Posted by Barry Vangrov on April 21, 2010 at 11:05 AM
This is a pet peeve of mine that I'd like to get other opinions on. I see a lot of B&W images posted in the galleries that get a comment like "I'd like to see this in color". Well, (most of the time)there is no "color version" because it's the B&W that is the photographer's artistic interpretation of that scene. Would you look at an Ansel or Edward Weston or Paul Strand image (making a point here, certainly not comparing my work to theirs!) and say: "Nice, but I'd really like to see it in color"? I'm sure a color version of many iconic B&W images by those masters would be knockouts in color, but that would be a whole different image and artistic vision.
Now I realize that those of us that work in B&W are a small minority these days and, based on the typically much smaller number of views that almost all B&Ws get, many viewers just aren't that interested in B&Ws. And that's fine; it's a personal taste. But the B&W should be judged for what the photographer is presenting and not whether or not it would look better in color, shouldn't it?
Am I making too much of this?
Posted by David Bostedo on April 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
I think you're making a little too much of it Barry. One of the reasons for the critique forums is to explore all the options and choices the person taking the photo made. I don't see anything wrong with considering whether or not color or B&W was the right choice. And given that, as you said, B&W is in the minority, it makes sense that people may desire seeing the same images in color.
These are just critique galleries after all - if the consensus is that images should be in color, then that's what you'll hear about. That doesn't mean you actually should leave them in color, or that you shouldn't create B&W images if that what your vision is all about. It just means that there are also plenty of people in the forums who don't share, or aren't "getting", your vision in the same way.
Would you look at an Ansel or Edward Weston or Paul Strand image (making a point here, certainly not comparing my work to theirs!) and say: "Nice, but I'd really like to see it in color"?
Sure! Why not? There's nothing sacred about their work - if people don't "get" it in B&W or prefer it in color, then that's their choice. But that's the choice of the masses, not necessarily the choice of what you want to show - only you can determine that, just as they did. Personally, I don't really "get" Weston's peppers in B&W or color, try though I might. But Weston wasn't shooting for me - it was for his own goals/vision/ideas...
I agree with David. Some folks relate better to color, rather than grey scale images. Also, many like to see a color version for comparison purposes to see how the shades and hues translate to black and white tonalities.
If you shoot only B&W, (you're using B&W film or only record images in greyscale digitally) I suggest that you state so when you post images. This will eliminate the "I'd like to see the color version." comments.
On the flip-side: I shoot color film (4x5). On several occassions, I've received comments like, "How do you think this will look in B&W?" Hmm, I wonder? I don't mind these questions at all. In fact, I may have not even considered it, and the image indeed may be fine candidate for a B&W treatment.
--P
Posted by David Graham on April 21, 2010 at 5:53 PM
Barry,
I'm with you on this.
I think you are spot on! I shoot mostly in color...well... RAW files most of which are first visualized and post processed in color, but also shoot more than few images that I visualize as monochromes from the get-go. I started in 1947 and grew up in B&W using the zone system and appropriate darkroom procedures for negative and print processing to best accomplish the ends of that system. And when I visualize a scene in monochrome, post-process it as a monochrome, and show or post it as a monochrome, it strikes me as presumptuous for some chromic tyro to casually posit "That'd be lots better in color !" When I hang a matted and framed B&W, it's clear that my purpose was to have the image appreciated and judged as such...did I accomplish all that could be accomplished with that image given the handling of the zones and my placement thereof? Did my treatment result in a valid and rational visual impact?
would you look at Picasso's blue period "Guitarist" and suggest it would have been better rendered as a block print? Or suggest that Degas ballerinas should have been oils? Or that Breugle the Elder's village scenes would have come off better rendered in pen-and-ink? You could, of course, freely render such opinions...and reveal yourself basically ignorant of the potentials and purposes of those artist's chosen media in light of their individual artistic visions.
