Jump to content

It Only Shoots B&W!


wilfredo

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A photograph by it's very nature is an abstract. It is outside our human experience. So to say that color is a representation of reality in any way is not an accurate. A still photograph is just that and we experience life n motion. Also life is not two dimensional. A photograph is...

 

Adams and other B&W zone system photographers worked in that method for control. Without getting overly technical here the zone system is about placing exposure where you need the shadows to fall and controlling the highlights through negative development times to achieve what Adams has said what he saw in his minds eye which is rarely the way the scene was in reality. When you start contracting or extending development times or altering temps with color negatives you start getting uncontrollable color shifts. Thats why he and many other zone system photographers did most of their serious work in B&W. In fact many referred to color as a barbaric process because of the lack of control they had with the process.

 

I use a Leica MM because it works for me and the way I see and prefer to work at this moment in time. It is the best tool for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Wilfredo, I do agree with what you say. And Color and B&W both have a role in artistic and/or other forms of photography.

 

I think Steve MCcury too has, and could have shot all in B&W, but most of his images ( and the iconic one ) is shot in color.

 

In our photography ( hobby or professional ) none is better than the other.

 

Take care.

 

He was also a National Geographic photographer which thrives on color photography, but I agree, it is not a question of what is better. Again my point from the start has been that B&W photography should not be seen as being limited. The MM is not a camera that would limit you if you are a serious and capable photographer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adams worked extensively in color….examples here…including some of the same locations as his b/w work. He came close to producing a book on color theory using some of his known works. [There are one or two books published after his death that show a cross-section of his color images.]

 

Color didn't allow the control, at the time, that Adams sought, but he was clearly not oblivious to its potential, nor averse to its use.

 

And, yes, he embraced digital long before it became a reality, correctly predicting that it would change/enhance photographic methods.

 

His enthusiasm wouldn't have been limited to be the MM for b/w. ;)

 

Jeff

 

BTW, the first color photographic attempts were made in the 1840's, not long after the first successful b/w photos. But it took a couple of decades to create more stable colors, and of course a lot of better technology in the decades following.

 

Indeed he did some work in color, but I think we can all agree, not to the degree of his B&W work. Those color photos you point to are beautiful, but none have become iconic. I never said his enthusiasm would have been limited to the MM, but simply that he would have embraced a tool such as the Leica Monochrom. I think this is a fair assumption, and it does not negate the value of color photography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed he did some work in color, but I think we can all agree, not to the degree of his B&W work. Those color photos you point to are beautiful, but none have become iconic. I never said his enthusiasm would have been limited to the MM, but simply that he would have embraced a tool such as the Leica Monochrom. I think this is a fair assumption, and it does not negate the value of color photography.

 

I'm not making any 'case' for color, Adams or otherwise….merely putting your comments in context of his broad photographic views and practices, which some believe to be exclusively b/w. He was 'zen' about his b/w work, but didn't use b/w exclusively, nor any one camera to accomplish his b/w work.

 

My guess is that he would have loved to see his Hasselblads in digital form, plus lots of other changes.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you. Thanks for clarifying. Adams was a pioneer and always open to new technology. It's too bad he passed away before he could see all this digital technology come to fruition. He continues to inspire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A friend of mine, chatting on my photos (in color and black and white) made the consideration that the B&W "tells a story" while the color "freezes an image."

I think it's a good observation ...

 

I think that is often true but in all fairness I think in general a good photograph can tell a story whether it's Color or B&W, and can even tell no story, simply stirring-up something deep inside we can't even articulate.

 

I have a preference for B&W photography, and again I don't find it limiting, but it's not a matter of B&W vs. Color. We get into too many testosterone driven discussions on these forums, and an earnest photographer will do well in either scenario, B&W or Color. This thread for me is more about a celebration of B&W photography but not at the expense of Color photography.

 

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS
Neil:

 

You have a great sense of humor, but what if the photo was never Color to begin with? quote] Save yourself a band aid:D

Thanks for the comments on the website...........It will be getting closed down in a few weeks time when I publish my new website. I plan to make a post when that happens.

By the way Wilfred I Love your stuff too

Link to post
Share on other sites

David....What Canon Lenses are you using on your MM

 

Hi Neil

Misunderstanding...I'm using the M8; just waving the flag for another good B&W camera :)

Canon 35mm f2 LTM and Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM are a couple of my favourites.

The 35 is a bit clunky, and so small makes easy ring focusing difficult...but it is a beaut lens...esp B&W.

The 50 is that extra stop faster than my collapsible Summicron 50 f2 LTM.

 

One of my favourites is VC 15mm f4 with 21mm finder, doing range focusing with apertures.....

...um sorry way off topic...

 

cheers Dave S :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS
They're all over ebay. Pretty inexpensive too.

Really......lets have a wee look then. Question

Do they come with the Leica mount or is an adapter needed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really......lets have a wee look then. Question

Do they come with the Leica mount or is an adapter needed?

 

Look for the ones with 39mm thread mount. Adapters are very inexpensive and available on eBay as well as Cameraquest, BH Photovideo and Adorama. Make sure to get the type II one without the cutout for the infinity lock. The canon infinity lock is set higher off the lens mount anyway. They also have the 6 bit code pits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would stick with a Leica, Leitz or Voigtlander LTM adapter. The manufacturing tolerances are critical. Many others on the market (especially from China) don't work properly and can damage a lens or body. Not worth the risk to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...