What is so special about BLACK AND WHITE photography?
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- There's something about black and white photography that just feels more authentic. Whether it's the moody tones or the simplicity of the images, black and white photography is a great way to capture a moment frozen in time.
Do you agree? How do you react to black and white images, when compared to color photographs?
*********
Thank you so much for watching!
I am the founder and editor of FRAMES Magazine, quarterly printed photography publication. If you are passionate about "real" photography, I am pretty sure you would love the magazine.
Have a look over at www.readframes....
We are about to start shipping the 9th edition.
If you are enjoying these photography videos, it would mean a lot to me if you would subscribe to the channel. Just click the subscribe button above. It would help me enormously with spreading the word about the FRAMES channel. Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
I would have thought I would have preferred your shot in color, but I surprise myself. The color shot looks like any color snapshot, with neither emotion nor interest. The b+w shot, on the other hand, draws me in. The clouds appear more dominant, the shapes and textures more interesting. Thank you for allowing me to admit a change of mind!
Thank you, Fran!
I think its often about an implied 'mood' whether to go B&W or not.
Something I learned from Robert Clark that I use constantly: I shoot in RAW(DNG) but the lcd & view finder are set to monochrome. With that I can only react to light and shadows and not possibly be distracted by colors. One has the option to go to color in post, if desired.
Good "system", David. Thanks for sharing this idea with us.
I actually prefer to work in B&W, especially when doing landscapes. B&W can increase the impact of the image and bring out the abstract nature of the scene as well. I have printed both color and black and white film since the early 1970's. Ansel Adams was once quoted to say that it is many times harder to make a perfect B&W print than it is in color and he is absolutely correct.
Thank you, Tomasz. In response to your question, I'd like to offer the thought that I prefer the colour landscape photograph between the two. And that's because the black & white photo needs a striking light play for the abstraction to work for me. A strong contrast often helps but I'm not sure I can find it here. Once again, thank you
Thank you, Eddy. This particular scene is definitely not the most "suitable" for b&w. I was simply illustrating my point. But you are right - not the strongest black and white shot.
Completely agree- I think that colour can actually be a distraction, whereas black and white images are more subtle, presenting the essence of the subject stripped back to its simplest form, devoid of clutter and distraction. The image thus invites the viewer to complete the scene for themselves, creating a very personal interpretation of, and connection with what they see, perhaps even inviting them to picture themselves being there. There is also ambiguity, mood and emotion captured in monochrome images, as clearly exemplified by Kenna's work, in a way that is difficult to do ion colour.
Responding to your question- clearly I prefer the black and white version- the contrasts and texture jump out and convert detail that is masked in the colour version. My opinion anyway- I'm sure others will disagree!!
Thank you so much for commenting, Adriano. I think color photography, when done really well, can be quite striking as well. Black and white is my clear personal preference, but of course I do get those moments in time / phases when I try exploring color imagery as well.
This is my thinking.
The photographs you took of those woods confirm it.
Colour is descriptive, monochrome is interpretive…
Getting to know you and your channel Tomasz, I’d like to say it’s breath of fresh air. ✌️🎄🇦🇺
Thank you so much, Mark.
@@framesmagazine I’m Markie…
I like those definitions. It makes sense.
I really do enjoy these videos, Tomasz! I adore color, and color is often the point of some of my images. But I shoot in raw and then make the color vs. black and white decision after I've shot. There have been many times when I'm out shooting that I've felt that an image, particularly one that's very graphic or has high contrast, would work better in black and white, but I like having the color data at my disposal in case I decide to have a color version. I do think that black and white photography focuses the eye more on shapes and patterns, but strong color can do that as well. At the end of the day I think it depends on the image and what you're trying to convey. In your example I prefer the color version because the landscape, in my opinion, did not have enough distinguishing features to make it as interesting in black and white, so for me it became more of an image of a lovely day than a strong black and white visual.
Absolutely, I agree with everything you are saying, Cindy. It is probably more difficult to achieve it in color, as in addition to lines, patterns etc., we also get so many different color elements that all have to work together in the end. But hey, there are also color photographs with just 2 or 3 colors in them! :)
I have to agree 100% with Cindy's response. She has written exactly the points I would make and for the same reasons.
I agree with you Cindy. I would add that one can photograph in raw with BW in mind for the simple reason that the raw/color image offers more variations in BW conversion (play with the yellow slider in a landscape with some vegetation, or with the blue or cyan sliders for the skies). Personally I set my camera with JPGs in BW (especially when using a mirrorless camera) and may go back to the raw image either for dynamic range or flexibility of conversion. On the other hand I also use a camera with no Bayer-array filter which means my RAW images are also in BW only (just one channel: BW instead of 3 for R, G and B. It becomes a different beast/process closer to BW film (for better or for worse, definitely for challenge and coherence ;o).
I agree Cindy on these points. Certainly capture the color data and make the decision in post. Secondly, I agree that the choice depends on the subject/composition frame. We can see a composition in front of us and in that moment it speaks to us in B&W, or vice versa. But to leave the color data out there is a mistake. Finally regarding Tomasz' landscape example, I prefer the B&W because it brings the foreground and the tree line together as one. And although the color does depict a simpler "lovely day" the near and the far are two companions rather than one friend.
I shoot two ways. My ICM and ME work is predominantly in colour simply because the image needs colour to enable the viewer to see what’s going on. Black and white would often strip away too much, unfortunately. But…and it’s a big but, ALL of my project photography is in black and white. I see in black and white and I feel in black and white. It feeds my soul.
