Roger Williams
(K=86139) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
"Supposed to be?" Who says? They're different, that's all. Although personally I find it harder to take a B&W photo that looks good than one in colour. Maybe that's it? There's more colour 'cos it's easier?
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
As an amateur who doesn't have to meet popular demand, I can freely answer, "Who cares?" I shoot how I like, I look at what I like, and others can do the same.
When there are a thousand new photos to view, I tend to systematically skip the colour ones, but this does not mean that I *always* consider BW better or nicer or more suitable than colour.
Is BW supposed to be more ARTISTIC? Well, I don't know what you mean by that term. A lot of stuff I've seen passed as ART was not something I would really want to look at. There's also the question whether art is something that normally appeals to mass audiences. If not, there would be no contradiction between popularity of one medium (let's say colour) and "added artistic value" of another medium (e.g. BW).
|
|
|
|
Pat Fruen
(K=12076) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
Color is just so darn pretty!
|
|
|
|
This space for rent.
(K=313) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
Because you can't take a Photoshop sunset in B&W.
|
|
|
|
S. LIU
(K=68) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
It depends on subject matter. I would not use B&W to shoot sunset, (I use velvia instead). But to shoot rock and wave, B&W simply looks better.
Since B&W removes the color information, it gives the viewer more space for imagination. I think this is why someone call it "artistic".
When I shoot street, B&W helps me focus on shape, light and shadow. Unless there is very dramatic color, B&W almost always looks better than color.
|
|
|
|
S. LIU
(K=68) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
See the difference yourself. Which one is more "artistic" to you?
(left: 35mm, scala 200; right: 50mm, Portra 400NC)
P.S.
I neither add color to my photos nor remove it, even for digital photos. That is only MY principle of photography.
|
|
|
|
S. LIU
(K=68) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
|
|
|
|
S. LIU
(K=68) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
Now another pair. Which one looks more "artistic" to you?
(left: digital; right: Fuji Neopan 1600.)
|
|
|
|
S. LIU
(K=68) - Comment Date 3/3/2004
|
BTW, Sunset Man, your own portfolio answered your question perfectly ;-)
But I do feel like to pay more attention to B&W photos than to color photos.
|
|
|
|
Kevin Bjorke
(K=960) - Comment Date 3/4/2004
|
You eye uses different "circuits" to process color and monochrome signals (even before that information is sent, along two different pathways, to the brain). This dichotomy makes B&W imagery always inevitable as a valid form.
Rather than fill a message with info, I'll mention that I've already written in greater length about this:
http://www.botzilla.com/blog/archives/000225.html
|
|
|
|
Michael Kramer
(K=566) - Comment Date 3/7/2004
|
To me Color is the richness of life while B&W is the harsh reality. The raw emotion envoked by a B&W nude. The vibrance of a color landscape.
Some topics/emotions lend themselves to one format or another. I love the full color pastoral sunset. However one of the most striking images I've seen is of a single shaft of light hitting the ground from clouded and troubled skies done in B&W.
I can't imagine not having or using both.
|
|
|
|
