I am a journalist working on a new book. I'm at the initial research stage, and I'm looking for some general information about what the colors black and white mean to photographers. I am not a photographer, so assume I know close to nothing. Thanks for any help anyone can be, and I hope this begins a long and meaningful discussion. Thanks!

-- Nelson Taylor (americabizarro@hotmail.com), January 30, 2001

Answers

Neither black nor white are colours.
The two extremes of tone in a B&W photograph are pretty irrelevant, it's what happens in the grey area in between that's important, as in life.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), January 31, 2001.

Thanks for your response, Pete. I've read that black is the absorption of all color and white is the reflection of all color. I don't know whether that's in painting or photography.

Anyway, I understand what you say about the grey areas. Thanks for that incite. So as a B&W photographer you play with variations in light, be that bright light (or in b&W terms white light)or dark light (black)?

-- Nelson Taylor (americabizarro@hotmail.com), January 31, 2001.

Pure black is not a color, since it is the absence of all light.

White, however, is an equal mixture of all colors of light. If an equal mixture of yellow and read (both colors) produces another color, orange, then white ought to be a color by the same reasoning.

As far as B&W photography, color comes into play, since the images we produce have color, or at least a color cast. B&W papers can provide cold-black (on the bluish side), relatively neutral (though I've never seen a paper I would call truly neutral), warm-black and brown- black (on the brownish side).

But as Pete said, it's the various intensities (greys) that are of most interest, since it's a simple matter to get black & white. It's the balance and interplay in the grays that becomes important.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), January 31, 2001.

Charlie,

Thanks for your input. While I understand the reasoning behind what black being the absence of all light, I find it interesting that in painting, black is the absorption of all color, or the mixture of all color.

White as the equal mixture of all colors of light eludes me. I don't understand why white should be a color by the same reasoning. Also, in photography, are you saying there is no real black because the tools (paper) don't support the color? And therefor is black in the "Black & White Photography" sense is just a term? A representation of various shades of darkness? If not darkness per say, does black have a definition all by itself in the term "B&W" or is it always defined in relation to, as a result of, etc?

Greys is the next book.

Nelson

-- Nelson Taylor (americabizarro@hotmail.com), January 31, 2001.

When I refer to "seeing", I mean a real physical object reflects some light, that light is focussed on the retina by the eye's lens, and excites the cones and rods in the eye, which transmit nerve pulses via the optic nerve to the brain. I don't mean random visual phenomena nor hallucinations, both of which are real images as far as the brain is concerned.

Black, the noun, not the adjective, is, by definition, the absence of all light. Therefore you can't see black, because your eyes need light to see and black precludes the presence of light. Thus, any object we describe as black, isn't really black because we see it.

"Black" as in "black paint" is an adjective, and as such is used to describe not to define. As such, we use it to describe things which are very dark, have little light, etc. These things we can see.

Interestingly, with colors like red, green, blue, etc., we use the color name to describe the wavelength(s) we are seeing. With white/black/gray they all have the same equal mixture of all wavelengths, and the name we use describes the intensity.

Regarding your paint reference, you are getting into the issue of reflected versus absorbed light. We describe the color of objects by the color of light they reflect, not the color they absorb. Thus a red object is called red because it reflects red light. We call an object black because it reflects no light (really, just very little light).

If we followed the thought of describing objects by the color they absorb, then a ball that reflects red light would called a "orange- yellow-green-blue-indigo" ball. Not very convenient. Or we could call it "not-red" since it doesn't absorb red.

The exceptions are light sources. We describe those colors by the color of light produced.

I don't understand your difficulty with white being the mixture of equal colors of light: are you having trouble with the science or my analogy. The science just is, so you can accept it or not, just as you can accept or not accept that the earth is generally spherical.

As far as my analogy, here it is in condensed form: if a mixture of colors is called a color than a mixture of all colors should also be called a color, or we are taking a linguistic exception. But this is just arguing semantics and serves no real purpose. It's merely a theoretical discussion of no real purpose to the application of the art and science of photography.