The reality in front of my camera invites me to choose black and white or colour to enhance my visual reaction.
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Drama...breath taking...romance...deep love!
Back in the 1970’s when I was 21 I went out and shot the changing London docklands in black and white. I chose an Ilford ASA 400 roll of film for the shoot in what was then a relatively inexpensive Iloca 35mm camera purchased second hand as I was a student who didn’t have a lot of spare cash. To say I was happy with the results would be an understatement. In that situation the landscape was perfect for depicting in black and white. I am now 71 and shoot with a Canon EOS R5, how times have changed. I will still shoot black and white where colour doesn’t fit the emotion or feeling I want to depict in an image, sometimes only because colour can be a distraction. Unfortunately through various moves, marriage, children, etc. I have lost the prints and negatives from the docklands shoot which I will always regret.
Wonderful, Kevin. Hope you are still enjoying your photography these days.
When I first started out in photography in the early 70's black and white was the first choice for any photographer interested in the landscape. I used a Kodak Wratten #80 monochromatic filter for previsualization. A company called Zone VI made a convenient filter holder that had a window that was in the same proportion as a 4x5 format. It was a wonderful way to preview how the film would render the black and white image and helped you really 'see' in black and white. I believe that black and white is best understood in the analog process since just pressing a monochrome setting in the menu of a digital camera gives you no reference point or understanding of the process. There is far more room for expression in black and white and it's abstraction gives certain subject matter greater relevance. In recent years there has been a major resurgence in black and white imagery and it's nice to see that people still appreciate the beauty that can be achieved.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, Everett.
5:08 colour one is more vibrant but it's just like random landscape,boring and real to life,monochromatic one is just giving a vibe of other worldliness,like an artwork.
For me unbunt (black&white) is more basic, stripped of the fascination of colour, almost like unwrapping a scene to its bare minimum. Perhaps in a sense of being nude. Like in landscapes, we see them every day in colour, and know what each colour represents. But in unbunt we look at it differently, we search for contrast, shape, and texture. Like a field of flowers, it's so colourful, but in unbunt it's just all grey. So you see more the field, and not what's growing on it. I hope you can slightly understand what I mean. 🙈
I love monochrome
I enjoyed your video once again. For me as an artist, some images need to be color, and some are better B&W. I don't think one is inherently better then the other.
Definitely one is not better than the other. Personal preferences, different approaches.
Thanks for the video Tomasz… I am definitely partial to black and white, and you are 💯 correct about mood, line and shapes. I feel that some of my most emotive work has been done in black and white.
Black and white for me is truth. It is when you strip away all the elements, like color.
Color, in some cases can be a distraction.
To me the ‘strength’ of an image (how successful it may be) can sometimes be revealed by testing its veracity (truth) in black and white.
And while both images of your landscape comparison are nice… I have to decide which tells the better story, for me the color one does that more.
For me, not all images are meant to be black and white. There has to be that thing, that special something that becomes much more transformative in black and white.
Thanks for feeding my brain and my imagination.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, Liz!
I was drawn more to the Black & White image - I just love clear skies with fluffy clouds, which work better in monochrome than colour (in my opinion).
Colour does have its place in "serious" photography - have a look at "A Question of Colour" by Joel Meyerowitz. Some of his images work in colour, some don't.
Tomasz, I shoot almost exclusively in black and white. I agree that when you shoot in black and white it is about, almost exclusively, subject, ground (foreground and background), light/contrast and, of course" composition. When you add color it often confuses the viewer, their eye goes directly to the color rather than seeing the subject. From my personal experience, it is challenging to shoot both in color and black and white. They require different skills of "seeing" or training the eye. Good discussion in your video and below. Thanks!
Thank you so much for joining the conversation, Reed.
I mostly shoot in color, but sometimes when I'm not happy with a photo, before deleting it, I convert it to black and white. That does the trick and I usually keep the converted photo on my disc. What was uninspiring and average often becomes intriguing in BW.
What do you think - WHY? What’s this secret b&w sauce?
@@framesmagazine Let me sleep on it.
I love black and white, too. This was great - thanks Tomasz!
Thank you, Sarah.
Thanks for the video, Tomasz. I think I prefer the black and white photo here. This is because it feels that in the black and white photo the trees are the subject - the hero of the photo while in the colourful photo is the green - the colours itself that draws my attention. The trees are less important as my eyes fall on the grass in the centre and stays there.
Thank you for joining the discussion, Alicja.
I have been shooting since I picked up photography while serving in the army back in 1959. I only shot color for weddings and magazines. My newspaper work was always in b&w. Today I shoot for my own pleasure and it is all b&w. But we all have Fuji cameras and I have my Pro 2 set to fill simulations 2 of b&w and one color.
I like the B&W because it demonstrated more PUNCH with the contrast of the subject !!!
Thank you for leaving your comment, Marc. Appreciate it.
Thanks for this video. That photograph I prefer in color. I process many of my photographs in black and white. I find it more challenging, and some photographs are best in B&W.
Thank you, Eric. Yes, it definitely all depends on particular image.
I prefer black and white over color in most cases. The only exceptions are when color itself is the subject or reason for the photo. I even shoot mostly with a camera that has a monochrome sensor. Of the two images you’ve shown, I’m drawn more to the black and white image for it’s contrast and definition. The color one is overly stimulating to my senses.
Thank you so much for commenting!
The colour has more depth to it but that scrub at the bottom spoils it, it is less noticeable on the B+W. B+W appeals to many because of composition I feel, strong colours can pull you eye away from the main subject, unless that strong colour is part of the subject!
