Hi, Collin,
Well, for one, it's what I'm used to. When I started taking photos as a
teenager, bw was far cheaper to buy and process than colour. Over the
years, I've stuck with what I feel I know best.
I love what can be done with colour, but for me, colours sometimes
detract from the essence of a photo. If one doesn't have the crutch
of pretty colours, one must concentrate on composition, texture, form,
pattern. I suppose that the type of photography that I do - or rather
that I ~don't~ do, is part of it, too. I don't take much nature, macro,
landscape and seascape - places where colour often abounds. It seems
that there's not much colour in the city, where I take most of my photos
- or rather, colour isn't essential to capturing the cityscape.
When growing up, the photos that impressed me the most were bw, so I
suppose that had an effect on me as well.
All of that being said, I take most of my family snaps in colour, and
about 1/2 of my vacation snaps in colour as well. But my serious
stuff (serious to me, at least) is about 90% bw.
regards,
frank
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
It was stated by someone yesterday that bw
is nice for the abstract character it provides.
I use bw for the sense of texture it provides.
http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzoQwn-p13184249
http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzohTn-p13184249
(which is why I also like larger formats for color)
Why do you use bw?
--
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert
Oppenheimer
