> Interesting re tones vs colors. Been thinking more about that. I bet that is > the often the basis for a preference for B&W or color. (Well, in the answers > to Cotty's q about B&W, other reasons are also given).
Marnie, Yes, I think everybody has given valid reasons. The problem with color is that it IF you are photographing something to show what it means, the colors that also show in the picture are random. If, on the other hand, you are looking for color and that's why you shoot the picture, then the meaning is random. I'll give you a trivialized example just for illustration purposes. Say you're shooting a bunch of kids. They find a dead bird. As they look at it, you notice one child has a disturbed, thoughtful expression on his face. Reacting to that, you take a picture of him. But he is also wearing a garish puce shirt. In color, your viewer might react by thinking, "wow, lookit that awful puce!" In black-and-white, they look at the kid's expression. Conversely, if you are shooting color film, you tend to look for colors. So shooting that same group of kids, you might notice the puce shirt and go after that. And your picture ends up being of a puce shirt and may not even include the kid's face. Okay, there is no absolute reason why you can't do both at the same time. Some photographers do. But many photographers who successfully photograph in color are responding mainly to colors; many photographers who photograph successfully in black-and-white are looking at meaning (or perhaps the light, luminance). Wildlife and nature photographers argue (successfully, I think) that the color is part of the meaning--that is, if you want to accurately show a gorge-throated mauve-winged warbler, you're got to show what color the little bugger is. I buy this; I think they're right. I don't think either color or B&W are inherently superior. It's obviously not a right-or-wrong kind of thing. You and I are the lucky ones. You've said you respond strongly to color and dislike B&W; I know I respond strongly to B&W and don't have a lot of feeling for color. So our choices are more or less made for us. I think the unlucky photographers are the ones who don't really have a strong innate preference, who switch back and forth or shoot both at the same time. It must be tough for them to forge a vision or a style. Contrary to what some people here have claimed, I don't think there are many _great_ photographers who succeed at both. You could throw all of Ansel Adams's or Edward Weston's color work in the trash and they'd still be great photographers; throw away their B&W work and nobody would ever have heard of either of them. The opposite holds true for Ernst Haas or Joel Meyerowitz, IMO. At the utilitarian, jobber level, people can be competent at both. At the artistic level, I think people are wise to take a stand based on their own gut reactions and stick to one or the other. --Mike