When I enter my photography into “competition” exhibits which includes watercolor and oil artists my black/white images fair very well vs my color work. Hence I am fairly confident the judges consider b/w photography more artistic than color photography unless it is an abstract.
Thanks for your thoughts, Tomasz. The matter of presenting my work in color vs B/W is one that I consider all of the time.
It is interesting that the aesthetic convention of reducing infinite color variations into ten zones of white, black, and gray developed out of a deficiency in color photographic technology that was not completely convincing to the eye until the 1960s. Color's place was considered to be the domain of the commercial photographer and the snap-shooter rather than the serious artist-photographer. Early color processes were also difficult to use and expensive, So, it is easy to understand that an appreciation for B/W had generations of practice in establishing its prejudice against color in serious work. Indeed, the first major survey of color photography wasn't shown until 1976, with Eggleston's exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. That prejudice became so established that there are members of our community who still feel that B/W photography is superior.
I can not imagine that painters would limit their palette to the exclusion of color. I'm sure that they never considered it as a distraction to abstraction of lines and shapes. I consider color also as an aspect of abstraction that can work as an element on its own, or in support of other abstract qualities in photography.
I think that sometimes, color can be distracting. Sometimes it strengthens the impact of an image.
Each picture needs to be presented in color or B/W based on its own needs. Simply dismissing color, (or B/W), out of hand is a mistake.
Finally, of the two versions of the landscape picture that you presented,- I don't have an opinion.
I don't think that color or B/W makes much of a difference in this case. Sometimes this happens.
Which leads me to the way I operate. I present my work in color because it is the way that we normally see the world,- UNLESS it is a distraction,- and only then will I remove it from a photograph.
Always as pleasure to “consume” your thoughts, Frank. Very much appreciated.
Hi Frank, yea thanks for your thoughts
However, you are, in the first part of your reply, confusing two areas of photography that, even if related, are utterly different.
Namely the zone system (a technique of exposing and processing film to best use the sometimes limited response of film to light), and the rendition of colours as displayed by film or print. The Zone System advertised and perfected by Ansel Adams, Minor White and Fred Archer, is a technique often aimed at obtaining an infinity of gray tones, and not just ten. The so-called 10 zones had to do with the way apertures and shutter speeds were marked on lenses according to the amount of light they would let reach the film in the camera. One zone equates one exposure value (or EV) which is the difference in exposure between f 5.6 and f 8 or 1/125s and 1/250s. The relative dynamic range of photographic film and definitely paper was about 10 EVs thence the ten zones. So the zone system was definitely not "developed out of the deficiency in color photographs", but to better master the limitations of BW film and papers. Incidentally, it can also be applied to colour photography.
As mentioned in another of my replies above the first manufactured and distributed world-wide colour process was the autochrome (invented by the Lumière brothers and released in 1907). It was then "convincing" enough for Albert Kahn to finance the "Archives of the Planet" commissioning photographers all around the world to bring back colour images.
Then came Kodachrome (1935 for cine-film, 1936 for sheet-film for photographers) which "convinced" many, including the photographers of the Farm-Security Administration.
Then came dye-transfer in 1the 1940s a positive-positive printing process (on paper) that convinced not only the advertising industry (cheaper than carbro process) but photographers like Eliot Porter who printed it himself and exhibited, sold, and published (through the Sierra Club) his colour images starting in the 1950s (way before William Eggleston who never printed a single one of his dye-transfers in the 1970s and 80s).
Now the theory of "Color's place was considered to be the domain of the commercial photographer and the snap-shooter rather than the serious artist-photographer" is a short-cut often used by pseudo-critics and historians, including academia, that do not know and sometimes ignore (too time-consuming and dry for them I guess) the technical history of photography. Colour, until digital was either an extremely laborious and expensive process (carbo, dye-transfer), or slow (light sensitivity) and/or an unreliable one (colour biases, even Kodak engineers speak of the yellow years, the Cuban, years etc. ... ; high contrast for Kodachrome, and most problematic FADING!).
I'll limit "serious" photographers to professionals (photojournalists and fine-art photographers) as for the non-professional serious photographer the issue raised, especially regarding finances and equipment are even more obvious.
Photojournalists had issues with the slowness of colour film compared to BW, with the inaccuracy of colour rendition (the history of film has a long trail of slow improvements in both speed and color rendition). And I am not mentioning here strange behaviours under X-rays at airports and tropical heat and humidity. The ease of use of BW film was an asset for them and the publishers that employed them. In fact BW photography was still used in the local press until the 1990s when one could still find 12-exposure rolls specifically meant for that press.
As for fine-art photographers, they had been used to controlling their process. They had their own darkrooms, access to materials (which they could also make) and these were far less expensive, far less complex, far more available, and far more reliable than colour materials. Around 1910, Steichen and Stieglitz tried the first autochromes but they were extremely hard to print with the available technology, so that was the end of it. The next step was Kodachrome (mid-1930s on...) : extremely slow, reduced dynamic range compared to BW and only processed in Rochester NY (so big delays). Colour negatives followed but also slower than BW, problems with colour rendition too. In any case reliable colour processing (repeatable results) necessitates bigger volumes of expensive chemistry than BW (and here too, in the beginning, manufacturers would not make them available to individual photographers... even Edward Weston and Ansel Adams had to send their Kodachrome trials to Rochester), and big processors. These worked for commercial labs (when the products became available) used by commercial photographers and the general public starting in the 1960s, but were far more difficult to run for individual "serious" / fine-art photographers.
