kejoed Loc: Wales UK

"Is black and white a gimmick? Given that humans see in color, is converting a photo to black and white an act of self-importance? A way to make an image appear to be more significant than it otherwise might be in color?"

In an age where digital photography is ubiquitous, and post processing allows everyman to bump saturation levels and create hyper-real images, :oops: black and white photography seems like a curious anachronism. What do you Hogs think :roll:
Or am i reading too much :-P

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Why, yes...I am. Lol.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I saw the same article. The way I see it (no pun intended), we had B&W photography, just as we had B&W TV, because color wasn't possible. Along come the scientists, and we have color in our lives.

B&W photography is anything but a gimmick, and it will always be with us. With B&W, the photographer and the viewer see just the image, not all the colors, so there is less distraction.

On the other hand, we have seen many old, classic images posted here that were made in B&W and later colorized, and there was no harm done.

Most of us grew up with B&W, so we're used to it, but younger people don't even have any experience with film, so I doubt they'll be doing much B&W.

Dave R. Loc: PNW

Yep....Me thinks you're reading much...
LOL

kejoed Loc: Wales UK

Thank you Jerryc interesting point of view
"so I doubt they'll be doing much B&W."
Quite a big statement don't you think, from that i read that the answer to the question is YES.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I prefer to have color, but B&W does have a certain art to it. Some times I decolor my shots just to see if I like it, same as I sometimes convert a shot to a sketch, just to see...

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

No.


No


Yes


No.
It is good to read and to explore the thought processes generated from it.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

There are two sides of this coin, as usual.

B&W can be an art form, there is no question.

B&W is also used by incompetents who think they can hide their lack of skills using what is for them a 'gimmick'. They are fooling themselves if they believe the difference cannot be made between a B&W created with care and the garbage they want to display/promote as 'art'.

kejoed Loc: Wales UK

Now we are getting there Hogs "Nerves are being touched"
The coin has landed on its edge.



:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbdown:

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

I use B&W for certain photos, usually those where I want to express mood. And, for old structures, like abandoned farm houses or barns, I am using B&W and Sepia to express days gone-by. A new photo that expresses age.

Some here on UHH use B&W for portraits, especially those of "experienced" subjects. That seems to bring our eye to the details of the face, rather than be distracted by the colors.

Just my $0.02 worth... :mrgreen:

doduce Loc: Holly Springs NC

Look at the stunning work of Graham Smith, one of our Hogs, and you'll see art and beauty in B&W. To say because it's B&W he's just self-indulgent would be a true disservice to him and an injustice to his work.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Our roots in photography go way...way back to this very successful gimmick....wouldn't you agree?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

When B&W was the ONLY choice in film, it was up to the photographer to capture the essence of the image and then take that negative to the darkroom and make the best possible rendition of that subject or scene. GOOD B&W images took hours of work and it was absolutely an art form!
When color film came along it presented a whole new genre to the photographer, but it took away most of the darkroom mystique of "creating" the art image as many of the techniques they had used for ages had to be highly modified and some were lost to the color completely. Plus developing of the actual film become MUCH more complicated and much less forgiving of mistakes. B&W marched on as the ART film which it pretty much still is today.
The digital age brought the world of photography to the masses by eliminating the expense of film itself, as well as the expense of developing it. Instant gratification, or disappointment, is easily achieved via digital. The "digital darkroom" of Photoshop and similar programs allows the digital photographer to again spend hours "creating" the best image possible from that digital negative. Many have chosen to re-create the "art" of B&W images in that process, and many have managed to create some very impressive B&W images from their digital cameras.
On the down side, MANY over processed and just plain BAD photoshopped images are posted every day for all to see that clearly demonstrate that, just because you CAN do it, does not mean it NEEDS to be done.

But that's just my take on the issue. I've only been doing this for 44 years so I am a newbie, but I do still load up a roll of TRI-X about once a month and shoot and develop it myself just to remind me how far photography has advanced for those who choose to recognize that.

DrWilk Loc: .

Sometimes B&W is needed to create a mood that would not otherwise be as observable. And sometimes B&W reduces the distractions that colorization may impose.

Doyle Thomas Loc: Vancouver Washington ~ USA

it is easier to make a good color Photograph than a good black & white Photograph

Nether color nor black & white Photography need to be defended. Their are those who feel differently. Color is not an addition but black & white is a removal. Removing color information changes but does not destroy the intent of a Photograph. In the past black & white was a necessity. Today, it is an alternative.