Topic: Is Black & White Photography Just Cheating?

[Ed Wenn]

I've just spent a memorable couple of hours at "In the Face of History: European Photographers in the 20th Century" exhibition at the Barbican here in London. If you're in the neighbourhood, do drop in because it's excellent. Here's a link to a very small sample of the type of things on offer: http://www.barbican.org.uk/generic/large-images.asp?id=4340&af=artgallery

However, as I was trawling the fantastic collection of images on display I kept thinking how the black and white images appealed to me more than the colour ones. Now, I can think of many, many good reasons why this is the case, but I thought the subject may generate an interesting discussion so I'll keep quiet for now.

So, is black and white photography just cheating? Is it a shortcut? Is it harder to take a great colour photo?

[This-is-damion]

I think maybe your onto something there wenn,  i have heard a few times people say about photography" everything looks better in B&W"  and its true i think,  it simplifies what you see and allows you to concentrate on form, composition and so on -colour just distracts, so for me  its a lot harder to take a colour photograph i like. 
just when i thought i was maybe getting somewhere with this photogpraphy thing  you go and pull the rug from under me....thanks, thanks a lot

[astrobeck]

I don't think it's cheating.

My question is if we really see it as presented, or do we fill in the color when admiring a B&W image?

Thanks Ed, for the chance to ponder out loud.

[Ed Wenn]

Damion, you'll love this next comment*

The way I see it is that it's like the difference between playing bass guitar and normal guitar. There's no question in my mind that of the two it's easier to become mildly proficient on the bass, but obviously it's just as hard to become a true artist no matter which instrument you play. I think of b/w vs colour in much the same way. It's probably easier to tick all the right boxes for a b/w photo to pass as 'art' or for you to get lucky with a shot, but it seems harder to bluff it in colour. However, to take a real masterpiece is bloody hard in b/w and in colour.

Also, with ref to the exhibition that sparked the question there are some very specific reasons why the thought might have occurred to me as I wandered around:

• The colour photos on the whole might not have been as good or as appealing to me as the b/w ones.
• Perhaps I incline naturally rowards b/w photography.
• Maybe it was simply that there were mere were more b/w photos than colour ones.
• Becky may also be onto something with her comment. I for one, definitely don't fill in the colours, but the fact that the photo's in b/w definitely abstracts it from the present day and leaves more around the image open for me to interpret....hmmm, that didn't work well, but hopefully the basic point is there.

*For those who don't know; Damion plays bass and I play guitar

[Ed Wenn]

Also, with regard to the word, 'cheating', please let it be clear that I'm deliberately using provocative language and that I don't actually think of it as cheating in any way. I do however think that for some of us (moi included) it is often used as a short cut.

[Francois]

I don't believe B&W is really taking the easy way out. For me, it's more like taking the other road. You have to deal with only a few different constraints when compared to color. I like B&W a lot. Alternative processes done with a modern twist can be just wonderful. To me, B&W is more about being "hand made", while color tends to look more "industrial". Yet, like all "industrial" things, a good color photo will be good no matter what. And a lousy color photo will be just that.

In color, you have to work more like an industrial designer. Once the image is captured, there isn't much you can do to change it (or, at least without going Digital with it...). It could go into "production" just like a piece of furniture.

In B&W, it comes more down to skills. A B&W print is pretty much a unique object. Difficult to reproduce exactly. More akin to a painting than a piece of industrial furniture. This can give it added charm.

Is one better than the other... to me, they're brothers. Born from chemistry and light. Color was the dream of early photographers. Now, what makes us grind our teeth at it is that it's become so mainstream that everyone can do it.

B&W has an classic abstract side to it. You don't need the color to appreciate it.

This gets me wondering about something else: How do colorblind people react to the subject... There is a local TV host who sees the world only in shades of gray (severe colorblindness)... Maybe these people hold a part of the final answer.

[Janet_P]

I agree Ed, Black and White does appeal more, to me anyway. Which is strange when you think about it, because it should really be colour that feels more natural to look at and easier to visualise, being that it's what we are surrounded by in 'the real world'.

I think it's part of the cultural expectations we have of photographs. We have spent so long looking at Black and White shots that it is ingrained in our psyche, we understand the language it uses.