Were I to judge a color photographers color print, one he or she carefully post-processed and printed as a color print exemplifying his or her vision and abilities in that particular medium, I think that photographer is entitled to have that work appreciated and judged for what it is. Not as a watercolor painting, a pastel painting, a bas relief sculpture, or a pen-and-ink drawing, or a dry-point impression. Black-and-White photographic prints are as different in vision and accomplishment from a color print as a watercolor is from an engraving is from a pastel is from a wood-cut rendition of a similar or the same scene or subject. The photographer who comments that that "It would be better in color" reveals merely his own narrowness of vision, rather than any putative degree of visual sophistication re: the photographic arts.
But then again... ....No!. There is no "But, then again!"
That's the way it is!
In my humble, yet considered opinion, of course!
Dave Graham, Estelline, SD
Posted by David Bostedo on April 21, 2010 at 8:38 PM
There is no "But, then again!"
There's ALWAYS a "But, then again!"
But then again, a critique forum is for all kinds of feedback, and isn't the same as a gallery exhibition, fine art sale, or even a normal website posting.
But then again, if I think that Guitarist would have been better rendered in red, and I have the experience and background necessary to make that an informed opinion, then there's nothing wrong or ignorant about it.
But then again, not everyone who suggests color for black and white has access to the same information the creator did, so they may just be curious if color was considered.
But then again, these are only my thoughts. And my opinion is that everyone should show what they want to show, and take opinions and suggestions simply as that - opinions and suggestions, from curiosity, different perspectives, different attitudes, or even different levels of experience.
What if you had a B&W that really was much, much better as a color photograph? And what if you didn't see it that way because you were stuck with it in your head as a B&W? Shouldn't it at least be considered? And if you already had, it might be simple to just point that out...
My learning path was 35mm slides - self apprenticed. I tried black and white negative film on occasion with very limited success. I had no darkroom - had never even been in a darkroom. The film lab sent prints back that were varying shades of gray, but with scant few actual blacks or whites. I just didn't get it and decided that black and white was just too difficult.
After moving into the digital world, I went out with a large-format guy I met online here at NPN. Looking at an Everglades scene with cumulus clouds in a blue sky on his 4x5 ground glass with a red filter on his lens was an epiphany for me. I finally 'saw' it!
I still shoot mostly color, using a DSLR. But occasionally I shoot black and white because I see the scene in that way. At first I would put the camera on monochrome, but now I don't bother. I convert the color image to black and white and apply digital filters. I've only had one image that I intended to shoot in color and later converted to black and white. In color, the image just didn't work for me and months or maybe a couple of years later, after my black and white epiphany, I went back and made it into a reasonably acceptable black and white image. Only that once.
When I got a comment on a black and white photograph "I think I'd prefer this in color," my immediate reaction, in my head, was, "No, you wouldn't." But it didn't irk me. He just didn't know. So this isn't a pet peeve for me.
But there are some things that I guess I could consider peeves, if not pet peeves: Some folks think a photograph is good, just because it's "black and white." Some folks will convert any color photograph to black and white simply by grayscaling it without any attention to tonal values. I occasionally see on a photographer's website both color and grayscale versions of the same photo. Does this mean that the photographer likes them both equally or just can't make up his mind? I see it as artistic indecisiveness and/or lack of vision.
Recently, a friend emailed me a link to a site of proofs of informal portraits she had had made of herself and her new twins. There were several different venues, mostly outdoors. In each venue there were both color and grayscale pictures interspersed with one another. It seemed to me that the photographer should have known during the shoot whether the pictures were going to be color or black and white.
I love black and white photography. I still find it not easy to do well, but then that applies to color photography as well, doesn't it? Artistically, I think there's a big difference between a black and white image and a grayscale one. There are a lot of folks out there who simply haven't seen the light, so to speak. I don't hold it against them. It's not an automatic thing to be able to 'see' in black and white and maybe for some, seeing a black and white image alongside the color file from which it was made might lead to their epiphany. But they won't see it from me because the color file only exists in RAW.
Posted by Barry Vangrov on April 21, 2010 at 9:25 PM
What "peeved" me to start this discussion isn't about being too sensitive to criticism or suggestions. At least I hope I'm not. It's more about the suspicion that many viewers (who are fellow peer photographers, not just a general audience) aren't looking at B&Ws for what is being presented and critiquing the actual image, but are looking at the scene depicted and wondering what colors are present and if they would like it better in color. I think that's a disservice to the photographer who is looking for some honest peer feedback on the image itself. Curiosity about whether color was considered is fine but not at the expense of not giving an honest critique of the actual image as presented.
