How do i prove that beauty in photography is best seen in black and white? please help me. Im only 16 and I dont know how i can explain this.

-- denden Villanueva (ricki16@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999

Answers

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" didn't become a cliche for nothing...Some people just won't understand and it's useless trying to change their minds. For those who are receptive, don't try to explain-- show 'em the work of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Henri Cartier-Bresson. That is the best "proof" you can offer.

Several years ago, I was visiting someone who wanted to know why in the world I would only take pictures in Black & White. "You're missing the best part," he said. "Color is what makes things beautiful!" I could see he was serious and completely unreceptive to any argument I could muster. My response? I promised that if he ever wanted one of my prints, I'd send it with a box of crayons so he can "beautify" it.

That just confused him.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 20, 1999.

I don't know that this can be proven. Color can be very important for some photographs. When people ask me why I work primarily in black and white, I usually respond "because I have much greater control over it than color."

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), October 20, 1999.

When I started out in photography I shot almost exclusively in black and white. Some years later, while working for a newspaper, we changed to color. I noticed that the quality of my photography began to suffer. I had started letting the pretty colors make my photos instead of paying attention to lighting, composition etc. I had to make myself continue to see in black and white even though shooting color, so I would work harder to make better photos. I don't know if this makes any sense to you or helps but I hope you can see it.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), October 20, 1999.

Those with eyes will see, those without won't. It's wierd that some very vehemently have made the opposite argument.

I love the scene in "Ed Wood", one of the best recent B&W mainstream movies, where Ed and his female lead are discussing which dress she should wear. Ed holds them up to the cinematographer and asks, "Which one do you like better, the red one or the green one?"

The cinematographer says, "What do you mean? I'm color blind, I can't tell 'em apart, but if it makes any difference, I lkie the dark gray one on the left."

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999.

Really great color photographs are much more difficult to make than black and white, and are therefore quite rare. There are many master photographers in B&W (Adams, Weston, Karsh, Strand, Gene Smith, Walker Evans, and on and on) but very, very few masters of color (Ernst Haas, Marie Cosindas, Bill Allard, I can't think of any others offhand).

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 20, 1999.

Black and white is inherently more beautiful to me, but I'm not sure that it is generally true, let alone provable.

Why is B&W more beautiful to me? I'm not really sure. Part of it certainly control. But my aesthetic sense is not really comfortable with colour. My vision and theoretical knowledge are both fine, but the instincts don't work with colours.

B&W photography, having no colours, must emphasise tone and form. Where the beauty of a subject is expressed by these factors (such as human faces), B&W really works well.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 20, 1999.

You can't prove something as subjective as this. Some people can see the inherent beauty in B&W and some people can't. Call them gray blind.

I get to work pretty early in the morning to beat the traffic, and my boss usually shows up five to 10 minutes after I do. One day last week I was standing by the window watching the sunrise turning the clouds brilliant shades of red. My boss came in and, knowing I'm a photographer in my spare time, asked me what film I would use to photograph the scene.

"T-Max 100." "What? You'd shoot that in black and white? I can't imagine that in black and white." "I can."

-- Darron Spohn (sspohn@concentric.net), October 20, 1999.

"Really great color photographs are much more difficult to make than black and white"

black and white is much more demanding than color for obtaining a quality image, just review all of the other responses, black and white cannot hide behind the use of color, it has to stand on its own or it is just a bad image, instead of a bland image that "has such nice colors"

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 21, 1999.

I disagree, Mark. At the present state of the art/science, color photographs are easier to make than B&W. Despite the overwhelming ratio of color to B&W pictures actually taken, great Color imagess are rare. Can you name any?

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 22, 1999.

Denden, your way of "seeing" with a camera very much decides if colour or b&w will work best for you. I suggest borrowing a camera similar to yours (it would be perfect if it was exactly the same or at least used could use the same lens) and have colour print film (negative film) in one and black & white negative film in the other. Photograph exactly the same thing with both cameras and then you can argue more easily why you prefer one over the other. But be prepared that to get the most out of the b&w images you have to print them yourself.

