Darn Mike, you have to quit that, here I am agreeing with you again. When an Artsy and a Techy agree something is basically wrong with their thinking. <grin>
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:27 PM Subject: Re: I want to start a WAR > > 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 >