Fading was a huge issue, denied by manufacturers until a 1981 first law-suit by commercial photographers whose portraits and ceremony photographs were fading only a few months or years after selling them.
So these were the real reasons why colour was problematic for people who needed realistic, reliable, and accessible photographic processes. It was definitely not an issue of boo-booing the commercial photographic industry or the use of colour (first colour slides which were problematic to print, then colour negatives and their fading-in-albums prints) by the common user-calling them "snap-shooters" is also inaccurate as most of these family photographs are strictly organised (look at the camera, smile, the smallest ones in front, the sun in the back, etc. ...)-a point that Garry Winogrand astutely made in one of his interviews.
So writing as some do (I understanding that you are only quoting them here as you do later in your reply about Eggleston) that "serious photographers were prejudiced against colour" is highly inaccurate and problematic on their part simply because these "serious" were informed practitioners (for the most part), informed on the limitations of colour processes and deliberately chose BW over colour because of their information, which is the opposite of prejudice (making a judgment before (pre) being informed.
Now the misinformation has been carried further with the 1976 SOLO (not survey) exhibition of rather idiosyncratic colour prints by a very idiosyncratic character, William Eggleston, created and promoted by ONE man at MoMA, John Szarkowski. Before the myth and fashionable approach to Eggleston's interestingly idiosyncratic use of colour photography began, the reactions to the show were mostly negative. What Szarkowski called "perfect" (is such colour photography can exist, Hilton Kramer at The New York Times replied by "perfectly banal and perfectly boring." As for "the first major survey of color photography wasn't shown until 1976, with Eggleston's exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art", this is also historically erroneous. First it was not a survey but a one-man show. In fact the first survey of colour photography at MoMA happened under Edward Steichen's direction in the 1950s (just check MoMA's website for their list of exhibition). The same list will also reveal that Ernst Haas (who had had two extensive portfolios of creative colour photographs on New York City published in the 1950s by Life magazine) had a solo colour exhibition at MoMA in 1962. Joel Meyerowitz himself started his photographic career using colour, then BW, then in the mid-1960s was photographing with two Leicas, one loaded with BW, the other one with colour film. Eliot Porter started photographing in colour in the late 1940s and printing his own dye-tranfers in the 1950s. I think regarding his exhibition and publication (Sierra Club) trails, as well as his sales of colour prints, he is also one that can be called a "serious" colour photographer, a generation before Eggleston. In 1975, at the George Eastman Museum (Rochester NY), Stephen Shore's contribution to the now famous exhibition "New Topographics" was strictly composed of 8x10" colour prints. So much for the myth of Eggleston's 1976 exhibition being a first, and being praised at the time of its showing. But then a myth grew varied by "prejudiced" voices ;o)
Now regarding BW in painting, I must add to the conversation that it has been done by numerous painters, and famous ones. Just look at Pierre Soulages's "Outrenoir" paintings, at Picasso's most famous Guernica. And then in the visual art there has been vast amounts of graphite drawings, Chinese ink watercolours, BW lithographs.
In fine, one thing Frank said that we can all agree upon is: "Simply dismissing color, (or B/W), out of hand is a mistake."
Thanks, Bruno.
And yet, having been a student and an active practitioner of color and B/W photography, and made a living in the photographic industry for the last fifty years,- my experience speaks perfect sense to me.
Very interesting that we come to such different opinions.
@@frankstyburski814 If you have been a student and active practitioner of color and B/W photography as you mention it, you should know what I was talking about and should know how and where to check facts.. That your experience speaks perfect sense to you is normal and I am glad it does. Now zone system and the history of color photography have to do with facts, not just subjective/personal experience but experiences that can be shared, even and above all if they are different. All the facts that I have stated can be easily verified, please do and tell where I may have been wrong. I have a very long experience in both color and BW photography too and I have never stopped learning, and never stopped wanting to learn, I'll be glad to improve my knowledge base if my experience failed it. So please help there if you can.
@@BrunoChalifour I am aware of very much of what you have written.
I understand the concept of the Zone System. I wasn't referring to somethig else.
We actually agree on your historical details.
I can refute your conclusions about a bias against color.
I have no desire to.
You have treated me like a school boy in need of a lesson.
I can't respect that. This conversation is at an end, but I want you to know that I am offended by your manner.
I prefer the B&W photo because of details that show in B&W and not in color. The clouds are more wispy in the B&W.😀😀
Thank you for chiming in, Greg!
I like your video and the questions you pose. Also good to realise that b&w is the world we as photographers come from, which makes it understandable that so many of us (me included) like the vibe that comes with b&w images. And then your suggestion to compare b&w and colour when we are shooting actually describes my default way of working :-) Some themes I know upfront will become b&w because already looking at the scene I can feel the emotional vibe that B&W will give me. This happens mostly in street photography but it also happens in other themes. The same with colour, this mostly happens to me in architectural photography but it is not exclusive. But always I will consider the choice, and in quite some cases I will have a quick try to test my instinct. By the way, working from raw most photographers (myself anyway) will have a view in colour before starting the b&w transition, so for b&w images the comparison comes in "for free" :-)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Peter.
I am biased towards B&W images probably because I have been shooting in B&W for over 50 years. For me, I prefer B&W because it's obvious from the stat that I am not trying to capture the "real" world. My work is meant to show you my interpretation of the world not a photocopy of it.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Michael 🙏
Great video. I’ve always preferred black and white. In all honesty I think it’s easier to work with so long as the composition works. You demonstrated it perfectly with your comparison. The light was just not interesting enough for a colour image whereas with the black and white it was reasonably dynamic. With black and white you can shoot in all kinds of light and make something of the image. I do though enjoy the challenge of making colour images and have many that would make absolutely no sense in black and white.