The majority of photo-art books I buy have images in b&w. The same thing with my own photography, 90% is b&w. But colour can add impact to a picture in a positive way. If you look at books like "National Geographic, the photographs" or the quite recent book by David Doubilet with his underwater photography you will find that colour can be essential to a picture, even when the colour is subtle.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), October 22, 1999.

denden, you've had some great responses, to me Black and White Photography is better than Color Photography because their's just plain more imagination and thought put into the photos taken by the black and white picturetakers. Go find an old barn somewhere and take a picture of it in color and see the result. Now do the same thing in Black and White. The B&W will look better!

-- John L. Blue (bluescreek@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

Bill, I agree that color images are easier to make than black and white images simply because they are so devoid of the creative process when compared to black and white. Color is very cut and dried, it is what it is and you can't go much further than that.

Why aren't there as many color masterpieces? Because most of them turn out to nothing more than postcards with pretty colors.

you can't get very creative with a color image because it quickly becomes gimmicky and the intent of the image is hidden behind the effect. With black and white you can take the image as far from reality as you need to and still make a "normal" Looking print.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 23, 1999.

I was referring to "straight" photographs, Adams/Weston (B&W) vs Marie Cosindas/Ernst Haas (color), etc, not the manipulated photo- montages of Mortelson and others. Obviously my treasures are your trash; beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Mitch

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 23, 1999.

As I am probably far from experienced as a photographer, (I am a student in the literal sense) I can only tell you what I have told people. For example I took some black and whites of a friends baby yesterday. She kept insisting that I take some color too. Which I did. But then I took out pictures of my own baby, that I had done in both color and Black and white (the exact same photo, he was sleeping) . And she realized the difference. The black and white required more of my memory than the color and so created more feeling. Does that make sense? The color photo was just that. But the other demanded imagination, ie. how the soft downy blanket around him felt, how he smelled, the warmth of his little fist... I'm sorry the color photo just does not do that for me. And I have testimony that I am not the only one in these examples over and over.

Color has it's place, don't get me wrong. Eastman Kodak does a yearly lecture(teleconference) on great photographers. The one about Jay Maisel (1989) Is great. He has found beauty in the most ordinary objects simply because of color. So it depends. But both are wonderful to play with....

-- martha goldsmith (oscar@unidial.com), October 23, 1999.

Bill, are we in the same conversation? I too am talking about the work of people such as Adams and Weston, but many of their images were hardly what I would call "realistic" interpretations of the scene before them. Just because it looks normal doesn't mean that it is not heavily manipulated. Photo montages do nothing for me.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 24, 1999.

If one paraphrases the original question to "is beauty best seen in B&W or in color?" the answer is "Sometimes it are and sometimes it ain't." The perception of "Beauty" is only one possible emotional response to visualization of an image; it is more easily assimillated/evaluated into/by the mind (as distinct from the brain) if extraneous material has already been stripped off by the photographer. That's almost the defination of composition. In some instances color is superflous, sometimes it's not. Would Pepper #30 be any less beautiful if it were green? I don't think so, but the imagey would evoke different connotations in the mind's eye. In black and white one "sees" a sensuous shape, an impression remimiscent somewhat of the backside view of a Rubensque nude human female. In color one would "see" a beautifully shaped green pepper. It is a question of visualization. Is beauty more easily presented in B&W. Yes. Is it better? No.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 25, 1999.

Bill,

I feel the more important phrasing of the question of color vs b/w would be," are you making an artistic interpretation of the subject or are you just making a literal copy of the subject, for me b/w wins this argument hands down. and hold on a minute, maybe the pepper was red damnit!

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 25, 1999.

Interviewer: "Does a photograph ever lie?" Walker Evans: "It always does!" All ANY "straight" photograph can do is to present a literal view of the subject, unless it is "manipulated," ie, Paul Strand's "Wall Street" with one figure on the sidewalk retouched out. Would you prefer a B&W print of Ernst Haas' great photograph "Bull fighter in motion?" Not me. Also: definitely GREEN. Mitch

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 26, 1999.

