On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:41:13 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > regarding> > http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/2213/display/2790694> > > > I'd like to see this in B&W, or with a slight sepia tone. People shoot > > too > > much color, perhaps because it's what they're used to seeing, or because > > it's simpler to do (esp in digital), and a lot of photos are diminished by > > that apoproach. A ~good~ thoughful B&W conversion may lift this from the > > ordinary into something a bit more interesing and with greater impact. > > I disagree with you here on a couple of points: First, I don't think *this* > image is diminished by being in colour; there are few colours here with the > clothes being B&W and the other elements being muted colours. > > Second, I think the application of *sepia* generally makes the finished > product about the process rather than what was going on in front of the lens. > The original picture then becomes an ingredient in the production of a piece > of what the producer considers artwork; I think in this case the image is > about sharing something the photographer saw and a moment he experienced. > (For that reason, the tilt doesn't bother me.) The process is one of the many aspects of B&W photography. The "art" of printing goes hand in hand with it. Ansel Adams reprinted many of his famous photographs later on in life in vastly different styles. Color photography typically is about the moment. When I shoot color, I want the print to look just like the neg (or the chrome). I think most folks fells this way. If this is the case, then the photo is better served by being color. Should the photographer choose to "interpret" the negative, then monochrome would definitely be the way to go. As far as personal taste, I agree with Shel. > > Third, I think that b&w vs. colour *is* largely a matter of taste and > opinion, and I disagree with your opinion that "people shoot too > much color" although I agree that the reason for all this colour shooting is > that they see in colour. To me, for instance, colour photographs are more > interesting to look at than b&w ones because they are more "real". To hold my We can just go look at the real thing. Taking a color snapshot is often good enough for the scrapbook and to serve our memories. > attention, a black & white photograph has to be REALLY compelling in its > content (some people on this list consistently shoot such compelling > monochrome images.) Once again, this is about interpretation, not accurate documentation. > > My own history with black & white may explain my prejudices in this area: > Although I have taken a few b&w photographs because I thought the subject > matter needed b&w, most of the b&w I have ever shot was done in that medium > either because I was restricted by my budget (years ago) or because I was > restricted by the end use. I've read somewhere the suggestion that b&w > photography would've never come up if the first technology to produce > photographs had produced colour; frankly I suspect this is true. It started I'm going to disagree. I've had the opportunity to use color film since I first touched a camera. As a child I was always drawn to monochrome. My parents were always upset with me when I'd take B&W photographs, because they always wanted to see the "pretty colors". There are quite a few photographers (some of them here) that have *chosen* to work in B&W. Art changes. And artists are typically very good at seeking out mediums that work for them. Besides, people are ingenuous. We would have figured out how to fix that color problem eventually. <g> > out as a limitation of the technology! like coarse grain in low-light shots, > and sometimes reintroducing the limitation serves no purpose. > > Of course, sometimes it DOES serve a purpose ... I introduced a limitation for myself a while back and shot with one camera and one lens for about 6 months. I've got a pretty good idea of what that lens will capture before I ever bring the camera to my eye. Of course, my other lenses are completely alien to me these days.......<g> > > But, this photograph we're discussing has a pretty clear content; isn't > cluttered with any brightly-coloured distractions; doesn't need > any "artistic" help like conversion to black and white or (shudder) sepia or > (retch) infrared or cross-processing or (scream!) semi-conversion to negative > to improve it. It's a slice of life and as such, is great just the way it is. > IMO. > > Of course, I am in no way suggesting that your opinion ("people shoot too > much color ... ") is not valid but since I hold an opposing opinion, I > thought I would share it. > > ERNR > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:50:34 -0500, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:33:49 -0500, Peter J. Alling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Some later films, notably of the film noire genre of starting in the > > late 30's into the mid 50's, eschewed color for artistic reasons. > > Certainly, even into the 70's and later, a very few films were shot in > B&W, and presumably the medium was chosen for artistic reasons. I believe "Clerks" was shot in B&W because Kevin Smith financed the whole thing on his credit card and needed to save every penny he could. (Is B&W 16mm cheaper than color?) However, "Shadow of the Vampire" comes to mind as a modern film where B*W was (correctly) chosen for artistic reasons. > > Raging Bull and The Lenny Bruce Story come to mind. The cinematography in "Raging Bull" was wonderful. Unfortunately, I don't much care for Robert DeNiro (begin the cries of blasphemy), and the film left me feeling slimy. >
Personally, I feel that a photographer can produce whatever he wants from a negative or a digital image and call it photography. We alter color saturation with film emulsions. Lenses affect field of view and contrast. Processing the film certainly can add or subtract from the aesthetics of the image. We adjust the plane of focus. We skew, burn, dodge, crop, etc. to get just the image we want. We push and pull. We filter. And then we introduce digital means of distortion. It's art. If you want an accurate reproduction, get a normal lens and a neutral color film and have at it. But I'm with Shel and Frank. I like Black and White. On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:53:22 -0500, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > God, throw colours into what I have to think about and I'll go nuts! <vbg> Once upon a time I played bass in garge bands. I think the jazz is still in it's case in the basement (or the storage unit?). Anyway, back in the early 90's when quite a few celebrity musicians were switching from four string basses to five or six string intruments, my buddies always asked me why I didn't do the same. My replay was that I couldn't quite figure out the four strings I had. I certainly didn't need more. <g> -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com