Thank you so much for chiming in, Andy!
Personally the black and white image. The color image looks normal... two halves, blue and green. The black and white image invites me (personally) to investigate a bit more and draws me farther into the frame. I also live in a forested area and really struggle finding inspiration. It's a beautiful place to be, but not as easy for me to find photographic inspiration or compositions. I long for busy streets and people when I have my camera in hand.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, Luke.
Thanks Thomasz for this instructive video. It reminded me of my own, sort of unconscious, thoughts. Many of my photographs start already quite abstract. No context, no reference to a particular subject. What I sometimes do to get a feeling for "will the images make it", or to make the image more convincing, is to first remove all color, review the outcome, improve as required, and if OK, carefully add color as needed. Photographs in which we easily recognize the subject matter, we apparently have seen something similar already earlier, one way or another. The power of a photograph is then to give weight to the the hidden - the abstract - meaning of the subject or scene. Often, black and white will be enough. It creates distance to what we know already and brings us closer to a new experience.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Boudewijn.
Black & white shot for me
👍🏼🙏
Mij camera fuji H1, stay in film mode Agros is Bl&W, so i see the world already in Bl&W before i took a picture. For my personal Bl&W , What Else!
I started end 2019 with fotografie, and i love it!
Thank you got commenting!
Better still set your digital camera to display the image in B&W when you take the photograph.
I use a 2005 8.1 megapixel Ricoh GR digital. I set to black and white and 800 Iso, shoot street on murky days and inside.
👍🏼👍🏼
I was hoping you were going to get a black and white composition with the grain silo with nice light behind you. I like to shoot with black and white (M10monochrom or HP5) but have to shoot color sometimes or I keep hearing my family say, “I think that would be better in color.” Over and over. I was showing my nieces Salgado’s book Genesis and they all agreed that they would like it better in color…… I kicked them out of my house….. 😂
Next time, Clint. The grain silo! ;) Thanks so much for commenting.
Me too, love that multi silvered silo on flat ground against that big sky.
If there is a choice, the black and white. More emotional and in some ways draws one into the image, if the image can convey that power. I photograph with my viewfinder set to see the image in b&w, files are also in color if wanted. Two worlds.
Thank you for leaving your comment, Alan!
I mainly shot landscape photography but I started doing street photography at the end of 2020 due to lockdown restrictions. When I’m walking around the streets I will always shoot 100V in B&W. I am trying to train my eyes to see in B&W and with practice I am improving. But my second camera I shoot in colour. I know people say just change the profile in LR but this defeats the purpose of the exercise.
Shoot RAW and set JPG to bw for more control on the gray tonalities (the sensor and the eye see differently even in BW ;o)
@@BrunoChalifour Cheers Bruno i will give this ago. thanks for heads up
Black and white abstracts and cuts to the composition...there is a purity. Color is great, but the photo is about color. Color can be very distracting from what we really need to be looking at.
🙌
Thanks for the video Tomasz. My pick, the B/W image vs. the color image. But I love B/W. When I go out with my Fujifilm X-T2, I frequently set it to shoot 1:1 and in one of the B/W film simulation modes. Obviously, since I have JPG's and RAW's can decide later if I want B/W or color, and I can also decide on the crop at that point. But I definitely like to compose in B/W square. BTW, I'm giving serious consideration to upgrading to the X--T5.
Thank you for leaving a comment, Brent. Yes, having the in-camera option of composing both in black and white and in the square format is one of my personal favourite ways of working too.
Why shoot in 1:1？
I shoot in both b/w and color, some scenes work better with one then with the other and thanks to RAW I can decide later on my computer.
Definitely a great approach, Rich. I tend to look and execute mainly for scenes that I think will work in black and white. But that’s simply a personal choice.
Maybe because a black and white photograph is closer to a monochrome drawing? Color can be distracting.
I trust you accept comments from dinosaurs. I have been shooting film since 1968. Although I have shot plenty of color, when I ended my pro career and later returned to photography, B&W film -- and silver printing -- no scanning, no Photoshop -- were all I wanted to do. We see differently when evaluating an image for B&W; not every subject in a given lighting circumstance works in it. We have to visualize the print, even though in making the print we may also make major departures from that original visualization. For me, the limitations of film and B&W are a wonderful challenge. I have no fear of running out of challenges to my artistic vision or perfecting my skills.
Thank you so much for your insightful comment, Philip. Much appreciated.
I prefer the black and white version. The color version does not draw me in. Although I keep my camera in raw capture, my viewfinder is set to monochrome. If what I see through the viewfinder doesn't come through well in black and white I don't take the picture, even though I know I will ultimately leave most in color.
Thank you for leaving your comment, Hugh. Appreciate it!
I absolutely agree! Thank you Tomasz 😊 Of course I chose the BW landscape
Thanks, Peter!
I prefer the Spanish photographer AOWS to Michael Kenna. Did you follow AOWS's journey through Norway this fall?
Yes, very familiar with AOWS work. Wonderful stuff.
Thank you for introducing me to another photographer's work. I had never seen anything bu AOWS until I read your reply here. I looked at his work and love it.
with b/w photos the colored noise falls silent.
Think about this. What if the 1940s film Casablanca was colorized? How would this change the feeling?