Ahh, but we are not talking about a "straight" photograph, but a photograph that is PERCEIVED to be "straight", Moonrise is a heavily manipulated negative and print, but the mood and feel of the image is not hindered by that because it is perceived to be as it was seen, this is not possible with color in many situations, thus the creative intent is limited to the limitations of color film.

If the "Bull fighter in motion" image was done CORRECTLY in black and white then I am sure that it would be just as effective if not more than the color version.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 27, 1999.

Neither the negative nor the print of Moonrise has been manipulated, except to correct for deficiences in the contrast range of the mechanical reproduction process. It is the purest of "straight" B&W photography. That is, the final result is representative of the original scene as visualized by Adams. Ernst Haas' "Bull fighter in motion" might be an interesting accident in B&W; in color it is a masterpiece. Humbly suggest that it not be critisized without being viewed first. Also humbly regret that I must discontinue my contributions to this discussion. Thanks for the stimulation. Mitch

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 27, 1999.

Mitch, If "Moonrise" hasn't been manipulated, I'll eat my gary card!! The lst printing of this image was pure garbage, it wasn't until Ansel became a master printer that this image became his signature print. With lots of work in the darkroom and after intenisfing the lower portion of the image. Best regards, Ernst

-- Ernst-Ulrich Schafer (zone88@olypen.com), October 27, 1999.

I want off this non-productive treadmill; I really intend this to be my final contribution. How was the image of Moonrise "manipulated?" 1)The negative: It was unintentionally underexposed. It was exposed through a G filter. It was developed in a water bath. It was partially intensified to compensate for the underexposure in order to make it easier to print, not to change the image. So far as I can determine, that's all that has been done to the negative, none of which could be considered "Manipulation." No retouching, no masking. 2)The print: Some broad burning only. No local reducing, not even any spotting. That's not "Manipulating," it's just master printing technique. My early Moonrise print is an 11x14 on warm toned paper. A few more clouds are visible in the very dark (but not black) sky than on the later blue-black version. I personally find it more soothing and peaceful than my 1975 Witkin show print. So, Ernst, do you want salt and pepper with your gary card?

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 27, 1999.

Bill, you have a strange idea of what is and isn't manipulation. All of these techniques are manipulation!

what type of dictionary do you have at home?

"straight" and "original scene as visualized by" do not go together, straight photography would indicate an image that is true to what was there at the time of exposure (for moonrise it would be a much lighter print including all of the afore mentioned details left out) A straight photo is one that records what was seen, a visualized (manipulated) photo is one that records what was seen and felt.

To be more precise, the lower portion of the negative was intensified to bring the density of the crosses up (which changed the image essentially), intensification of the entire negative would have probably made it a more challenging print to produce.

Why would I discuss a photograph in such a way if I had never seen it? of course I have seen it, and my opinion still holds.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 28, 1999.

lower case mark,

I agree with your points about manipulation, but when you use the term "straight" in a photography forum, you had better define it in advance.

"Straight" is usually used to refer to the whole f/64 anti- pictorialist idea of using the mediums characteristics to produce an image and let it stand on its own as "ART" without resorting to "handwork" and "manipulation" as practiced by Mortenson and the "Pictorialists" .

You definition of "straight" is impossible, frankly. Every image requires manipulation, choice of materials, format, lens, camera position, moment of exposure, etc. etc. etc. As was averred earlier, at some level, all photographs lie.

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), October 28, 1999.

Sean, I think you have myself and Bill mixed up, Bill was the one to come up with the odd (my opinion) definition of what "straight" meant. I was just basing my answers and counter answers according to his definition, not basing it on what my definition was. I agree with you completly.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 29, 1999.

marky-mark,

I'm confused?

