capturing the soul in an image ! (Page 4): Beauty, Quality, Appreciation, Criticizm….all in the eyes of the beholder, all else just BS....

CCChuckles Loc: Michigan

Beauty, Quality, Appreciation, Criticizm….all in the eyes of the beholder, all else just BS....

CCChuckles Loc: Michigan

capturing the soul in an image !

A picture or Image is no more or less than just a Moment in Time captured on film....
It cannot capture the Soul but can give a glimpse of Present Emotion or Feeling & BW can give a more succinct look & at same.....

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Here's another, sunrise in the Bahamas. I thought about this as B&W but the color just works better. It looks kind of like a monochrome treatment but it's not, This is what the scene offered that morning.

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I'm not "committing" to anything! But if you want comments, I think the "soul" of a photograph really depends on the photograph itself, subject, composition, light, color, it all depends. Sometimes it takes B&W but there are just as many, if not more instances when color is an important part of the "soul" of the photograph. For example, this would not work in B&W, the vibrancy of the red wall and green plant are key to this working.

Think blood in a photo. Doctor, soldier victim.
Impact in colour or black and white.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Imagemine wrote:

Monochrome will capture the soul of an image if the colors aren't interesting , still color can produce interesting photos but B&W goes all the way to the soul + B&W can be more forgiving . It has been said when you shoot in color it only gets to the surface . So everybody commit on this subject .

A Good question but goes to one's personal taste. B&W with solid mid tone usage(think about the zone system) can present a very powerful photograph. Personally I like the term 'soul' but that may feel to deep for some.

For the colorites, hit any gallery and B&W has equal space.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Imagemine wrote:

Monochrome will capture the soul of an image if the colors aren't interesting , still color can produce interesting photos but B&W goes all the way to the soul + B&W can be more forgiving . It has been said when you shoot in color it only gets to the surface . So everybody commit on this subject .

I don't know about committing as you ask but my comment is that each of us takes photographs because we see something in the scene that we want to show others or perhaps just record for ourselves to see in the future.

Personally I feel that color photographs are interesting sometimes only because of the color. To me a black and white photo when done well really stands out.

Dennis

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Linda From Maine wrote:

The willingness of some people to slam the door against thoughtful discussion never ceases to amaze me. You'd think nobody had heard of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, or that guy with the alliterative name...now who is that? 🤔

yup, and to say nothing of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Brett Weston, Imogen Cunningham.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

“When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!”
Quote by Ted Grant

I tend to agree with that.

I'm not so sure about black and white being more forgiving.
--Bob

Imagemine wrote:

Monochrome will capture the soul of an image if the colors aren't interesting , still color can produce interesting photos but B&W goes all the way to the soul + B&W can be more forgiving . It has been said when you shoot in color it only gets to the surface . So everybody commit on this subject .

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Imagemine wrote:

Monochrome will capture the soul of an image if the colors aren't interesting , still color can produce interesting photos but B&W goes all the way to the soul + B&W can be more forgiving . It has been said when you shoot in color it only gets to the surface . So everybody commit on this subject .

I understand what you are trying to say. Not sure I agree in a blanket statement. I did mostly B&W film photography for decades. With digital I shoot mostly in full color but with an eye still for a shot that works better as Black and White when converted. So I do shoot some digital shots with the sole intent of presenting it in B&W or monochrome. Yes, brown tone and sepia are often nice.

CCChuckles Loc: Michigan

I think all photos tell a story but "Soul" No.... Images-Photos they tell a story but "Soul" is Philisophical thinking way beyond simple photography.

old poet

Right on Linda! There is room for everyone, black to white, UV to IR.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

lamiaceae wrote:

yup, and to say nothing of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Brett Weston, Imogen Cunningham.

AA is who I was referring to when I "joked" about that guy with the alliterative name

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

I see in color and is what I want to see in most images. As far as the soul of an image being revealed in bw not so much for me. It is up to the photographer to give an image "soul" color or black and white.

Some of last centuries photographers mentioned above had little choice but to shoot in black and white as color was either not an option or was not affordable to use much. Nor could they develop the color as easy as they could black and white.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Arthur Fellig did pretty good with blood and black and white.
--Bob

Architect1776 wrote:

Think blood in a photo. Doctor, soldier victim.
Impact in colour or black and white.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

traderjohn wrote:

Why so nasty???

Nasty? I thought in historical context it was pretty tempered. This horse has been dead and thoroughly beaten many many times over. If you'd like an example of nasty go back and investigate the behavior and comments of the gate-keepers to the sanctuary of holy photographic art in the mid 20th century.

Here's nasty: "Color tends to corrupt photography and absolute color corrupts it absolutely.... These are four simple words which must be whispered: color photography is vulgar." -- Walker Evans

The B&W high priests actively resisted allowing that vulgar color to corrupt their religion. This had consequences in peoples lives. We celebrate now the work of photographers like Eliot Porter or Ernst Haas but during their lives they were aggressively shut out. Color photography was successfully kept out of the art museums till after we had physically visited the moon. Until Szarkowski hung Bill Eggleston's work at the MET in 1976 those B&W high priests kept the doors bared.

So my response is somewhat reactionary. I remember the Eggleston show at the MET and the hope and affirmation it gave me -- and I remember the nastiness and vitriol that pilled on -- just me dredging up history.

Joe