Hi Tomasz, as always great to hear your thoughts on an aspect of photography that often comes up for discussion. Like you I really admire the work of Michael Kenna and was lucky enough to meet him on one occasion when he was here in New Zealand. I started in photography when film was the only option. A specific decision had to be made at the time when loading the camera as to wether to put colour or black and white film in. This choice effected how I would subsequently approach my subject matter and even what subject matter I would seek out. Now I always shoot digitally in colour (sometimes in RAW but not always) and then choose wether to present the final image in black and white or colour. Often at the time of shooting I'll make a mental note as to wether the image will make a good monochrome image.
Thank you so much for leaving a comment, Trefor. Nice to hear you were able to meet Michael. I met him a few years ago in Lucerne, Switzerland, at the opening of his exhibition. Very nice and genuine gentleman.
When you say "There's something about black and white photography that just feels more authentic" I have to agree, in this sense - that the authenticity that one feels about bw is that of its BEING a photograph, being what one recognizes and accepts as a photograph.
This, I believe, is primarily from both extensive exposure to bw photographs at all skill levels of representation, and in many cases, having an experience in processing them in a way most people can not in relation to color, owing, if even attempted, to the necessarily extremely low light levels. That is, one can experience the visual changes that occur during the development process of bw, changing the relationship of tones until it seems finished, and even after as it dries down, and one adjusts the intensity of light to some preconceived level. And we have also seen masterpieces in bw in all genres, setting a standard, a range of standards, that for color may only be occasionally glimpsed at a comparable aesthetic level. Obviously this changes somewhat in the digital era when personal printing may not be involved at all.
That said, I think the pairing of the two images as exact transposition is, in this case, an unfair comparison.
The two modes create quite different impressions from the color image not having been viewed AS IF it will become a color image, but as a translation of a scene that works quite well in bw - that is, that there is a dominant dark central horizontal band of trees that creates a graphic impact lacking in the color image. The conditions for making the image as one or the other seem only desirable for the bw, while they might change significantly even within moments for the color (color or direction of light, cloud shadow) that could make features stand out that otherwise blend together. As it is, the green is insufficiently assertive, the weak blue works to diminish the impact, it is simply drab. It HAS colors but is not really a Color Photograph, and the image isn't strong enough to overcome that. Its not to say that it might not be improved - the possibilities and variations can ring major changes, when done with an awareness of the impact of those modifications.
Thank you for commenting, Cary. Agree. The image I presented was just a "quick snapshot" of a scene I happened to have in front of me. It was a simple illustration of what I was talking about, not a highly thought through artistic effort. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts.
Tomasz,
I really prefer the Black and White because of the contrast in the sky. I love these videos, please keep it up:)
By the way, it’s Heath Lail from the FRAMES subscription.
Thank you so much, Heath.
Abstraction of reality,vivid expression,no distractions...etc Black and White photography is harder to master but it's Class apart,epic thumbnail 👌
Your B&W image - thoughts: Interesting sky, even a little dramatic looking. Is there a meaning or question or surprise in those black and white clouds? Those trees in on the hill far off, what is behind them? What is the fore ground telling me?
Your color image - thoughts: What is the photographer trying to say with this image?, I don't get it. Ho humm. Blue and green should never be seen (together). Un interesting. The only positive thought is: "it was a nice day, good weather"
Generally; I adore B&W photos. Color mostly seems blah to me and I've tried to warm up to color, unless the color images contain very muted colors it find it hard to enjoy color photos.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Darko. Interesting to see what happens in your mind when looking at any particular photograph, isn't it?
I think my response to a colour photo is emotional and maybe physical, but to black and white it is more mental. Your two photos - get more pleasure from the colour as the green makes me 'feel' the grass beneath my feet and the air (cool, breeze maybe?) on my face, the black and white one does not grip me the way black and white usually does because it did not inspire thoughts. I love B&W photography because it reduces the thing captured to stark basics uninterrupted by emotional responses of colour. Love colour because it makes me feel, and it is more human. Sudden inconclusive thought - the camera is more present in B&W, in colour it's the photographer?
Some wonderful thoughts, Rhonda. Thank you so much for sharing them with us here.
Both BW and colour generate intellectual and emotional responses. Obviously BW cannot induce an emotional response to colour but there is an emotional response to BW too, as well as to the content of the image (think of Nick Ut's BW photograph of the running napalmed girl or Eddie Adams's photograph of the sudden execution of a Vietcong prisoner in the middle of a street by a SouthVietnamese officer. In my opinion both generate intellectual and emotional responses. Don't you think so?)
Nice video Tomasz, the subject is very old, not only for historical/technical reasons but, above all, for the aesthetic concept that BW proposes. You end the video with two photos, in the case presented I prefer BW, in general that's my main go. Should everything be photographed in BW? I would say no, an autumnal landscape full of colors and tonalities might have to be in color. but even so some defend bw for everything. A well-known Portuguese photojournalist has always used BW, to the point of using a monochrome Leica, according to him, "BW contains all the colors in the world"
Thank you, António.
I prefer the B/W of the two presented. Various shades of green tend to run together for me whereas the various shades of black/grey/white are more appealing to my eye.
Thank you for commenting and watching, Gisele.
Tomasz you and i think alike and i dare say like so many others as well so i would just say i agree on why we shoot in BnW otherwise i would just be repeating what you say , i have been shooting only black and white for the past year and a bit and have tried to shoot a few color frames but after 20 secs looking at the color image i have had enough of it .. AKA Patrick :)
🙌
Monochrome‘talk’s’ to me in your examples in a way that colour doesn’t. I started many years ago working with b+w film in my darkroom and have retained my enthusiasm for it, although now I shoot digital colour exclusively I can still spot the images that will look good in mono.