I've never thought about this until just now but I can honestly say that I've never looked at a B&W by Ansel or by any other of the landscape masters and wondered if it would look better in color. It just doesn't enter my mind I'm totally focused on the image itself for good or bad. Shouldn't the images shown here be given that same consideration?
(On the other hand, I've seen many gallery posts that post both a B&W and color version and ask for feedback about which is best. I've done it myself and I think that's fine.)
Posted by David Bostedo on April 21, 2010 at 9:38 PM
I've seen many gallery posts that post both a B&W and color version and ask for feedback about which is best. I've done it myself and I think that's fine.
Barry - The fact that this happens with some regularity likely adds to the possibility that people will question whether B&W or color is better for any particular scene. (Add that to the fact that often, people "arrive" at B&W after intending a photo to be color, and you can see where the questions come from.) I don't think you can have both things exist in the same gallery - people questioning whether a photo should be color in some cases, but just assuming that the photographer knows what they want to show and what their vision is in other cases. How is a critiquer (if that's a word) supposed to know the difference?
Of course, I don't think we need to limit questions on B&W versus color in the forums at all.
I can honestly say that I've never looked at a B&W by Ansel or by any other of the landscape masters and wondered if it would look better in color.
I definitely have. Somewhat frequently; If only out of curiosity, not because I don't love B&W images.
Shouldn't the images shown here be given that same consideration?
In short, no. These are critique forums with a dialog possible. Someone seeing an Ansel print in a gallery HAS to judge it just based on what's presented. But if Mr. Adams were standing there asking for opinions (much closer to the critique galleries here) I'd have no problem asking if he considered doing a color version.
I DO agree though, that the color questions are better done as an addition to an actual critique and good feedback given. If commenters post something like "eh...it should be in color" dismissively, I could see that as off-puting.
Asking Mr. [Ansel] Adams if he considered doing a color version is quite different from asking him to show a color version of a (B&W) photograph. As I see it, the former approach is respectful of the photographer's choice while the latter is not.
I'm in agreement with David on this one.
I'm a big fan of B&W photography, but often there have been B&Ws that I'd like to see in colour, and colours that I'd like to see in B&W. Doesn't mean that I think it would necessarily be better the other way.
What makes saying "I'd like to see this in colour" or "I'd like to see this in B&W" different than saying "I'd like to see this with a longer exposure" or something along that line. These are image critique galleries, not only-give-praise galleries. Questioning a photographer's choice, whether it be from composition, to exposure, to colour, to the paper they print it on will make that photographer think about their choices and whether they were indeed the best option. You certainly don't have to act on the comments if you don't agree, but if they stimulate some thought, what's the harm?
If you're a truly stubborn person and don't want any differing opinions about a certain aspect, then just say so in your description. Problem solved.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 22, 2010 at 12:29 AM
Asking Mr. [Ansel] Adams if he considered doing a color version is quite different from asking him to show a color version of a (B&W) photograph. As I see it, the former approach is respectful of the photographer's choice while the latter is not.
Well, yes. Because in one case you're asking him to actually DO something (perhaps seemingly demanding), rather than just offering an opinion. I would say that telling Mr. Adams that you think something would actually be better in color could also be respectful, as would saying you'd like to see a B&W photo done in color. I'm not suggesting we be impolite or demanding, just that it's OK to question (is there a color version? did you consider color?) and offer opinion (I think I'd like it more in color. I wonder if color wouldn't have been better.).
