color vs. black and white

[smokysun]

another version added to the mix.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[nei1]

Streetshooter you seem to have deliberatly misinterpreted what was said,no offence was intended to you or your beliefs.Your portraits look to be very fine,I would certainly like to see more. regards,Nei1.

 

[Will]

Wayne thanks for the information.
Although it is a theory (hunch) I had come to independently, I had expected that many more learned people than myself would have already had similar thoughts and researched it. I will look forward to following your links.

I'm an avid follower of the phenomenal acceleration of scientific exploration and discovery currently happening, much of which is to do with the brain and how it interprets information and extrapolates, from that, about the world around us.

Lilly, I've always suspected that cat people have a slight superiority to those who don't have our insight. It is the only reason I can see for why cats are prepared to put up with us

 

[Streetshooter]

Nei1,
None taken. It's good for us to know
about each other and what we are.
It's just the human condition....

Photography keeps me in the here and
now. Otherwise I'm just drifting.....
Don

 

[ecliffordsmith]

Hi Wayne,

Your second colour version seems to convey the foreboding mood of the B&W. I like it a lot.

 

[Streetshooter]

For me, Color borders on sentimentality, whereas b&w creates
a new reality. Thru the years scanning my body of work
It seems that about 5% is color. What this means to me
is that my clients respond to b&w also.

One issue for me is, I do raw only. Then when editing the work,
I see color images and my receptors are confused.
In myond at the moment of release, I visualized
a b&w image. So editing becomes more of a chore
because I have to re-photograph in my mind
to find the b&w image again.

Anyway, I apoligize if I offended anyone...it's
just passion...what's life without passion....
don

 

[TRSmith]

Cats vs. dogs, MAC vs. PC, Color vs. B&W. It's fantastic! What a boring world it would be if we were all the same. Having said that.... dogs rule.

 

[Streetshooter]

My cat doesn't agree with that.......

 

[smokysun]

thanks, ed. color seems to suffer when there's too much detail.

best,
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[Will]

Hi Wayne,

Your second colour version seems to convey the foreboding mood of the B&W. I like it a lot.

I was thinking that.
Looks like it was taken at dusk, or, put another way, nearly night time.

 

[nei1]

These comments could only have come from the digital age where a photograph can be colour or black and white ,the choice made after the event and possibly from younger photographers than myself who have less experience of film.The idea that Im using b and w because I see in black and white at night is frankly laughable,to chose to put something into b and w after the event is another thing and is a choice only a digital effects affectionado would or could contemplate.I use black and white because it simplifies what im looking at into what I want to show,the boogie man does not enter the equation.

 

[Streetshooter]

See, there's the problem......the boogie man gets into my stuff when I open a file and see color.......That's an issue I have with the DP1...the screen is in color...I don't use it really, the viewfinder is better but sometimes when I want to check an image when I'm bored.....well, then I see it in color...I just hate that...

the GX-200 at least is smart enuff to show me B&W on the screen....
that's a camera having respect for the photographer.....

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

If colours don't add anything to a photo, it often makes sense to take them away. Many portraits are obvious examples. In a face, the lines make up the interesting parts. Lines are emphasized in b&w, while colours tend to hide them, mostly without adding anything essential.

In the OP's photo, the whole scene is changed by converting to b&w. In the colour version, I look at the house (and for some reason, I wonder why it isn't yellow, like the "thing" on the bench).

When converted to b&w, the trees stand out in a completely different way, since the colours don't obstruct the lines of the branches against the sky. From being something that hides the view to the house, the branches become the important element of the photo. And because the trees become better defined, the house stands out more clearly as well. I don't even care what colour it has any more.

Or at least, this is what I see

 

[jonoslack]

These comments could only have come from the digital age where a photograph can be colour or black and white ,the choice made after the event and possibly from younger photographers than myself who have less experience of film.The idea that Im using b and w because I see in black and white at night is frankly laughable,to chose to put something into b and w after the event is another thing and is a choice only a digital effects affectionado would or could contemplate.I use black and white because it simplifies what im looking at into what I want to show,the boogie man does not enter the equation.

Hmmm
I guess I might be even older than you Neil (not by much of course :ROTFL. But I really relish this 'after the event' stuff.
Having said that, I always know whether a shot is destined to be black and white or colour when I shoot it (I think I'd worry about my artistic cred if I didn't), but what a luxury to be able to mix it with the same camera without changing film, and how lovely to have the opportunity to be able to change your mind, or perhaps to make two pictures after the event.

 

[Will]

These comments could only have come from the digital age where a photograph can be colour or black and white ,the choice made after the event and possibly from younger photographers than myself who have less experience of film.The idea that Im using b and w because I see in black and white at night is frankly laughable,to chose to put something into b and w after the event is another thing and is a choice only a digital effects affectionado would or could contemplate.I use black and white because it simplifies what im looking at into what I want to show,the boogie man does not enter the equation.

I think this post is frankly patronizing.

 

[cam]

Hmmm
I guess I might be even older than you Neil (not by much of course :ROTFL. But I really relish this 'after the event' stuff.
Having said that, I always know whether a shot is destined to be black and white or colour when I shoot it (I think I'd worry about my artistic cred if I didn't), but what a luxury to be able to mix it with the same camera without changing film, and how lovely to have the opportunity to be able to change your mind, or perhaps to make two pictures after the event.

amen!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Having said that, I always know whether a shot is destined to be black and white or colour when I shoot it...

That's an interesting comment. I usually don't have a clue if the photo will end up as colour or b&w when I take it. Goes to prove that there aren't really any answer that suits all photographers and all situations, doesn't it?

I went through this process with the photo below, and although I prefer the b&w version in many ways, it takes away the important element of colourful chaos behind the counter. It goes from being a description of an everyday scene, to becoming an environmental portrait. A big difference in my book.

Sorry for the off-topic camera.

 

[TRSmith]

I'm in Jono's camp on this one (although he's not paying me to say so). I am very tired of people speaking of digital as if it's a four-letter word. I learned on film and shot every size and shape of it for a good 15 years. I still think there are some wonderful advantages to film. But digital has just as many, albeit different advantages. The film vs. digital discussion is getting increasingly boring and counterproductive. Love one, or both, but don't preach to me.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I'm in Jono's camp on this one (although he's not paying me to say so). I am very tired of people speaking of digital as if it's a four-letter word. I learned on film and shot every size and shape of it for a good 15 years. I still think there are some wonderful advantages to film. But digital has just as many, albeit different advantages. The film vs. digital discussion is getting increasingly boring and counterproductive. Love one, or both, but don't preach to me.

It don't remember when, but since I can remember it at all, it can't have been more than 30-40 years ago, there was a big discussion in Oslo if photography could be considered art, and if it should be allowed into the Autumn Exhibition of Modern Art, a big annual event in Norway.
Edit: I checked. The first photo was exhibited in 1971. The exhibition has been arranged annually since 1882. That's 89 years without photos, although photos did exist all the time. Digital has probably had a faster way in.

Surprisingly many seem to think that one form of art or technology should automatically exclude others within the same genre. History has shown again and again that this is not the case. If it was, who on earth would pay anything for those old, obsolete Rembrandt paintings?

 

[Streetshooter]

Well, Stieglitz resolved that issue with Gallery 291 and that was many years before 40 years ago....

Let's face it, photographer's make photographs for other photographers......

don