Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/04/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina, I don't know about any overall philosophy of B&W vs. Color, but I do know that when I go to an exhibit that has both color and B&W prints, I virtually always prefer the B&W. I find that B&W has the potential for having a visual and emotional power that color rarely can attain. They really are different media. Robert On Apr 17, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Tina Manley wrote: > Well, I totally disagree. I think there is a place and a reason > for B&W > photography today. I agree with Ted that when you photograph > people in > color, you are photographing their clothes. When you photograph > them in > B&W, without the distraction of color, you see their faces and eyes > - soul, > if you will. Unless there is a specific reason for using color, I > usually > prefer B&W. I have versions of all of these photos in color, but > it's the > B&W ones that move me: > > http://tinamanley.smugmug.com/gallery/5885005_Vryn9#367425430_KikRj > > <http://tinamanley.smugmug.com/gallery/ > 5885005_Vryn9#367425430_KikRj>B&W is > coming back for use in advertising, too. It stands out among all > of the > color snapshots that bombard us constantly. > > Tina > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin > <lrzeitlin at gmail.com>wrote: > >> All I asked was why Lluis took so many B&W photos in colorful >> Barcelona. >> Rather than a simple answer to the question, the LUG was treated to a >> barrage of overpowering assumptions about the merits of B&W. I >> apologize if >> my polemic seems to be mostly directed at Dr. Ted but his response >> was the >> longest, had the most arguments, and was the best target. Sorry, >> Dr. Ted. >> >> >> It is amazing how many red herrings B&W advocates have managed to >> drag into >> the discussion of B&W vs. color in photography. Had most LUG >> colorphobes >> been consistent, the herrings would have been gray. As far as the >> picture >> viewing public is concerned, however, there is no contest. Color >> photography >> is the runaway winner. Even though film sales have plunged to one >> seventh >> of >> their volume of ten years ago, color film outsells B&W film by 20 >> to 1. >> Preference for B&W or color may be a judgment call but there are >> valid >> reasons why B&W was used in the past and color predominates today. >> >> >> For me, and most of the country's movie audience, the choice >> between color >> and B&W came with the release of "The Wizard of Oz" in 1939. I was >> taken to >> see the film as a birthday present on its local premier in a big >> Chicago >> movie theater. To this day I remember the collective gasp of the >> audience >> when Dorothy stepped out of her B&W Kansas home into the >> Technicolor land >> of >> Oz. In 1947, only 12 percent of Hollywood films were made in >> color. By >> 1954, >> that number rose to over 50 percent. Today over 90% of commercial >> films are >> made in color. Despite the objection of Hollywood purists to the >> colorizing >> of old B&W films, the public demands it. >> >> >> Now about the technology. Color photography has a history almost >> as long as >> B&W photography, dating back to James Clerk Maxwell's >> demonstration of >> three >> color photography in 1861. But until the advent of integral >> tripack color >> films in the 30s (Kodachrome), color photography was quite >> difficult. Back >> in the day I fooled around with the carbro and wash off relief >> processes. >> It >> took me a full day to make a single print. Compared to color, B&W >> processing >> was dead easy. But B&W photography largely vanished from the >> public domain >> with the advent of the digital camera. As far as I know no >> consumer B&W >> digital camera has been offered to the general public since the .09 >> megapixel Logitech Fotoman of 1990. You can use your digital >> camera to make >> B&W photos but it seems a waste of two thirds of the camera's >> resources. >> >> >> I agree with Ted that content is the most important characteristic >> for news >> and documantary photographs. But I completely reject his assumption >> that disasters >> generally look worse in B&W simply because the content is usually >> violence >> and death. B&W provides a degree of abstraction that insulates the >> viewer >> from the emotionality of the event. The color of blood in B&W is >> black. The >> color of brain matter is gray. The real colors are far different. >> The two >> photos he cites from the Vietnam war, photo of the police officer >> shooting >> the VC through the head and the young girl running away from the >> Napalm >> with >> her clothes and body burnt would have been even more striking in >> color. As >> would Capa's photographs of the D Day landing. Contrary to Ted's >> view that >> "colour wouldn't have added anything," I feel that color would >> have added a >> great deal. Blood is red, Napalm burns bright orange. Neither is >> in B&W. >> >> >> So why weren't the pictures in color? First, printing color images in >> letterpress is a difficult and time consuming process. Even B&W >> printing is >> a challenge. Matthew Brady's pictures of the Civil War never >> appeared in >> newspapers because the halftone process wasn't available until >> 1881, a >> decade and a half after the war ended. My old paper, the Boston >> Globe, used >> a 65 dpi halftone screen until 1960. Leica image quality certainly >> wasn't >> necessary and color was out of the question. Run-of-press color >> was not >> common in general circulation newspapers until the mid 70s. Quite >> a long >> while after the dramatic pictures that Ted mentions were taken. >> >> >> >> Ted tries to support the dominance of B&W as preferable in news >> photography >> by saying "the 280,000 images in the National Archives of Canada >> collection? >> It's probably 75% B&W, 25% colour. Again simply because of the >> assignment >> and whether magazine assignments, travel or tourism or whether the >> client >> asked specifically to shoot in whatever medium." To put it bluntly, >> newspapers and news magazines did not demand color photos because >> of the >> merit of B&W but simply because it was less convenient and more >> costly to >> get color pictures printed when most of Ted's pictures were taken. >> That's >> not the case today. >> >> >> Second, very few news photographers, particularly those in combat >> zones, >> shot color in the field. I know this for a fact. As a Korean war vet >> attached to Conarc Board 2 (the Armored Center) and the First >> Cavalry, one >> of my military assignments was to photograph Army armored vehicles in >> combat. Color films were slow and difficult to get processed. The >> only way >> to get color film processed was to send it to Japan. All it took >> to develop >> B&W film was a TriChem pack, a suitable dark space, a film tank and a >> couple >> of liters of water. It was easy if you were not too busy dodging >> bullets. I >> am sure that much the same conditions held in Vietnam ten years >> later. I >> was >> there, I know. >> >> >> Finally, most psychologists hold that while meaning can be >> conveyed by a >> B&W >> image, the emotional affect is largely conveyed by color. >> Remember, blood >> is >> red, not black. Vomit is green, not gray, Flowers are not B&W but >> are a >> Crayola box of color. B&W is so seldom seen in commercial imaging >> today >> that >> it is attention getting by its rarity. Perhaps being different is the >> reason >> for success of the apocryphal portrait studio that Ted mentions. >> The image >> consuming public has spoken. B&W photography is a fossil >> technology largely >> supported by fossils such as inhabit the LUG. Remember, if color >> images >> offend you, you can always turn down the saturation on your >> computer screen >> or view them on your B&W TV. >> >> >> Just the facts. >> >> >> Larry Z >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > > -- > Tina Manley, ASMP > www.tinamanley.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information