This deals with Newsweek. I haven't done a statisical analysis on the subject but I have noticed the following:

Recently, they have been using a lot of B & W photos. In addition, the photos of their regular contributers are B & W. As I said, I could be wrong, but the change has been so dramatic that it jumped from the pages. [By the way George looks better in B & W].

Wonder what brought this on; or am I wrong.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 30, 2002

Answers

Art: I can't speak for "Newsweek", but I think we're seeing a return of B&W in other areas as well. I know a wedding photographer in a near-by city who does all his weddings in B&W, on real film, and gets $6000.00 per event. He's currently turning business away!

I've noticed more B&W, both film and digital, in several other publications. I like it!

Ben

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), May 30, 2002.

My event customers seem to prefer B&W as well.

I think part of the appeal is that it looks like "real photography." The world is inundated with color snapshots. B&W gives people pause.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 30, 2002.

B&W is getting more popular. I shoot most of my weddings in b&w now. Clients are wanting it more and more. Great for me since I do all my own printing. And with digital cameras, black n white is press of a button. Still, film is for me.

-- chris a williams (leicachris@worldnet.att.net), May 30, 2002.

This following article from the Photo District News website might offer an explanation. It's from the May 9th PDN Newswire posting.

"Newsweek To Launch Re-design"

A new-look Newsweek will be hitting newstands in the coming weeks. And photography will be getting a new ‘do.

Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor for design at Newsweek, says the new magazine will be an "even more elegant showcase for photographic goods." "It will be cleaner, more elegant and more modern backdrop for photography," she adds. "We’re concerned about the use of photography in an elemental way."

Staley, who oversees photography and design at the magazine, says Newsweek will use images bigger, as opposed to many smaller images. And she says she won’t hold back on double-truck (two-page) images. Staley adds that she hopes to use more work from the magazine’s eight contract photographers — Khue Bui, Luc Delahaye, Nigel Feanny, Ron Haviv, Gary Knight, Charles Ommaney, Paolo Pellegrin and Ilkka Uimonen — instead of relying on other sources.

The new look (the first major overhaul since Roger Black redesigned it in 1985) means that there is "increasing interest in editors in terms of visual presentation" and the magazine will be "geared towards a minimal, less embroidered" look, says Staley. The redesign, led by Staley, is the result of months of discussions among the magazine staff.

"I think that our photographic goods have become increasingly one of the things we’d market along with exclusive reporting," she says, "the news material that’s generated from our photographers in our new design."

-- David Surowiecki (david@surow.net), May 30, 2002.

Art, B&W is more challenging than color and leaves a lot more to the imagination. There is a lot of «drama» in a B&W photo, even of the most ordinary subject. Now, why would photojournalists use more B&W than before is beyond me. Could printing costs for the magazine be a factor? Or are they actually looking for just that, more drama, like their glorious predecessors (Capa, HCB and al)? BTW, I think George would look much better in B, no W. Sorry, couldn't resist. But if you stretch it just a tiny bit, this last comment is still about photography.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 30, 2002.

I saw a quote from Tina Manley who was quoting another photographer who said------------When tou take a color photograph, you capture that persons clothes. when you shoot in B&W, you capture his/her soul. Think about it.

-- C. W. Satterfield (cwsat@istate.net), May 31, 2002.

Tina was quoting Ted Grant, who regularly trots out this tired old piece of nonsense.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 31, 2002.

When tou take a color photograph, you capture that persons clothes. when you shoot in B&W, you capture his/her soul.

This is such artsy-fartsy nonsense. These same people probably believe in the mythical Leica mystique also.

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.

Rob, besides regularly dismissing comments on this forum, and sounding like you're the only sensible person in the universe - so much so that you even scorn a very bright and concise flash of wit (be it by Ted Grant or whoever) - do you have anything positive to bring to this forum?

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 31, 2002.

I tell you what, Olivier, you tell me how desaturating a photograph penetrates to someone's "soul" and I'll admit that I'm an arrogant, stuck-up, spaghetti-eating fruitcake. OK?

I stand by my belief that this souls/clothes stuff is facile nonsense - at least until Olivier enlightens me.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 31, 2002.

