Re: [Leica] B&W / Color

[nbwatson@juno.com (N. B. Watson)]

There was a time, early on in the advent of colour photography for the
masses, that more images "worked" in colour...simply because it was new
and exciting and *colourful*.  Now that viewers are saturated (pardon the
unintentional pun) with colour images, I think that it is requiring more
and more ingenuity to impart visual impact to colour images than it once
was.  OTOH, practitioners of B&W have never had the luxury of the colour
palette and, as you say, *blood sweat and tears*...or at least
substantial purposeful forethought...has always been required to produce
the finest work in that medium.

Regards,
Nigel

On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 22:03:25 -0700 Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> writes:
>Back when I started in photography, I was in Junior Hi, 8th grade, 13 
>years
>old, 1951. The science teacher, Guy Cochran, started a photography 
>club,
>and taught us how to develop film. No reels, the yo-yo method. We made
>contact prints using a print frame and goose neck lamp. My camera was 
>a 120
>folding camera. Sometime that year I bought an old Federal enlarger 
>and set
>it up in my bedroom closet on a card table. At some point in the next
>couple of years, I bought a Rolleicord. My uncle, in Baker Oregon, 
>owned
>the local drug store which had a photo department. I got it at cost. I 
>took
>pictures for the High School yearbook. Everything until now was B&W. 
>While
>in HS, I used some Ektachrome (E2) and processed it myself at home (E2
>kit). It turned out great and I still have the 2-1/4 slides. Somewhat
>faded, but there. I went to Oregon State College engineering school. I
>belonged to the photo club and took pictures for the year book. Except 
>for
>the Ektachrome while in HS, everything was still B&W. After OSC (OSU 
>now) I
>went to Brooks Institute of Photography.
>
>At Brooks, in 1960, you start with only a view camera, incident meter, 
>and
>B&W film. Super XX. You learn everything there is to know about
>compression, expansion, gamma, dynamic range, etc, etc, etc... All 
>work
>(assignments) is printed and mounted on matt board, every week, for
>critique. All B&W. Minimum 8x10, max 16x20. Normally work was printed
>11x14. About the second year into Brooks, I learned both type-C 
>printing
>and Dye Transfer. Over the past thirty years, I've printed a lot of 
>B&W,
>Type-C, and Cibachromes.
>
>I had to give some history to show that I've paid my dues in B&W.
>
>The bottom line to this story... B&W photography is immensely more
>difficult than color. To make negatives that contain the proper 
>dynamic
>range, you must calculate the proper exposure (not necessary the gray 
>card
>value - as is the normal case with color). Processing method is 
>dependent
>upon the brightness ratio of the scene and where in the brightness 
>range
>you put the exposure. And what you envision the result looking like. 
>You
>also should record the brightness range to determine the proper 
>development
>procedure. THEN!!! you have to print it. Which paper grade, which 
>paper,
>which developer, how to dodge, how to burn, etc, etc, etc... The 
>negative
>scale may not match he paper you want. Or any paper. There are 
>decisions at
>every step, from the vision, to the dried print, that can make or 
>break
>your result. And the final print is simply black, white, and whatever 
>mid
>gray tones you have managed to keep or want. The result must have 
>impact,
>contrast, dynamic range, form, composition, and all the things that 
>quite
>often don't matter when you use color. This is difficult to do well. 
>It's
>even more difficult with roll film because you have to process the 
>whole
>roll the same way.
>
>Many of my large Cibachromes are simply photographs of nice 
>landscapes.
>People really like them. They are straight prints of transparencies. 
>No
>mask, nothing. They would be extremely difficult to do in B&W. Trees,
>hills, sky? Not exactly thrilling. Dark blue sky, lighter blue ocean 
>water,
>whitish sand, yellow-white rocks and cliffs in color, work. Not 
>necessarily
>in B&W. Unless the lighting or some other dramatic effect is present. 
>Color
>works when there is only color. B&W takes a lot of work, special 
>lighting,
>something to make an impact. Not just a pleasant scene.
>
>
>Maybe I'm just dumber than the average photographer??? But good color 
>just
>happens. Good B&W is a hellova lot of work! And even after one hellova 
>lot
>of sweat and work, the result might still be only mediocre.
>
>Take two cameras, one with color, the other with B&W. Take the exact 
>same
>photographs with both. Print both color and B&W prints (8x10 or 
>better).
>Typically, more color photographs work than B&W, simply because of the
>color. After taking the photograph, most of the color work is done. 
>The B&W
>work has just begun.
>
>Jim
>
>PS... Of course there are exceptions to everything. What I've covered 
>above
>is what I consider to be the norm. You can indeed have a difficult 
>time
>with color. But on the average, it is easier to garner good results 
>with
>color, than B&W.
>
>PPS... Look at Ansel Adams prints. These were "created" in the 
>darkroom.
>Blood, sweat, and tears (sounds like a band :) went into the print. 
>The
>actual photographing of the scene was typically but an instant in the 
>weeks
>and months required to make the first acceptable gallery quality 
>print.
>After once made, the process was recorded and subsequent prints were 
>much
>easier.
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]