Color distracts? The subject is black and white

[THEME]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm posting this here because it might interest especially M Monochrom photographers. It's a piece by photographer B. D. Colen on The Subject is Black and White.

 

What he's saying is basically when you shoot a person in color, you see their clothes; when you shoot them in black and white, you see their souls.

 

His analysis has me certainly thinking about a much more careful use of color!

 

Read more: B. D. Colen on the Distraction of Color — The Subject Is Black and White | THEME

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Luke_Miller]

Great article - thanks for posting it. I agree and had come to much the same conclusion. Although like all generalizations there are usually exceptions. I think the National Geographic cover of the Afghan girl is a good example.

 

Afghan Girl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It would be a powerful image in B&W, but the color of those eyes really get to me in the cover shot.

 

But most of the time I am immediately drawn to the face in B&W portraits, but often districted by other elements in color ones.

[gjames9142]

I don't think it's a particularly good piece. He does make the point that earlier colour materials were recalcitrant and expensive ( and not that flexible). Digital colour Is generally far better -- you are not tied the dyes and "look" of each film and paper manufacturer. Colour photography is not always just about colour - Joel Sternfeld once remarked to me that his best images were those that mostly resembled monochrome. The B/ W "greats" that everyone goes on about we're working for the B/w press. I don' t think b/ w captures the soul and colour captures the clothes -- this is simplistic stuff(check out Ryneke Dykstra.) . And BD Cohen does not seem to be a particularly good photographer.

[wattsy]

What he's saying is basically when you shoot a person in color, you see their clothes; when you shoot them in black and white, you see their souls.

 

Such a tired cliché. If that's the best Mr BD can come up with, I think I'll give the article a miss, thanks.

[jaapv]

I don't think it's a particularly good piece. He does make the point that earlier colour materials were recalcitrant and expensive ( and not that flexible). Digital colour Is generally far better -- you are not tied the dyes and "look" of each film and paper manufacturer. Colour photography is not always just about colour - Joel Sternfeld once remarked to me that his best images were those that mostly resembled monochrome. The B/ W "greats" that everyone goes on about we're working for the B/w press. I don' t think b/ w captures the soul and colour captures the clothes -- this is simplistic stuff(check out Ryneke Dykstra.) . And BD Cohen does not seem to be a particularly good photographer.

Come on Geoffrey, if you go to his site it is not that bad at all, even if a little stilted.

[Paul J]

It's true.

 

There is far more thinking, technique and looking involved with successful colour. But then there is also a lot in colour that you can use to your benefit. Psychology, physiology, design dynamics and science.

 

As for colour shooting clothes and not soul, well I think the two are actually largely related but that's a whole other story.

[sanyasi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People are free to use the tools that they are comfortable with, but telling others not to use new technologies just because some of the things that those technologies achieve weren't possible (or more likely were just difficult to achieve) in the past is just dumb. Indeed, it is authoritarian and offensive.

 

There are two people in every photographic transaction: the photographer and the viewer. The photographer is free to impose whatever rules and limitations on himself to extent that he is creating the photograph for his own enjoyment. The viewer, however, sees the image as a finished product. How the photographer got there is irrelevant, although some viewers may enjoy understanding the technique.

 

As for seeing people's souls, the person behind that quote is kidding themselves. It would be interesting to make a series of portraits in color and then convert them to black and white. The color portraits would then be shown to one group of people and the black and white to another. Each group would be asked to write a description of the person. I am not sure what the results would be, but I think they would disprove the statement, particularly if we had an objective statement regarding the subject's personality.

[almoore]

Presumably Monochrom owners are photographing the souls of their cats rather than their fur.

 

There's a lot of conservative drivel written about photography but this Colen guy really is scraping the barrel. If he imagines that Eggleston's Guide or Webb's Under a Grudging Sun are simply about colour then he really is a fool of the very highest order. And this guy teaches photography? Bizarre and depressing.

[gjames9142]

Come on Geoffrey, if you go to his site it is not that bad at all, even if a little stilted.

 

I am probably being a bit hard, but he does set himself up as a guru and a teacher of the young.

[Your Old Dog]

One of our members here took a shot of a simple ocean wave. It was in color and I think would have suffered dearly if in black and white. Sorry I forgot his name but the shot is iconic in my mind. I am a real fan of black and white, and I agree with his premise that colors can distract from one another but there is a place for both in my imaging world.

[Luke_Miller]

I think it is much more interesting to discuss the concept of how color (or lack of it) affects our ability to communicate what we saw and felt when we captured an image.