I'll go further (why not, eh?!): I think BW is phoney, actually. It gives a pseudo-guarantee of worthiness to a lot of pretty pedestrian photography. If it's third world stuff, it has to be in BW with glum looking people. A hospice? - black and white, please! Documentary photography funding? Only black and white portfolios need apply.

Excellent black and white photography is no more nor less difficult than excellent colour, and in each case the quality of the photography is mainly determined by the photographer's commitment, compassion and visual sense. Colour is not an adjunct, it's just part of what's in front of the camera.

In the case of newsweek, unfortunately for anyone who actually wanted to be a working PJ, this is just another stage in the trend to using celebrity photographers. Newsweek wants to be taken seriously for its photography, so naturally they have to use BW. It's all boring and predictable.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 31, 2002.

Although I shoot primarily black and white, I have to agree with Rob about the whole "B/W superiority" trip. It's pretentious and silly.

I'd place quite a bit of money on the hypothesis that the use of black and white photos has to do with ink cost. It's a whole lot cheaper to print with only black ink, and magazines are in a real pile of hurt these days due to the drop in advertising dollars.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 31, 2002.

The second paragraph in my comment directly above was specific to Newsweek. However, I'm willing to bet that more black and white crops up in other large circulation magazines for precisely the same reason.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 31, 2002.

I have to say I agree a lot more with rob than Ted on the clothes/souls issue. However, I have my own aphorism on colour/bw that I'd like to float:

"It's easier to take a good picture in colour, but it's easier to take a great picture in black and white."

The reason I say this is that great photographs usually involve some degree of abstraction - they have to have a universal appeal, as opposed to an appeal unique to the subject/place/time they record. Black and white photographs start out with one singular advantage in the good/great sweepstakes - they are automatically abstracted by one degree due to the lack of colour. Where they go from there is of course determined by the photographer's vision, committment skill, understanding etc. If those aren't sufficiently present, the result will be pedestrian work that can't even be rescued by interesting colours.

It's easier to take a "good" picture in colour because the image is more fully represtational. The photographer has one more aspect of the subject to work with in order to make the image interesting.

In contrast, "great" colour photography is IMO more difficult, because it first has to overcome the representationalism of the colours in the scene. This can be done, but it takes an exceptional subject, exceptionally seen and exceptionally executed to accomplish.

This is all, of course, subject to our personal definitions of "good" and "great", and is also subject to the usual caveats - YMMV, IMO, professional driver on closed course, don't try this at home kids, etc.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), May 31, 2002.

All of which has nothing to do with why Newsweek is running more b&w, except I think b&w is seen as having "artistic cachet" these days.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), May 31, 2002.

I am with Rob on this one too. Black and white is no more intrinsically interesting than color. In fact one can argue that ignoring what is for everyone a vital part of any scene is a complete aberration of reality - which in documentary photography is supposed to be important. I suspect that for Newsweek it is both an economy measure (black and white is cheaper to print) but also a rather pseudo nostalgia trip. Implies they are "serious" and all that nonsense. One thing I do prefer is black and white over some of the lousy often digitally sourced (my guess) color images you see in many news and other magazines, but that is a different thing altogether.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.

Rob, Hadji, the problem with your comments is that they don't bring anything constructive to the discussion as to wether B&W photography is superior orf better or more artistic or whatever. They just scorn other people's opinions. There's got to be a better way to discuss than labeling a statement as being «tired old nonsense» or «artsy-fartsy nonsense». Let's get a little polite and nice, okay? That won't hurt and will definitely give more credit to any comment. BTW, Rob, you seem to be an adept at insulting people, as I could notice on another thread.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 31, 2002.

OK, Olivier, you've convinced me. I am an arrogant, stuck-up, spaghetti-eating fruitcake. <wipes tomato sauce out of beard>

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 31, 2002.

the discussion as to wether B&W photography is superior orf better or more artistic or whatever

This isn't a discussion that has any point. Materials, processes, these aren't artistic. Art is artistic, whether it is color, black and white, film, digital, oil, acrylic, collage, mixed media, stone, plastic, etc etc.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 31, 2002.

Olivier. Oh, thank you for setting me straight. I see the errors of my ways. If only I were more polite and insightful and wise as you. I'm glad someone is watching out for the forum and making sure everyone is playing nice.