Sadly, this will probably change over the next couple of generations as digital photography takes hold and people's photo albums are filled with colour prints of great grandparents and creating a digital black and white shot involves changing from a colour original. The language will change.

Janet

[david b]

I tend to agree with Janet that the perception of black & white will change as time goes on - but maybe away from being "old-fashioned" and towards being seen as a strange artistic abstraction, which it very much is in my opinion. If I'm ever forced to go digital, though, I'm not sure b&w would really make as much sense to me anymore...

On the "cheating" topic - if there's one things that comes close I'd say it's the use of very large prints. I've seen a lot of mediocre work presented like that lately, and I'm sure the idea is to get you to think that something taking up so much space on a gallery wall MUST be worthwhile.

[Francois]

Sadly, this will probably change over the next couple of generations as digital photography takes hold and people's photo albums are filled with colour prints of great grandparents and creating a digital black and white shot involves changing from a colour original. The language will change.

When it comes to people having digital photos in their family album... I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I read that people who shoot digital usually don't print their family pictures. Something I find scary. People usually either leave the photos archived on their "indestructible" hard disk or store them on "fool proof" DVD disks. Now, from personal experience, I know this is a disaster waiting to happen. I also know that most families who's pictures are stored on a drive that crashed won't pay the thousand dollars it costs to have the images extracted the hard way.

Now, when it comes to the cheating part, this is definitely a big part of it. Imagine the thousands of kids who will be cheated out of having family pictures to share with their own kids!

Now, when we look back on film... at least I can always read my images!

[Ed Wenn]

On the "cheating" topic - if there's one things that comes close I'd say it's the use of very large prints. I've seen a lot of mediocre work presented like that lately, and I'm sure the idea is to get you to think that something taking up so much space on a gallery wall MUST be worthwhile.

David, I agree 100% with you on that. On one hand with most things visual bigger is often better (or at least has more impact) - i.e. a movie usually packs more punch on the big screen than on a 14" TV set - but for a photo to be truly great it has to look amazing printed small in a book as well as big and bold on a gallery wall.

[lauraburlton]

Re: large scale prints
I agree, there does seem to be a school of though that bigger is better. Recently though I have to say my favorite prints are very small contacts of 4 x 5 images. The viewer has to get really close and it is almost as if you are looking at a jewel box or something. I prefer small, they just seem precious somehow. Mind you, that is just with my black and white stuff, My color stuff I tend to blow up to 16 x 16. I do have a friend though that just had a light jet print made that is something like 20" x 7' mind you his prints are a bit gimmicky as well. When he first got a holga he accidentally put the film in upside down so all he got were shades of light and since then he has started printing them in color, but he has had quite a good reaction to them. The museum recently bought a piece from him so I guess he is on to something...

[Francois]

When he first got a holga he accidentally put the film in upside down so all he got were shades of light and since then he has started printing them in color, but he has had quite a good reaction to them. The museum recently bought a piece from him so I guess he is on to something...

The guy probably dreamed up something to make the mistake look like a stroke of genius. Proof that it isn't the picture that sells, but the idea behind it.

I agree that there are tons of bad large format pictures out there. It is also obvious that big always means more impact.
After looking at an incredible number of big photos, a pattern comes out (so do my art history classes ). Most of the big photos I have seen were somehow related to the Plastic Photography movement (a free translation from the French "Photographie Plasticienne", which isn't about Holga...)
In this movement, the photos are not taken by photographers, but by artists. Their concern isn't about exposure, composition or the perfect print. The concept behind the image is more important than technical detail. So, if you want your idea to have some punch, go big or go home.

[sparx]

For me it's more than just the colour (or lack of) to an image that draws me to it.

Online or in magazines a picture will appeal to me because of composition, imagination, originality etc. Whether it's shot monochrome or technicolor is just a small part of it.

When I go to a gallery to look at work, the way the print has been produced also comes into it. And colour prints don't tend to be done by hand anymore, even if it was originally shot on film. Therefore, a hand-printed B&W image holds more appeal to me because I can appreciate the skill and talent that went into the printing as well as the actual picture taking.