Ansel Adams name appears in this thread quite often along with his contemporaries Edward Weston and Paul Strand. I don't know about Strand, but Adams and Weston both took color images, in fact Adams worked for Kodak exposing Kodachrome film. Also he carried Color and Black and White film into the field. One of his most beloved images of Death Valley the photo of the dunes at dawn exists in color I've seen it ( and it's not a hand tinted version of the Black and White). One of the major reason Adams preferred Black and White was that he controlled the entire process of making the image and at his time there was no dodging and burning color images. In fact I believe that after exposure Kodak had to process and print. Now with digital color photography, the editing software that's available and the "digital darkroom" Adams ( if he was alive ) may have been more likely to produce more color images. I can see both sides of the argument but we can't assume that color images by the giants of Black and White don't exist because they do ( Weston shot some color as well but not as many as Adams.). Conversely just because a person wonders in print what the color version looks like is not a disparagement of the Black and White medium, I think it's more of " Gee I'd like to see the color image so I can compare it to the Black and White and decide ( for myself) if that is the stronger artistic interpretation of the image.
I've enjoyed this, mostly because I'm "backwards" to a lot of folks here. Probably because I spent my first 10 years or so shooting nothing but B/W, I still see and compose in that medium, looking at the shapes and relationships without regard to color. With that as a foundation, I leverage color components of the scene into my composition after the fact and as a secondary adjustment to my comp. It's just one element. I don't recall ever seeing a B/W photo and pining for the color version. Just my roots, I guess.
I judge others photos in the same fashion, "grading" them on overall comp first, and only looking at the color in terms of how it adds to the impact of the basic comp. On the rare occasion that I will actually tell the photographer that a color photo would make a great B/W, it's a compliment and not a criticism. I'm really saying that they nailed the comp, and that they could expand their marketing or artistic potential by also producing a B/W version. If that pulls their panties into a bunch, I figure they've got other issues in their life that have nothing to do with my offer of a compliment.
Posted by Lon Overacker on April 22, 2010 at 2:23 PM
It's more about the suspicion that many viewers (who are fellow peer photographers, not just a general audience) aren't looking at B&Ws for what is being presented and critiquing the actual image, but are looking at the scene depicted and wondering what colors are present and if they would like it better in color. I think that's a disservice to the photographer who is looking for some honest peer feedback on the image itself. Curiosity about whether color was considered is fine but not at the expense of not giving an honest critique of the actual image as presented.
This may be true and if I'm understanding your original "peeve" is that you wish folks would comment/critique the work as presented rather than say they would like to see it, say with, a Gaussian blur, or in color, or in sepia,.... or with less contrast, or cropped 10% here, branch cloned out, etc. etc. I understand your point about capturing as b&w and wanting the image critiqued as is, but can't that same logic be applied to everything else about an image? AFter all, this is a critique forum.
Now of course everyone is different, there are as many different expectations when posting an image as there are images posted. But I believe it is incumbent upon the photographer posting the image to actually state what kind of feedback or critique you are looking for. Many, many folks are posting simply to share and really don't care to hear someone telling them to crop half the sky. Others are unsure about their image and are really looking for any and all suggestions. Others want to learn a new process or technique. For example, if you as a poster mention nothing about seeing, capturing and presenting a b&w image for review and don't request specific feedback, then folks posting comments are pretty free to offer their opinions. Does that make sense?
There are many, many photogs that don't "see" in b&w. Myself, I think it's a learned vision and many times I evaluate a scene and think upfront at time of capture, this will do well in b&w. And so I may shoot with the intent of creating a b&w image - even though I shoot color film. So for those that are accustomed to seeing and shooting in color, it seems only natural they might want to see an image in color. I can only see it as a disservice if for example you specifically ask for feedback as presented and folks offer or make statements you didn't ask for.
Lastly, I think this is a very interesting topic and I would offer a possible explanation as to why this seems to be prevalent in people's comments on images, b&w or color. Oh, also we very often get comments on color images saying that, "this would look great as a b&w." With that thought, I think the digital age has everything to do with this perception. Back "in the day" when film was the only choice, you basically had two choices, color or b&w (yes, there's negative, positive, daylight, tungsten, yada, yada...) but basically they were separate because you actually loaded or had to choose up front which film you were going to use. B&W capture was it's own thing and color was it's own thing. Fast forward today and the photographer has all the options right at their finger tips. Right in camera you can capture, review images any way you want and can "see" if it looks good in b&w. Personally, I think it's more prevalent today to say, "hmmm, I wonder what this would look in b&w." Click a button, play with some sliders in processing and whala, instant monochrome. So more and more folks are inclined to more readily accept the idea of seeing what a scene/image would look like in either color or b&w. And I think that is reflected in people's opinions and critiques. It's not necessarily bad, just an outcome of where photography has gone and where it came from.
Hope it all makes sense and of course, just another .02 added to the mix.
Lon
Posted by Barry Vangrov on April 22, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Good points, Lon. I completely agree with you that this is a product of the digital age where you capture an image in RAW and then have a complete processing palate in front of you after capture. In film days, those decisions had to be made at the time of capture.
I think what got me thinking about this is a feeling that a lot of B&W work here just doesn't get due respect as the separate art form that it is. It's a completely different way of visualizing landscapes than working in color. I'd like to see a commitment to pick one B&W for each weeks ES&S highlights. Maybe more people that normally don't even open B&W images would learn to give it more respect and attention.
On the other hand, I don't think comments about cropping, cloning, contrast, etc are at all the same thing as the B&W/color discussion. In fact it's exactly those types comments that are fair critiques of the "image as presented". Those are comments that go to composition and processing which are completely fair when critiquing an image.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 22, 2010 at 4:48 PM
...the separate art form that it is.
I don't feel that it's a separate art form at all. A different way of looking and seeing, but no more or less than long exposure photography, HDR photography, abstract motion photography, or a myriad of other possible differentiations.
On the other hand, I don't think comments about cropping, cloning, contrast, etc are at all the same thing as the B&W/color discussion.
I disagree, and agree with Lon completely here. Maybe it IS the digital point of view (I've never shot film) that causes it, but I have no problem lumping color versus B&W choices in with exposure, toning, white balance, constrast, or saturation choices.
Posted by John Tobias on April 22, 2010 at 8:56 PM
IF the black & white image is not strong enough that viewers are asking to see a color version would that not mean the B&W is lacking something? As far as wildlife photography IMHO it has to be a very strong image to make it in B&W these days. But, to each their own. I have asked if a B&W image of an animal is available mainly because I want to see as close as possible what the creature actually looks like.
Posted by David Rogers on April 22, 2010 at 11:38 PM
What I find is that some people inquire about the color version when the B&W looks like crud. I have seen many cases where the B&W version is horrible, and a view of the color version shows a poor photo (way over or under exposed) and the B&W was presented to somehow cure these defects.
That said - I do not (or at least rarely) ask about the color version. I may wonder if indeed the color version would be nicer, but that is not what was presented for my viewing pleasure.
I think the bottom line is this question: Why are you posting your photos?
In my mind, posting is for review and critique. That includes people making suggestions for improvement. Nature of the game, and be thankful they took the time to do it.
If you're only looking for pats on the back, you're likely to get tight panties from review and critique. Maybe you're posting for the wrong reasons?
Gallery displays and sales are a different matter. People are going to judge your work by how you talk about it. Ultimately they'll critique it with their checkbooks.
Posted by Barry Vangrov on April 23, 2010 at 11:55 AM
No Hank, I'm being misunderstood if you think the issue is about not being open to critique and criticism. The issue is receiving that critique (good or bad, both are helpful) based on the B&W image. Now a fair question from the reviewer might be "why did you choose B&W for this image?"
Semantics. "Have you tried this in color" says the same thing.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Semantics. "Have you tried this in color" says the same thing.
Agreed Hank...as does "is there a color version?", "I'd love to see it in color...", etc. I don't think it changes the value of the critique, except that maybe it changes what you take from it. The comments themselves are valid and I think should be very open.
Posted by Carol Nichols on April 24, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Barry, I think one of the things you're fighting against here is the large number of people who do a B&W conversion because the lighting is poor in their color version. That does not make for a good B&W photo and it is not how Ansel Adams made a B&W image, nor probably yourself. There are very few B&W photos that start out with that intention, so I don't think us viewers are necessarily good at critiquing them. I rarely prefer B&W images over color, which I believe is mostly because they never started out to be a B&W image.