Thank you so much for chiming in, Alan.
B&W photo is much better!! It makes you look much more closely at the photo.
🙏🙏🙏
Nicely done Tomas. B&W wins for me.
Thank you, Michael!
Drama, it's the drama! Just compare your two photographs. The color version is bland, nothing that catches the eye, a snapshot. In black and white, though, ah, there is structure, the darkened sky, the almost white clouds, the image comes to life BECAUSE it lacks color!...the viewer will look at it and "like" it. Of course, this does not work with every color photograph. But black and white gives generally more possibilities to concentrate on the soul of an image, because at the base of it all lies merely the relationship between contrast, light and shadow, leaving out possible distractions which color might cause. I hope this make sense, at least some, but that is how I have always perceived black and white and when I think back to famous photographers across the past 50 years or so, it is their monochrome work which remains embedded in my memory, more than color work, with exceptions, of course.
Thank you for commenting and sharing your thoughts here, Duschan!
quick question
i set my canon 7d to monochrome, take photos in black and white but they turn color when downloaded to pc.
baffled
why
with thanks
It sounds to me like you are downloading the RAW files and they will always be in Color.
thank you pall.thank you pall.
I find the black & white to be far more interesting. The color detracts from really seeing the forms and light.
Thank you for sharing your comment here, Mark.
The end shot of the woods, hmmm. I wood have turned around and taken a photo of the building instead. Far more dramatic in BnW
Most probably! I was simply illustrating my ramblings here :) Thank you for watching and commenting!
This video started with an excellent idea. Why BW photography in 2022? A subsequent one: why does a lot of the new generation of young photographers go back to BW photography and even BW film? I'll leave the digital/film controversy on the side for now as I think it is a useless one. Now back to colour vs bw? That is the question and the "rub".
First, and to be clear, I must confess that I primarily photograph in black and white. I started with film (for financial and convenient reasons at the time, among which access to a darkroom), and find myself, after more than 20 years of digital practice, going back to BW most of the time. I must even confess that I am primarily a BW photographer. So I have this issue at heart and I have given it much consideration and time.
I'll leave alone the technical issues with this video (jittery and flared) which does not make watching it really comfortable. I will stick to the content.
1-although photography started in BW (1839 in France and 1841 in England) with two different processes (daguerreotypes and calotypes), colour was already a preoccupation then, one that generated some solutions as soon as the 1870s. 1907 saw the first manufactured colour photographs, distributed world-wide: the autochromes invented by the Lumière brothers in Lyon (France). A wealthy man, Albert Kahn even commissioned photographers to photograph all around the planet to document it in colour to establish "The Archives of the Planet" (search the Albert Kahn Foundation in Paris for examples). Then came Kodachrome: 1935 for cine-film, 1936 for photographers. The rest is history... which means colour became really popular when the negative-positive process became widely available, affordable and not just the monopoly of a few manufacturers (for processing). So let us say the 1960s (some six decades ago). That is when the illustrated weekly magazine went colour-although colour had been used for advertising since the 1930s, but the processes were complex and expensive. Then in the 1970s color entered art galleries and museums. That is for the historical part.
2-One thing I totally agree with, and that is repeated in the video: black and white abstracts more than colour. As a starting point, a photograph is an abstraction (by comparison to the scene photographed); time is suspended, space is reduced to 2 dimensions, the context (what is outside the frame) is removed/absent. So a colour photograph is also an abstraction. Its colours too are an abstraction depending (they are an interpretation they do not quite match our perception of colours) on the capacities of the film and chemicals used to process it, sensor and algorithms used to process the recorded information for their rendition-something that has been more or less faithful, if not problematic through the whole history of the process (BW has had its problems too with the hyper sensitivity (compared to our eyes and brains) of silver halides (the photo-sensitive material on film and paper) to blue light). So colour itself is also an abstraction even if most people, camera and smart-phone users are not aware of it. For instance just think of the way the vast majority of sensors record colours through there Bayer-array filters (that only see 25% of red light and 25% of blue light!, the rest being reconstituted/"demosaicced" by the processor).
Black and white photography pushes the abstraction further by removing colour.
Colour can be a a distraction in some images (the eye/brain combination does not react to all colours in the same way. Colours can also carry metaphoric (emotional/meaningful) associations-red for instance-of which BW images are deprived. The point here is that colour and black and white are very different tools. They should be used discreetly and meaningfully. One cannot just convert a colour image into a BW one and compare them. If the photograph was taken with a focus on colour, the BW version will fail to meet our expectations (and vice versa). A BW photograph has to be taken for what the BW "abstractive" process does to the subject in front of our eyes/camera. As a result (eye/brain, experience, ability to see colours, way one relates to BW or colour) some photographers "see" better in BW, others in colour; some subjects may be better rendered in BW, others in colour. The works of world-renowned color photographers as William Eggleston, Joel Meyerowitz (after 1980), Richard Misrach, Candida Hoffer, Luigi Ghirri, Harry Gruyeart, John Batho would definitely not look as good in BW, one issue being the photographs were taken with colour in mind. Now the works by André Kertész, Ansel Adams, Micael Kenna (quoted in video), Matt Black, Bernard Plossu, Robert Doisneau, Henri Cartier-Bresson were deliberately taken in BW (although some tried colour, including Adams and HCB) for what BW brings to their photographs.
So why BW?