I still stand by my statement. Black and white capturing the soul? Whatever. Statement's like Ted's (or whoever said it) are meaningless. Color or BW? One is not necessarily better than the other (I work with both). Each come with their own set of problems, both technically and formally. But to say that one is inherently better than the other is a bunch of artsy fartsy nonsense. Who's behind the viewfinder is more crucial.

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), May 31, 2002.

Rob,Hadji, yeah, whatever...

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 31, 2002.

I don't know that increasing the use of B&W imagery is necessarily only a ocst-cutting measure - working for a newspaper I can tell you that modern PC/Mac-based scanning/separating software eliminates about 80% of the cost difference - the ink is a pittance by comparison with the expense of the old, manual films separations.

IBM runs most (all) of its TV ads in B&W now, as do many other 'financial' advertisers. Mostly, I suspect, because it 'stands out' from the norm of color imagery it's competing for attention with.

B&W is less 'real' in that it doesn't capture one aspect of reality - but color can be 'less' real emotionally, if (e.g.) "pretty color' shows up in a picture that's trying to show an 'ugly' reality.

No one has yet ansewred the question I posted a wekk or so ago on another B&W/coor thread: "If color film had been invented first, would anyone have ever bothered to invent B&W film?"

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 31, 2002.

Andy:

"If color film had been invented first, would anyone have ever bothered to invent B&W film?"

The answer is yes. There are a number of technically important emulsions that are limited to B & W [science and medical stuff; of course some of this is being replaced with digital sensors; another question, if digital sensors had been invented first would film have ever existed]. For everyday use, I don't know.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 31, 2002.

Art - thanks. I should have mentioned that the question is not mine originally - but is intriguing.

I ask this of your response, though. If color had been around ever since Daguerre/Niepce as an integral part of photography, wouldn't the people designing the technical systems that now use B&W just have designed them for color film?

If film 'naturally' displayed color, wouldn't we just have color X- rays?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 01, 2002.

Artsy Fartsy! Same comment one hears from uneducated, narrow minded, one side of the brained, crotch grabing, "I can beat your ass" kinds of emotional bullies. Black and White imagery is one of the things that seperates photography from some of the other arts, AND one of the things that binds it to other arts. Saying B&W would never have been invented is like saying B&W Lithography or Sumi wouldn't have been either. When in fact art was first expressed in color and only later in B&W. Some of the posters here would greatly benefit by taking an art history class. B&W is how photography gained what respect it has from the world art community. Color is the medium of the masses. It appeals to everyone. It's Hollywood NOW. Flash and instant appeal to even the most insensitive person. B&W is an aquired taste. It requires some sensitivity and intelligence on the part of the viewer. Just stripping out the color from a color image does not make a B&W photo. It makes a color photo with the color missing. It's people who think this way that colorized the great motion pictures that were designed, lit, and shot for B&W film. Were it up to them we'd be colorizing Ansel Adam's images and painting gaudy colors into HCBs photos. I think it's way harder to make a great color image than it is to make one in B&W. Color is so over done. So oversaturated, if you'll pardon the pun. I see hundreds of images from photographers every week. It becomes a blur of rainbow nonsense that feeds the mind with yet more redundant information, yet leaves you with nothing afterward. Don't get me wrong, I like some color work. I've even seen some decent stuff on this forum ( even bought a photo or two). It's just that I like how excellent B&W work makes me feel. It's the same feeling I get when reading great literature, including Japanese poetry...all of which is in black and white by the way.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 02, 2002.

Marc, I think the point is not about the relative merits of BW and colour, both of which are valid in their own ways, but about the smug belittling of colour. It's Ted's remark which Hadji and I both regard as nonsense, not BW photography as such.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 02, 2002.

I don't know that increasing the use of B&W imagery is necessarily only a ocst-cutting measure - working for a newspaper I can tell you that modern PC/Mac-based scanning/separating software eliminates about 80% of the cost difference - the ink is a pittance by comparison with the expense of the old, manual films separations.

Andy, the issue isn't pre-press, that's trivial. It's ink cost, as I said above.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 02, 2002.

When your're shooting an in-depth story on some one or thing, black & white is easier (you don't have to worry about color balance and quality, color neg is NOT the answer either),it is more dramatic a B&W display attracts more attention, and finally probably the most important reason to the photographer, it's more FUN than shooting color. Also, someone mentioned saving money on ink. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Quality B&W reproduction comes using the same four color printing process used in color.

