool and one can be creative with any tool. Are we automatically not creative as photographers because we are using tools which are essentially computers... and then using actual computers to process the images? I'm a graphic designer and I use a computer for my work... Are you implying that as long as I'm using a computer as a tool that what I do can't possibly have any creative component to it? That would be news to me.
SelrahCharleS
Senior Member
If you weren't aware I believe Pentax has plans to produce a monochrome version of their K3-III. I'm sure production will be quite limited but should be a lot more affordable than Leica.
I'm no pro, but it seems to me that this is the most unlikely of scenarios... Doesn't the client pay for the service, not the tools used and isn't it the photographer's job to choose the very best tools (not the client's).
No doubt... I shoot a lot of B&W and if money were no question it seems to me that a purpose built camera for that might be a very nice thing to have as long as the performance really was better than what color senor cameras offer. Still so much of what I like about doing B&W in the digital realm is filter the colors and choosing just how the color to B&W conversion goes in the post processing stage. With that Leica one could do some of the same thing with physical filters over the lens, but having to swap those in the field would be kind of a pain and it wouldn't allow the same kind of precision conversion that one can do with software. I think that I'd be willing to give up a bit of the perfection of the capture for more choice in the conversion, post process...
tbcass
Forum Pro
You completely misinterpreted my point. I'm talking about computer-generated music. By that, I am talking about music created by a program that uses music theory to write and perform music without human interaction.
Got it... you're talking about AI. Though the possibility of that tech are certainly interesting, I fear that it could potentially take some of the fun out of creating art. In a world where AI artwork is everywhere and where it does a good job of imitating what humans do, they'll be less reason to want to share one's own creative output.
tbcass
Forum Pro
The best music deviates from what is considered "correct" just enough to create interest. Without human intelligence, a computer cannot do that.
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
A client with deep pockets and refined tastes who enjoys luxury. You think a Leica Monochrom can't do a good job? Especially if you have a pile of other cameras as backup?
I just don't imagine that there are many clients that care what kind of gear that you use. I see "refined tastes" and "luxury" more as translating to paying more for models, locations, more lighting, etc but not specifying certain kinds of camera gear...
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
That’s interesting.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum