Because I can develop and print my own negatives at home, with total control over the exposures. It’s a throwback thing. I did darkroom work for a few years and still marvel every time I see that image start to develop under the red light. It’s magic, I tell ya…
Otherwise I’ll just shoot digital pictures.
In digital photography there is no difference. The person doing the post-processing has even more control as they can control exactly how much of each color channel will be used in the conversion, without using filters during exposure.
I understand the appeal of developing the photographs yourself. I used to watch my father doing that when I was a kid. I am only peeved at digital photographs turned B&W, which in the majority of cases just makes them lifeless and dull.
I only went about 10 pages in, and there are a lot of nice photographs, but I didn’t find any taken in recent years.
I have no issue with black and white photos from that era, or photos developed for nostalgic reasons like Rico does, but in the digital era one must have a very good reason to go B&W. In my opinion it’s just being overused to the detriment of a lot of photos. It seems to be an artifact of the time when B&W was the only economical and practical way to make photos, and wouldn’t have happened on the same scale in an alternative history that went straight to color.
For example, look at Prokudin-Gorskii’s photos, or by any other photographer making color photograps in the B&W times, and they seem all the more spectacular. I think there was a thread not too long ago with color photographs from Nazi times, and they portrayed the atmosphere much more vividly than the run of the mill B&W photos do.
Yes, they can. But a lot of those people on the photography forums don’t have the slightest clue what they’re doing and just hit “Convert > Grayscale” and get a shitty image.
Black-and-white photos tend to emphasize shape and contrast. Color photos draw your eye to, well, color.
My decision about whether to keep a photo in color or black and white is an aesthetic one based on whether I feel the color adds anything to the image. If not, I generally convert to black-and-white. That said, the majority of my work is in color, and I use color as a conscious compositional element. Sometimes, there is a distracting color element that totally ruins the picture such that the photo only works well in black-and-white. One example is a recent photo I took of a couple. The third person from the left was wearing an obnoxious fuchsia coat which, in a sea of blacks, grays, and earth tones, stole all the attention. No brainer to make that black and white.
Usually, though, before shooting I will see a photo as a color photo or black and white photo based on what I want to emphasize in the photo. Sometimes, I will use black-and-white for the cultural and art historical associations it has, but usually its a practical matter of: do the colors in the picture enhance or distract from the photo? Since I usually compose around color, my answer is usually that they enhance, but for quite a lot of photographs, they don’t. My personal feeling for why black-and-white photos are quite often preferred to color photos and seem “artier” to the average person is because they contain a layer of abstraction. Most people see reality in full color, and abstracting out that color information offers the viewer an obvious and easy way of looking at the world differently.
I’m sure you meant to make some snarky point, but if you would suppress your knee-jerking for a moment, please consider that much of the actual footage of the D-Day invasion was in black-and-white. The Longest Day used some of this footage. If the new parts of the movie were in color, the sudden and abrupt switch to black-and-white would be jarring.
A more modern film like Saving Private Ryan has sufficient special-effects tech (as well as an audience somewhat more desensitized to graphic blood splatter) to restage D-Day or at least a reasonable facsimile in full colour.
Personally, I don’t care about black-and-white vs. colour. I’m far more put off by microsecond editing.
Yeah, what was up with the editing in old movies? Some shots when on for seconds, or even minutes! And yet they had the technology to make 24 cuts every second. Weird.
I guess they were just lazy or something.
No, not entirely. A Plus-X negative is very much different from a Tri-X negative and, based on the stock, the print from each is very much different.
I think the complaint is about how someone using digital technology, and not caring about the subtleties, can produce any ol’ B&W photo. It’s like some schmuck looking at a Jackson Pollack and saying, “My cat can do that.” No, pussy really can’t, nor can you, a schmuck, create an Eisenstadt.
You are a heartless blasphemer.
It’s “Pollock” and don’t be so quick to judge cat art.
sassyfras
sassyfras, how old are you?
Actually. I think this is one of those situations where one can say “If you don’t get, I’m not going to be able to explain it to you.”
I love old b&w photo’s. Prints made from large format plate negatives have a visual texture that cannot be easily duplicated. And the detail… I was pissed off when I bought my last inkjet printer the first time I printed a scanned black and white. it was a 4x6 picture blown up to an 8X10 and I thought the printer was streaking. Turns out it was the fishing line in the picture. I had to get a magnifying glass out to see it.
A good rule of thumb: The great majority of B&W American movies of the 1960s are worth watching — they are almost always better than average.
Psycho, The Apartment, Primary, Inherit the Wind, The Hustler, Judgment at Nuremberg, One, Two, Three, The Children’s Hour, Raisin in the Sun, The Longest Day, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, The Manchurian Candidate, Nothing But a Man, Lolita, Days of Wine and Roses, The Miracle Worker, Hud, Shock Corridor, Lilies of the Field, Love With the Proper Stranger, America, America, Toys in the Attic, Fate Is the Hunter, Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte, The Americanization of Emily, The Cool World, Dr. Strangelove, The Night of the Iguana, Seven Days in May, Ship of Fools, A Patch of Blue, In Harm’s Way, The Pawnbroker, King Rat, Morituri, The Slender Thread, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Seconds, The Fortune Cookie, In Cold Blood, Dont Look Back, A Time for Burning, Night of the Living Dead, David Holzman’s Diary, High School, Salesman
Sorry, wife is a Polack. And dude? My wife pointed out to me an assemblage by our collie in which she used various items dear to me, including sheets of Kleenex, to immanentize my return from work. (At the time she liked me better than Wife, who was responsible, in her mind, for her imprisonment and the shooting deaths of her packmates. She, being a dog, has forgotten most of it and LURVES Wife. And pretty much ignores fireworks and other explosions.)
And I recall having supported, on this very board, the supposed artistry of chimps and elephants. And there is no doubt that I have related another of Wife’s tales, in which our Siamese cat arranged yarn and such just so. Wife saw it and saw the reactions of our other cats, who appeared to be in awe of having such a great artist in their midst.
Yeah, Wife spends too much time with animals, but that elephant can paint.
A MOUNTAIN of unclear on the concept.
Unless you film with some special digital camera that actually has only a monochromatic sensor, at some point, a digital picture is converted between color and “black-and-white”. And if it is done on camera, it probably doesn’t look nearly as good as what you could do on a computer.
TWO mountains of unclear on the concept.
While I agree with those who are saying B&W has its own, entirely distinct artistic value, you’re not really being very helpful here. BigT is correct, the vast majority of digital sensors are intrinsically colour-schemed (having a collection of R, G and B photosites in some arrangement), so speaking purely technically, it’s perfectly true that a B&W output has indeed been converted from a colour image. (For that matter, most sensors don’t have easy RGB patterns, so most colour outputs have also been converted from a different colour image.)
If, as seems obvious to me, you meant something rather less technical by saying “[a] black and white photograph is not simply a color photograph that’s been ‘converted’ to black and white,” then perhaps you could explain this, rather than just contradicting people who are making perfectly true statements.
:rolleyes:
Except these “perfectly true statements” are offered as simple contradictions of something I said myself. And as such they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what I said. The statement I made at which they *both *seemed to have stopped reading was *immediately *followed by a further elucidation of what I was trying to say, thereby rendering my subsequent “contradictions” far more helpful than I needed to be, by dint of being thoroughly redundant and completely unnecessary.
In other words, howzabout a round of RTFT? On me?
Yes, but contradictions that make it clear they’re talking at cross purposes. My point is that if people have clearly misinterpreted your words (and I’m sure they didn’t do it deliberately), you can either a) be a knob about it, or b) put them straight. Up to you, of course; I’m sure we all well understand the pain of being misunderstood in one’s own time.
Might be more strictly accurate to say that the great majority of B&W American movies of the 1960’s which have been saved and transferred to modern media like DVD’s (and VHS) are almost always better than average. I’m sure there are terrible terrible movies from the era, in both B&W and color, that haven’t been preserved and aren’t spoken of in film class or polite society. 