-- Sal DiMarco, Jr. (sdmp007@pressroom.com), June 02, 2002.

Same comment one hears from uneducated, narrow minded, one side of the brained, crotch grabing

So now I'm uneducated and narrow minded? Hmm. I never said BW photography didn't have merits. It certainly does. There are situations where I use BW. There are situations where I use color. I choose what is appropriate (for any number of given artistic/technical reasons). Look closer at my comments, Marc. Reread. Ted says that only BW can "capture the soul" and that color only captures "the clothes". If anything, that kind of statement is narrow-minded. Statements like Ted's (or to say that "color is the medium of the masses") implies that color has no merit artistically and that to be a true artist you have to shoot in BW. Who's grabbing their crotch now?

In the end, it's not BW or color that allows you to "capture the soul" it's who's behind the camera. I stand behind that. It's a fallacy to think that if you take pictures in BW, you're inherently better than someone who takes pictures in color. That is artsy-fartsy. Cause a crap picture is still crap -- whether its in color or BW.

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), June 02, 2002.

I should add that I find the accusations against me funny, because I actually prefer BW over color. I have no problems with BW. At any rate, I will continue with my narrow-mindness and crotch-grabbing...

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), June 02, 2002.

"Andy, the issue isn't pre-press, that's trivial. It's ink cost, as I said above."

Jeff: I've worked for newspapers for 17 years - I supervised the entire transition from hand-separations to Mac scanning and output as Assistant Managing Editor/Graphics at The San Juan Star in SJ, Puerto Rico - during the time I've been at the Rocky here in Denver we've gone through 3 digital scanning/output systems and are about to embark on our 4th (Scitex/Hyphen/AII and now Unysis).

As the saying goes, I've been there and done that, and have the scars to prove it.

I'm sorry, but you are just - wrong - on this one. The additional costs from running 4 inks in place of 1 are trivial compared to the savings from modern digital sps over old hand-made ones.

When we installed the Mac/Hyphen systems in San Juan, our color picture/ink usage went UP by 200% (3 daily section fronts in color instead of 1) - and our overall costs (sum total of labor, machinery, materials, and ink) went DOWN, with better picture reproduction and faster turnaround time to boot.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 02, 2002.

Rob, Hadji,... The quote refered to was by Ted Grant, but in context to an article about Tina Manley who was quoting him. Rather than dismissing it as "artsy fartsy nonsense", lets try to get to it's meaning. "Color/clothes" to me means the initial outer flash of what attracts the eye. This is the obvious impact that has less to do with the subject matter than the initial impact conveyed by B&W, which relies more on the subject to make it's point. For example, advertising uses color very effectively to fight the "attention wars" it faces every miniute. Advertising, by the way, is how the invention of color printing was funded in the first place. "B&W/ captures the soul" is a reasonable thought given how color can overpower the real insight trying to be conveyed. For example, even though Arnold Newman has photographed the greatest painters of our time, he chose B&W to focus on their "soul", so to speak, rather than using color. Intellectually, color would've made more sense because these artist (like Mondrian) were masters of color. Not to say that color can't do the same in the hands of a gifted photographic artist. One of my personal favorites is Sara Moon who has always transended the initial handicaps of color, and uses it in a way that's unlike other obvious, everyday images that scream "look at me" for an ulterior motive. For me color photography is a very difficult medium of expression. I'm a trained and experienced Art Director/Painter and understand color theory better than most. My work (in color) has been published in Graphis and won best of show in credible art competition. Yet, color still does not satisfy an inner human need I'm able to tap into with B&W. My own personal creative mission right now is to explore the depths of color photography for use in my wedding work, most of which is B&W as of now. What I'm learning with my Digital camera (D1X/instant feed back) I'm trying to transfer to my Leica work which rarely sees color film. Color captures the flash inherent to a wedding, but it's damned difficult to plumb the emotional depths with it ...so far. But I am not giving up. Whenever I falter, I cruise Sara Moons' latest book for inspiration. So, IMHO, these difficult and heady thoughts can hardly be dismissed as "Artsy Fartsy nonsense" if one is really exploring the art of photography.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 03, 2002.

Marc, I think your whole attitude here represents very well what I see as BW's stranglehold over "serious" photography. It's specious, IMO, but everyone is free to have their own opinion on this as in other areas.