As for the size issue, I went to a small exhibition in Cromer recently where a digital photographer was selling work that was A1 sized. Close up it looked awful, all you could see was pixels and dots. To appreciate what was a good picture you had to stand across the room to look at it and that's not for me. I like to get in close and examine the detail. The price was a bit of an eye-opener as well. £395 for an A1 giclee print of some rust.

It wasn't that good a picture!

[TonyP]

From my perspective, black and white isn’t cheating but is a different technique from colour, similar to when artists use pencil, water colours or oils. I know there are many that feel they can shoot black and white or colour the same way, but I find if I try that my pictures don’t come out as I want them to.

Another variable is that people see colours differently. I’m shade blind so I couldn’t see turquoise to save my life, I see only green or blue.

Size certainly can add impact to a picture, but that’s a human nature thing and works more on the mind than what is actually seen. One benefit of large prints with traditional film of course is seeing that beautiful grain.  For myself I love all sizes of print when the content appeals to me and love wondering around markets looking at vintage portraits no bigger than the size of a cigarette packet.

[Ed Wenn]

....I went to a small exhibition in Cromer recently.....

Wait, you're the Norfolk guy, Marcus? Cool. I remember your blog on My Expressions. My family's from the Wisbech area originally. Great to have you at FW. Welcome. Don't forget to join in the collaborations and stuff. Hope you have a great time.

[warren]

I don't consider B&W an easy way out, I think there's just a different set of caveats. B&W generally appeals to me more as it removes the moment from reality and becomes more interpretation. Yes, you can remove the image from reality with color as well, but in my opinion it becomes more about the colors themselves instead of the subject. I work in both, and there have been a lot of cases where converting to grayscale just makes more "sense" to my eye. I focus more on the subject and intent.

Regarding the large vs. small...that was the crux of my final independent study my senior year. Obviously the whole debate is subjective, but I agree with the previous comments. A large print, especially one measured in feet instead of inches, implies value. But more often than not that value is just the cost of the paper to create it. A "bad" image printed four feet wide is still a bad image, just bigger, and more likely to show the shortcomings. I put together a show of large images as part of the class and most of the positive comments somehow related to the size and presentation, not the content. Basically a lot of "Excellent! They're HUGE!" On the other hand, the negative comments were almost all exclusively critical of the content. (Unfortunately I don't have that register any more. Lost in one of the myriad of moves since then.)

 

[fgianni]

Hi Guys

I am new here and this is my first post, so please be patient as I try to get familiar with the site.

Anyway here is how I see it: B&W and Colour are there for different purpose, and one photographer can use the one or the other depending on the message he wants to send and/or what he want to emphasize more in his image, B&W really is more about shapes, while colour is more about, well colour 

Of course a gorgeous autumn landscape, with thousands of different shades of fall colours, cries to be taken in full colour, maybe with a very saturated film like velvia.
On the other hand a mountain face, with broken rocks and flowing lines, is often best rendered in B&W since the medium will emphasize the shapes.
And there are millions of subjects that can be equally rendered in both ways.

So no, it is not cheating, you may find it easier to take B&W pictures, but someone else will probably feel the opposite is true.

Essentially choose the medium you like the most and have fun, everything else does not really matter.

Just my 2c

Cheers

Ian Gianni

[nación]

I think that BW film invokes more emotional response than colour.  With colour, you see what is seen everyday, and the colour photographer has to work extra hard to break out of the mold of ordinary to capture the mind of the viewer.  In doing so I think that they will often try too hard (e.g. the extreme DOF trend in digital photography).  With BW film the brain will react differently.  We don't see things in BW naturally so our brains have to go through a translation process, which will invoke and stimulate different areas of the brain and we will be more involved in the shot instantly than we would normally be with a colour print, even in the shot is of ordinay nature.

That said I don't think there is much distinction between a "great" colour print and a "great" BW print.  Nominal colour shots seem poor to us, while nominal BW shots seem decent to good, but a "great" shot is still even across the board.

This is my first post in this community, I am glad to have found you all.  Thank you for allowing me to share.

[Susan B.]

Welcome Ian and Nacion-
Well said.