srt101fan

Periodically we see comments here re the value of black & white photography in a color world.

Got me thinking, if someone were to assemble a gallery exhibition of the all-time greatest, most memorable photographs, what percentage would be in color?

I know, I know, it would depend on who selects the images and the selection criteria used. And yes, color would probably be underrepresented because it came along so much later. But then I would ask, of the older, iconic b&w images, how many of them would have been better shot in color?

Any thoughts?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

When shooting for a black and white result (whether digital conversion from raw, or when using b&w film), photographers are looking at textures, tones, shapes, lines, contrasts of light and shadow. If your camera has the option to show your composition in b&w, you will understand that the absence of color requires a very different mindset. One simple example is a red rose: how do you make an interesting b&w image when you have virtually the same tones in your green leaves as your red flower? Your approach has to be different.

Though we sometimes have images that can work either way, I doubt that any of today's great talents think to themselves when they go into the digital darkroom, "hmmm, now should I process this for color or for black and white?"

Have you ever viewed a "colorized" movie? Yikes! The lighting was set up for b&w, the costumes chosen specifically - all those considerations I mentioned in first paragraph.

So IMO your question, how many of them would have been better shot in color" is starting from a false premise. (I think I used that phrase correctly).

I'm glad you started the topic and hope others with far more knowledge, training and experience than I will expand on my meager offering - or correct all my incorrect observations Thanks!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Of the older images, probably all would be better in color!!! who would not want to see the color of the eyes and hair in all those old movie Stars???
Nonetheless, B&W it was, and the art form was developed to a very high and desirable degree. The masters could have shot either equally well.
Today, only those that were GOOD at B&W in the old days are any good at it today. Most of todays B&W looks like crap because few know anything about it. Simply converting doesn't cut it. Most color images don't make good B&Ws.
The old master painters did NOT paint in B&W for a reason!!!
SS

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

You have raised an interesting question here. I consider artistic black and white photography and artistic color photography to be two separate disciplines with significantly different technical processes, even in capturing the initial image. I do not desaturate a color image to obtain a b&w image; I set the camera to B&W in the shooting menu. And I have the option to use various color filters and other means to influence the image capture in ways that post processing cannot duplicate in any satisfactory manner. What follows may ramble somewhat. i think more detailed discussion is needed than I have been able to put together here to really address this question.

I just spent some time studying copies of Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico (1942) and Moon and Half Dome (1960) by Ansel Adams (or at least as much as you can do so via video monitor). I don't think that either of those would work very well in color. They would at the very least not work the way that we have come to expect them to work when we view them.

Just very quickly, starting with Hernandez...desert foliage is really pretty monochromatic, and so is desert soil. Images tend to start out pretty flat and lifeless I'm not sure how much life could be breathed into a color image without doing some pretty strange things with saturation and color balance. By many accounts, prints of this image changed pretty drastically throughout Adams's life...they started out fairly delicate and bland and over a period of 20 or so years gradually developed into the strong, high-contrast version that we are most familiar with, including the somewhat over-exposed moon.

In the case of Half Dome, there are again several versions of the image. I prefer the darker ones, which prominently show the veining on the face of the monolith. It would certainly not be easy to portray the detail in the rock face as strongly in color. There is a very "bright" version also which shows almost no detail in the face of the dome. It is much less attractive to me.

Adams did quite a bit of color photography as his career progressed. Most of it is really good. I am not aware, however, of any cases in which he duplicated any of his important black and white images in color. Perhaps some other responders know of a case or cases in which he did. But I expect that there is a reason for the lack of duplication (perhaps monetary, but I'd bet artistic).

bgrn Loc: Pleasant Grove UT

Maybe someone could correct me if I am wrong but I believe bw in the film days was different than digital. Its been a long time but I remember thinking or believing that the fine detail in bw film was better than color film. When I have experimented with this now it seems the crisp detail is the same for both, this could also be due to my aging eyes 😀. But I would guess the better shot, bw or color, would depend on the expected effect.

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

Linda from Maine (now eastern Washington) is usually right. But I have to add, the masters of the f/64 club shot in Black and White. I can't imagine anyone looking at an Ansel Adams print and claiming it would be better in color!

However, on the other hand, I can't imagine some of the more recent color photos would look better in black and white. Color and B&W are two different techniques and requires two different points of view.

I believe that your assumption is correct that given you thoughts, that color would be under represented. However, there have been outstanding color images.

Bottom line, two different representations, two different techniques, which one is better. I don't think there is a correct answer. They both have their place and they both can be iconic!

bgrn Loc: Pleasant Grove UT

A

whwiden

Certain developers used for black and white film create the appearance of enhanced sharpness, like Rodinal. Also, stand development in Rodinal creates, or can create, a certain enhanced edge effect or halo, making a certain edge stand out. Such as a dark suit against a light gray wall. This halo effect appears more often in my experience with Tri X film which was and is used a lot. So, back in the day it makes sense that black and white prints may have appeared sharper than color prints. I offer this possible explanation.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

First time I saw Ansel Adams work I knew I had to try Tri-X developed with HC-110. Even got a medium format film camera, but have not been able to achieve the emotion, use of contrast and textures he was able to achieve in B&W. Which of the two images do you like better?

(Download)


(Download)

whwiden

You needed to think in terms of tones to make choices about filters, for one thing. That kind of pre shot discipline is largely a thing of the past. I find in camera filter choices often do not work as well or as dramatically.

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

Same thing happened to me. Tri-X developed with HC-110 was a strange combination but the gray tones were awesome.

By the way, if I had to choose betwee the two photos you posted, I would certainly choose the B&W.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

So much later? No, not really. Color photography goes back to the 19th century.
Here are some examples of early 20th century color photography:
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/rare-color-pictures-russian-empire-1905-1915/
(Although b&w film was used, I think the method used still qualifies as "color photography".)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I like the coloured one becuse of the different shades of green, with a touch of brown - The b&w one just seem "flat" to my eyes.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Re the rose - For the b&w conversion why not use filters when PPing to control how the colours are transformed during the conversion.
For example lighten the reds and darken the greens etc.
Just tried it using Silver Efex and it works. (I can post the images in a new thread in the photo gallery if you like.

sxrich

For me, it can or may emphasize emotion, mood more. Black and white is a good choice when the color in a photo serves only as a distraction from the message you want the image to convey. I like B&W very much. I'm also in my 60's so nostalgia may have impact on me personally. Look at the works of Ansel Adams and his zone system. Here is an image of a 2 hr. old baby with mother. Here's a gal I shot last week, one color and one B&W. What I also like, in lightroom, is that I can play with the hue of colors and have it totally change the look of a B&W image. So, why don't you give us your opinion? Do younger photographers have a different opinion than older (I know it's somewhat relative)?

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)