In black and white photography, black in a print is Dmax. That is, the maximum density that the emulsion is capable of producing, or as dark as it can get. White is the minimum density it can get. All the shades of grey are the tones between those.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), January 31, 2001.

More on Black/White

You wrote: "Therefore you can't see black, because your eyes need light to see and black precludes the presence of light." But obviously I can see black. I'm looking at a black leather bag right now. You say later: "Black as in black paint is an adjective, and as such is used to describe not to define. As such, we use it to describe things which are very dark, have little light, etc. These things we can see." So, what you're saying is that the black in photography is different from the black in my bag or say in a painting?

You continue: "Thus, any object we describe as black, isn't really black because we see it." I find this totally fascinating. So in terms of B&W photography, black does not exist without white? If so, how can I stand in a lightless (or whiteless) room and not see black? It's all around me. Isn't it? Or am I just not seeing anything and assume it to be black because I am not able to see anything in the absence of light. (Sorry this seems so convoluted, I'm just trying to better understand.)

Finally, re: absorbed vs. reflected, are you saying that the black bag next to me is reflecting very little light? Or are you speaking in photographic terms? Also, what color is white reflecting? I guess I still don't understand the difference between absorbing color and reflecting color. Could you give me scenarios of each?

While I understand your analogy, there has to be more to the science of white.

-- Nelson Taylor (nelson_taylor@ziffdavis.com), February 01, 2001.

If you go back to my first paragraph about seeing, that answers the question about not being able to see black. If something reflects no light, there is no light to excite the optical system of the eye, thus you can't see it.

In a totally dark room, your visual impression of all objects is the same: you can't see them. You can't see anything. Light must be present for sight/vision.

There are 35 definitions of "black" in my dictionary, so it's hard to discuss if intermingle them in the discussion.

Black in photographic terms has several different meanings, and some pertain to things other than photography, and some are specific to photography.

In no photographic, artistic, or visual context does black have a useful meaning without light. The interplay is called chiaroscuro. Perhaps it is really this that interests you.

"Seeing black" means not seeing, at least to me, it's like "hearing silence". How can you hear something that isn't there? With black, you assume it's black because you can't see anything. If there are 2 objects in a dark room, you can't see either. One might be red, and one blue. But you don't see either and you can't identify them nor their colors.

Absorbing and reflecting is easy: if you stand in the sun you absorb light. You know this because you get warm from it. You also reflect some of the light. You can tell this because people can see you. All objects do some of both, except black holes. They absorb it all.

If you have two identical objects except for their color: red for one, grey for the other, and you stand in a room with only red light you can't distinguish them. They'll both look the same. Why? Think about it.

Check out: http://members.aol.com/joepaduano/infrared/

Why is the tree in the upper RH corner of the top photo so white? Why is the sky black?

http://www.velocity.net/~grinch/

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), February 01, 2001.

Black and white aren't colors and that's why we photographers do not call it "color photography with limited palette"... Another term would be monochrome photography, since sepia/white photography exists, cyanotype photography (blue/white as the word self expresses) etc. Black is exactly defined in physics as white does. It' quantum mechanics and has nothing to do with perception. The term white noice exists also, also not denoting a color. Black in photography is very very dark grey, as white is very very light grey. Visualisation is that what counts, creating the image. Black and white is just the term to describe it. BTW. Personal question: what color is your skin ?

-- Marc Leest (mmm@n2photography.com), February 02, 2001.

I see, I see, I see, Charlie.

There are 35 definitions of "black" in my dictionary, so it's hard to discuss if intermingle them in the discussion. This is the most important thing you've taught me: "In no photographic, artistic, or visual context does black have a useful meaning without light."

Yes, I am also interested in chiascuro--the arrangement, or b&w composition, yes? How the b&w relate to each other on the page?

And yes, I also understand about absorbing and reflecting. Re: the photo links, I assume the tree is white because the sun or some other light source is reflecting off of it.