One can argue, as it is mentioned in this video (although with historical inaccuracy) that BW is the essence of the photographic process/vision, its historical origin, and that even most colour processes rely on BW recordings (just recorded intensities of light that once filtered and recorded in 3 different BW images (according to the separated Red, Green and Blue filters used) are used to generate 3 different colour versions of a scene that are superposed to create the final full-colour image). So photographing in BW is just going to the root of the photographic process. It may not be the main reason for using BW ;o) In that it can also, for some, have a nostalgic co-notation (but it can just be a cheap, uneducated (in BW photography) point of view too).
BW is used, as also mentioned in the video, to reach one extra level of abstraction (colour being the previous one even if not always understood). It allows the photographer to eliminate distracting colours (distracting for the intention/meaning/harmony of the final photograph). It facilitates the viewer's focus on subject matter (without colour), composition (simplified because of the absence of colour, an element that has to be taken into account for the composition and harmony as well as meaning of a colour image), lines, texture, and most importantly, pure light (devoid of colour)... another essential element of Photography (photos = light in Greek).
BW photography requires some real practice for the photographer to become efficient at it, as we do not see in BW. It requires being able to anticipate/previsualize the result in BW-all the truer if one uses film; it became less problematic with a DSLR (as one can check the result almost immediately), far easier with a mirrorless camera with the JPGs set to BW which allows seeing in BW in real time in the viewfinder (ideal in fact). Again BW photography is a tool with its plusses and minuses. It needs to be intentional to be successful ( turning a colour image into BW only does that: a colour image in BW). So my advice: practise, go out with your camera, smart-phone with the intention to take BW images ONLY, just to get into that fame of mind, vision (use a mirrorless camera or a smart-phone whose camera you can set to BW). By using BW photography, one enters a different world, a different dimension and aesthetic with their ways of functioning.
Bruno, you wrote an article! :) Please do contact me via the contact form on the FRAMES website and we might find a spot for your piece on the website. Which historical inaccuracy are you referring to?
@@framesmagazine Hi, thanks for the feedback. I will contact you. As for the historical inaccuracy it has to do with the long history of color photography starting in the 1870s. It is exposed in my second paragraph in response to "the BW era lasted for decades", "there was no other option" whereas as soon as 1907 there was one.
"although photography started in BW (1839 in France and 1841 in England) with two different processes (daguerreotypes and calotypes), colour was already a preoccupation then, one that generated some solutions as soon as the 1870s. 1907 saw the first manufactured colour photographs, distributed world-wide: the autochromes invented by the Lumière brothers in Lyon (France). A wealthy man, Albert Kahn even commissioned photographers to photograph all around the planet to document it in colour to establish "The Archives of the Planet" (search the Albert Kahn Foundation in Paris for examples). Then came Kodachrome: 1935 for cine-film, 1936 for photographers. The rest is history... which means colour became really popular when the negative-positive process became widely available, affordable and not just the monopoly of a few manufacturers (for processing). So let us say the 1960s (some six decades ago). That is when the illustrated weekly magazine went colour-although colour had been used for advertising since the 1930s, but the processes were complex and expensive. Then in the 1970s color entered art galleries and museums."
Black & White is more colorful than Colors.
📷❤️
The b/w for me is more intruiging
Thank you for commenting, Joy!
Unterschiedliche Menschen haben verschiedene Bild-Bedürfnisse: Technik-afine Menschen tendieren zu BW und Lyrisch enpfindende Menschen zur Farbe. Daher gibt es kein besser oder schlechter!
Je photographie en couleur principalement à l'heure dorée et à l'heure bleue. C'est dans ces moments que j'obtiens les meilleurs résultats et la plus grande satisfaction en couleur. J'utilise le noir et blanc principalement pour m'affirmer à travers mon sujet. Pour moi, le noir et blanc porte plus facilement le " message".
🙌📷
The answers one is after here, shall always be very individually subjective. There is no right or wrong answer here! I claim subjectively of course, that colour is more difficult to achieve and succeed in accomplishing a great photograph as the hues and colours in an image must to a larger degree be pleasing, match and not turn into a clash of colours. Black and white however can be equally hard, but still easier forgiven as lesser to concentrate on. Finally it is all up to the viewer to judge and very much due to composition and what the image is supposed to reveal! It is a matter of liking after all. I myself from time to time, photograph with a camera where I can simultaneously photograph both colours and black and white! And to your photos, I would choose when I have to, the colour one. But honestly, not to be rude, wouldn't have chosen any of them!
You are 100% correct, Ivar. Of course, in the very end, it is everyone’s personal preference and choice.
Take a picture and just convert it to black and white..
There you say something.
It is not that easy (I think)..?
Corien, is definitely not that easy. You have to start thinking and seeing in black and white in the first place. That’s a very different mindset that has to be developed in order to start creating compelling black and white images.
Some images are better in black and white and some are better in colour. It totally depends on the subject matter. The image that you show at the end of the video is better in black and white.The colour one is less less interesting but not because it's in colour. There is not a whole lot going on in the scene to make it that interesting. Although it's a nice sunny day, the lighting, composition and landscape are all kind of plain. The same scene shot at sunset with a dramatic cloud pattern in the sky, for example, might make a far more interesting shot in colour versus black and white.
Some great points, Frank. Thank you so much for commenting.
B+W - more dramatic.
Why are you meandering through the countryside doing this post? The really bad framing is so disconcerting. Sit in a studio, well lit and deliver it like that. It's a photography post after all!
Coco, photographers should be out, on the streets, in the woods, in the landscape and not sitting in a studio! :)