You wrote, "straight photography would indicate an image that is true to what was there at the time of exposure (for "Moonrise" it would be a much lighter print including all of the aforementioned details left out). A straight photo is one that records what was seen, a visualized (manipulated) photo is one that records what was seen and felt.

Weston, Adams, et. al. considered a "straight" photograph to be one made using only photographic technique, i.e. abjuring the use of soft- focus lenses, textured paper, and printing/darkroom technique aimed at obscuring/altering the photographic nature of the print. It was perfectly legitimate in their eyes to dodge and burn and vary paper and film development and use filters, and so on to manipulate the image to achieve their "visualized" or sometimes, "pre-visualized" print. I don't think anyone would mistake "Moonrise" for a painting. The manipulations used to achieve it fall squarley within standard photographic procedure, and therefore are encompassed by the "straight" tradition as articulated by Weston, Adams, Cunningham, etc.

"Visualization" as defined by Adams was the intellectual/emotional process of seeing the finished print in the mind's eye and recognizing the steps, the photographic techniques of manipulation, necessary to achieve that print, as you point out his famous and oft repeated phrase, "what I saw and felt at the moment of exposure". Visualization is the formulation and articulation of one's personal vision in a given image. However in no way does this counter the "straight" tradition of purely photographic manipulations. They are not opposites as your above statement seems to imply.

Surely you've read Beaumont Newhall's story about coming out of Weston's darkroom with an un-dodged print and being asked by Edward why he hadn't dodged it? He responded, "But Mr. Weston, I thought that was against the rules?"

Regardless, this debate really hasn't helped Mr. Villanueva.

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

Hey everyone. thanks for all the help. Your opinions will not be taken for granted. If any of you want to add aome more thoughts.. I'll still be ever grateful. = ) btw, I'm a miss. = ) I was speaking to my thesis adviser and I showed her a printout of your response... she said I could use this for my paper... with your permission of course. So... what do you all think?

-- denden villanueva (ricki16@hotmail.com), November 03, 1999.

Okay by me. Anonymous.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 03, 1999.

That's fine, I doubt that anyone would mind being quoted in your theseis.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), November 03, 1999.

Fine with me.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), November 04, 1999.

At Last!!!! A REAL SHOT AT IMMORTALITY!!!!!!

Or, wait, is that immorality?

C. Montgomery Burns

-- C. Montgomery Burns (yatescats@yahoo.com), November 04, 1999.

You can't prove that beauty in photography is best seen in black and white, but you can prove that many black and white photographs are beautiful. I think it is a question of line and form and tone more than it relates to natural colors. Many color photographs are beautiful, but the difference is, and I'm speaking generally here, the finished color photograph needs to look a certain way for it to look right. Its final look is more predestined than the black and white photograph. The determining factor for color photography comes mostly from when the initial photograph was taken with the camera. The processing, then, needs to adhere to the characteristics of the exposure else the final tone of the photograph will look poor. If it is too light, it will look too light. If it is too dark, it will look too dark. Black and white, on the other hand, lends to the artist much greater flexibility in the way the final print will look. An artist can make the print look purposefully darker or lighter and thus send different signals to the person who enjoys viewing the photograph. The black and white photograph can appear in many different ways, indpendent of the initial exposure in the camera, and it can still be beautiful.

And I think the black and white image engages certain faculties of the brain that the color photograph attempts to provide automatically and thus lures the brain into a partial shutdown. Black and white concentrates attention on the inherrent beauty of line, form, and tone.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), November 17, 1999.

(had to submit early; boss was coming)

To finish: The black and white photograph concentrates attention to the inherent beauty of line, form, and tone, while the color photograph attempts to resolve the image too completely. Reminds me of how much I enjoyed going to sleep, scared to death, after listening to the CBS Radio Mystery Theatre. Oh what drama! :-)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), November 17, 1999.

And where color is desired artistically, I am convinced that a well executed handcolored photograph (using the proper materials, of course) is far more beautiful than the equivalent color photograph of the same subject.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), November 17, 1999.