Sal, I think photoraphy is fun as such, how does the kind of film in your camera change it? I don't see it, sorry.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 04, 2002.

I hesitate to do this, because no doubt someone will simply say "what a crap picture!", but can someone tell me how the following picture would have somehow penetrated deeper into its subject's "soul" by being in black and white?

 

Old lady in her shelled house, South Hebron, Palestinian Territories.

 

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 04, 2002.

Nice photo Rob. Your use of color isolation is quite effective. Her face looks to be made of the earth itself. You misunderstand me in that I am struggling with colors effect on other viewers. I think B&W is very unfamiliar to most people today, and tends to touch them emotionally because they see the subject, not the flashiness which has become so ubiquitious that they've become numb to most of colors' more subtile charms. We live in a color world where the eye is constantly assulted by redundant eye-popping color imagery. Ever escalating, the barrage has become mind boggling, as color (unfortunately) has taken on the roll of decoration in the service of commerce. Far from being dominate, as you suggest, B&W is the least seen form of photography. It is the endangered species here, not color. With digital imagery sweeping forward at a rocket sled pace, B&W is fast becoming a quaint little quirky form of photography rather than the powerful emotional conduit it really is. As I stated, there are some artists that are doing color to great effect. The previously mentioned Sara Moon, Joel Mereowitz (sp?), even the last show I saw by Annie Liebowitz impressed me with her use of color. Owens work uses color in a very powerful manner. But I'm not sure what Ralph Eugene Meatyards' work would've been like if it had been in color. Less powerful I would suspect. Same for Doisneau, Mary Ellen Mark, Herbert List, Diane Arbus (imagine the little boy with the hand-grenade in color ), Duane Michals ( Alice's Mirror in color?), etc., etc., etc...even up to and including Bruce Davidsons' "Central Park" which, IMO, would merely become pretty landscapes to most peoples' eye if shot in color. Doing work in color that is seen, and moves people is a daunting (not impossible) task. And God knows that is the intention here, to be seen. As Picasso said " a painting kept in the closet, might as well be kept in the head". I want to touch people with my work, and I struggle with using color to do it in the manner that B&W seems to do naturally and effortlessly.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 04, 2002.

Rob, You have obviously never shot a color story under flourescent lights. Sal

-- Sal DiMarco, Jr. (sdmp007@pressrom.com), June 04, 2002.

Marc, how do you know that the work of Arbus or Mark or Davidson (or any of the other photographers you mentioned) wouldn't work in color? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't? We'll never know. Your assumption that they wouldn't seems to be based on this whole notion that BW is more suited to capturing some sort of essense or truth or "soul". How do you know Diane Arbus' portrait of the kid with a toy grenade wouldn't have worked in color? You don't.

Yes, color is dominant and we are inundated with color ads, photos, etc. Information overload, I agree. But just because BW photography is less common doesn't necessarily mean that it's somehow more truthful. This is the problem I have -- people placing BW photography on some sort of higher pedestal simply because it is BW photography.

So we'll agree to disagree. On another note, I hope that you are not saying that because you are an art director/painter (or that you've been published in "Graphis") somehow makes your opinions more valid than mine or Rob's? Well, my training and background is as a designer/printmaker/creative director. So what? I haven't had my work in Graphis, so maybe you "win" then.

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), June 04, 2002.

"Rob, You have obviously never shot a color story under flourescent lights."

Thank god!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 04, 2002.

Marc, the idea that B&W is becoming an endangered species is ridiculous. I print B&W professionally and have absolutely no shortage of work. I also teach at ICP in NY where the B&W classes out number the color classes and are always full. Digital really has no bearing on the future of B&W as it takes all of two seconds to go from color to greyscale.

Consider the work of these photographers: William Eggelston, Martin Parr, Raghubir Singh, Steve McCurry, Nan Goldin, William Albert Allard, Mario Testino, Tina Barnrey, all of whose work is heightened by their artistic use of color. For his book "Subway", Bruce Davidson initialy shot B&W but quickly realized that color would be more effective.

Personally, I carry two M bodies, one with color and one with B&W. I then let the subject matter decide which to shoot. I would think an art director would approach his work in a similar

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), June 04, 2002.

The last sentence should read: I would think an art director would approach his work in a similar manner.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), June 04, 2002.