 

Recently I took a folder of some of my favorite landscape images and converted all of them to B&W. I wanted to see whether the B&W versions "worked" better than the color versions. While I found a couple that were interesting in B&W - the majority were better in color. It was primarily the colors that drew me to capturing the image in the first place.

 

I then did the same with a folder of "people" images. When I photograph people at events I shoot very tight and attempt to take shots when the subject is unaware of the camera. I found the B&W versions to be generally more compelling than the color ones. With people I am striving to capture an image that asks a question. "What are they thinking?" "What has captured their attention?" With the color present it was too easy to first be attracted to eye or hair color, lipstick shade, etc. I found the question was communicated more effectively absent the color information.

 

Obviously we each have our own styles and the use of color or B&W is a very personal and subjective choice. I enjoy discussing it.

[Guest borge]

It's ALL subjective. I prefer B&W - You prefer color. And that's perfectly fine. This guy is apparently more busy thinking and writing about photography than actually photographing and learning new things (including color). So imo this guy is just full of it. 99.9999999% of the photographers out there aren't shooting with the goal to become the next McCurry or Bresson anyway. They are shooting for their own pleasure.

 

Photography is all about doing your own thing and not listening to guys like this.

[THEME]

Am a bit surprised about the intensive reactions here.

 

I consider it to be quite a balanced piece.

 

But maybe that was predictable.

[otto.f]

Am a bit surprised about the intensive reactions here.

 

I consider it to be quite a balanced piece.

 

But maybe that was predictable.

 

Yes it was predictable because the assertion is quite BlackAndWhite in itself, which provokes strong reactions. As an avid Monochrome user myself I cannot follow. The example of the Afghan girl proves exactly the opposite of this assertion too. This may be hard to see now but this picture was at the time of its publication very soulfull indeed. Besides: as if people do not express something of their soul in their clothes

[Paul J]

I thought I'd go and read the article. Hardly relevant to modern photography and art. Every reason why you should really be careful of who "teaches" you photography, IMO, of corse.

[almoore]

Am a bit surprised about the intensive reactions here.

I consider it to be quite a balanced piece

 

Where is the balance in dumbly stating that "if you want to really see a person, if you want the viewer’s eyes to go to the subject’s face, their eyes, shoot them in black and white"?

 

The fact that I love the black and white work of August Sander and Irving Penn doesn't mean that I don't equally enjoy the colour portraits of Lise Sarfati and Jitka Hanzlová. When Colen says if you want to "really see the child, shoot them in black and white" all he reveals is that he lives in a world of binary stupidity - monochrome versus colour, good v bad. The kindest interpretation is that he's engaging in an attempt to cheaply seek attention, but even if that's the case it beggars belief that somebody so trivial is apparently teaching photography at MIT.

[hhmrogers]

...........all he reveals is that he lives in a world of binary stupidity - monochrome versus colour, good v bad. The kindest interpretation is that he's engaging in an attempt to cheaply seek attention, but even if that's the case it beggars belief that somebody so trivial is apparently teaching photography at MIT.

 

I think that's slightly harsh even though I don't share the point of view the author was expressing. But was he really laying down the law as it must be followed by everyone or was he just challenging his readers to a debate? It does no harm to have a good think about why somebody's preferred working methods are different from one's own. If I had been of the author's students I think I would have relished the challenge. I can think of far more reasons why my work deserves to be marked down than just failing to agree with the views expressed in the article!

[pico]

B. D. Colen wrote: "I convert images to black and white because I grew up shooting Kodak Tri-X black-and-white film. I convert images to black and white because all the photographers whose work shaped my vision shot, or still shoot, in black and white."

 

So he makes B&W because it was the predominant technology when he was growing up. His students today are growing up in a their technology. His arrogance is astounding. The comment regarding photographing the soul places him in the faerie photographer class.

 

There are many more reasons to shoot B&W than because one is accustomed to it due to the stage of technology of the instructor's learning period.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Luke_Miller]

It does no harm to have a good think about why somebody's preferred working methods are different from one's own. If I had been of the author's students I think I would have relished the challenge.

 

I would enjoy such a dialog as well. Sadly, it seems such discussion has gone out of style.

[dwbell]

I would enjoy such a dialog as well. Sadly, it seems such discussion has gone out of style.

 

As I read the article I found it to be very specifically worded, and carefully constructed. I see no hint of sparking a debate, or challenging my thinking. I see opinion, outright opinion.

 

He's entitled to it, as others here are to challenge it. I think if you asked members here to engage in the debate you wish for you would be very pleased with the depth of response.

 

Ask them? You have given them as much chance as you imply they have given the author, i.e. none.