Another question: the difference between monochrome and anachrome? And how do you create a negative light picture--one where the shades are opposite?

-- Nelson Taylor (americabizarro@hotmail.com), February 02, 2001.

Marc,

Thanks for your addition. I don't exactly understand this phrase (or physics): "Black is exactly defined in physics as white does. It's quantum mechanics and has nothing to do with perception." What I hear you saying is that black and white in photography really don't exist. It's not Black & White photography at all, but more of an easy way to describe how you play with the infintessimal shades of grey.

Re: "what color is your skin?" well, after this conversation I don't really know. People see me as white, but my skin can turn different shades under different shades of light I assume.

-- Nelson Taylor (americabizarro@hotmail.com), February 02, 2001.

Black in physics is defined as an object that doesn't emit ANY radiation (visible light is a kind of radiation), and hence invisible . You could only see it indirectly by observing that you won't see objects that are behind it. But this is a pure theoritical definition since EVERY existing object emits radiation (even the already mentioned black hole, as Prof. S. Hawking proofed recently). On the other hand it is more easyier and intiutive to call "very dark gray" black. So, maybe black and white photography doesn't exist pure on definition basis but is that relevant...

-- Marc Leest (mmm@n2photography.com), February 02, 2001.

Maybe not relevant in photography, though I don't know enough about the art to even speculate. But it is very, very important in my research.

I guess the most trouble I'm having is that in the total absence of light we are not seeing. I guess that's more of a notion for philosophy 101.

-- Nelson Taylor (americabizarro@hotmail.com), February 02, 2001.

Can I move things along slightly here by sugesting that black is used in a number of different ways in photography. This is shown in decriptions of BW prints and print colors, which can be warm or cold. Blacks in prints can be deep and luminous. In printing to leave some detail in the darkest area of an image is often a good move: it hints that there is more to be seen if only we can look deeply enough. In all the above discusion black is just shorthand for "the darkest areas". In the phrase black and white photography, black is short hand for monochrome or limited color pallete. Why the latter phrase? because if a monochrome image is split toned we get two different sets of colors but do not, in comon parlance, call this a color photograph. Another meaning: in color photography black can be just the darkest area in the image, and this may not be "black" but may be colored by preflashing the image so as to give a warmth or atmosphere to an image which it would lack otherwise.

-- Laurence Cuffe (Laurence.Cuffe@ucd.ie), March 01, 2001.

Nelson- I would like to hear your thoughts on your question. After all, it's your question and, you must have had some thought on this prior to entering into this discussion. Or you would not be asking.

-- jim megargee (jmegargee@nyc.rr.com), March 04, 2001.

Jim,

Thanks for your note. I have not heard from enough photographers on this subject to formulate an strong opinion, but I have heard enough to know that there is something more, something much more worth investigating in all of the arenas I've been dipping into: photography, painting, fashion design, interior design, coal mining, fire fighting, etc. At this point I have enough information to write the proposal for what will become a book on my study.

-- Nelson Taylor (americabizarro@hotmail.com), March 04, 2001.

I would just like to say that, in a printing point of view, you get white when you have equal parts of cyan, magenta, and yellow all in the same space. Black is the absence of all of these colors. There's no point in arguing what can and cannot be seen. In black and white photography, if you are seeing something with your eyes that is a bright red and it is placed in the same vicinity as another object of a different color but of the same brightness, both objects will be recorded onto the film with the same grey value. B&W photography has nothing to do with colors and everything to do with tonality. Bright colors and brightly lit objects will be rendered light, whereas dimly lit objects and shadows will be dark. Photo paper starts as being a white color. The longer it is exposed to light, the darner the paper becomes. When it is as dark as possible, it is called black. You shoot light through a negative and onto a piece of paper, light dark areas of a negative let less light through therefor making those areas light on the paper and vice versa. To make a negative print (reversed tones) you must blast the light through a normally exposed print onto an unexposed peice of photo paper. Get it yet?

-- Norm L (jinxtwitchyboo@tattoos.com), March 19, 2001.