Posted by Barry Vangrov on April 25, 2010 at 10:21 AM
I think you're right Carol. Occasionally I have 2 versions of an image but most of my B&Ws started as B&W and there is no color version. Maybe that does put me in the minority.
I think you've really pared the question down to it's important essentials. B/W demands great lighting because there's just not the color to "hold things together."
One of my personal tests of my own color images is to desaturate them and look at a B/W version, whether or not I save that file or work with it in B/W. Basically, if it won't stand up in B/W, I'm not content with it in color. But that gets back to my B/W roots.
I'm slogging through image edits from my recent trip to the Southwest, and thought of my most recent point in this thread when I came to the attached image. The color adds to the shot, but it's not dependent on it. I'll post a QD (quick and dirty) B/W conversion next.
Posted by Barry Vangrov on April 25, 2010 at 8:22 PM
See in my view (maybe looking at things backwards!), what color adds to this is to make it look more "realistic"; I don't think it especially adds anything "artistic" to the image. Whereas the B&W is a study in textures and contrasts which makes it, for me, the stronger image.
I'm laughing Barry (at myself, actually) because I prefer the color on one viewing, then I prefer the B/W the next. I'm betting that after I put some time into the B/W (restoring the midtones and highlights in the yucca, in particular), I'm betting the B/W will be the winner for me. I'm betting that bumping the color a bit in the other would make that the winner for other viewers.
Overall, I'm hoping for a re-emergence of B/W among photographers, as well as in the markets. In the interim, I'll accept ambivalence!
Posted by Barry Vangrov on April 25, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Hank, I'm sure you are correct most viewers will prefer the color In my view, color should enhance the artistic vision and not just add "reality" to the image. I think that most really good B&Ws would also look great in color but that's not a good enough reason for me. But I know I'm in the minority with that view most of the time. A lot of people will always prefer the color.
We use to have B&W forum for discussing things about B&W photography. Well, we don't have it anymore....... due to lack of participation. That can tell you something (it was back in the days when film was more common around this forum that is now days. That's reality and answers to this thread are showing exactly the same. This is more or less colour forum, and people are judging from that starting point. So B&W is something unusual, and comments are in according to this basic fact. You can take such comments as disturbing, but that's your choice. Or you can think about most folks background and (as Lon pointed out) add some information to inform viewers.
Of course your standing point might be different....
Discussion
30 repliesNow I realize that those of us that work in B&W are a small minority these days and, based on the typically much smaller number of views that almost all B&Ws get, many viewers just aren't that interested in B&Ws. And that's fine; it's a personal taste. But the B&W should be judged for what the photographer is presenting and not whether or not it would look better in color, shouldn't it?
Am I making too much of this?
These are just critique galleries after all - if the consensus is that images should be in color, then that's what you'll hear about. That doesn't mean you actually should leave them in color, or that you shouldn't create B&W images if that what your vision is all about. It just means that there are also plenty of people in the forums who don't share, or aren't "getting", your vision in the same way.
Sure! Why not? There's nothing sacred about their work - if people don't "get" it in B&W or prefer it in color, then that's their choice. But that's the choice of the masses, not necessarily the choice of what you want to show - only you can determine that, just as they did. Personally, I don't really "get" Weston's peppers in B&W or color, try though I might. But Weston wasn't shooting for me - it was for his own goals/vision/ideas...
If you shoot only B&W, (you're using B&W film or only record images in greyscale digitally) I suggest that you state so when you post images. This will eliminate the "I'd like to see the color version." comments.
On the flip-side: I shoot color film (4x5). On several occassions, I've received comments like, "How do you think this will look in B&W?" Hmm, I wonder? I don't mind these questions at all. In fact, I may have not even considered it, and the image indeed may be fine candidate for a B&W treatment.
--P
I'm with you on this.
I think you are spot on! I shoot mostly in color...well... RAW files most of which are first visualized and post processed in color, but also shoot more than few images that I visualize as monochromes from the get-go. I started in 1947 and grew up in B&W using the zone system and appropriate darkroom procedures for negative and print processing to best accomplish the ends of that system. And when I visualize a scene in monochrome, post-process it as a monochrome, and show or post it as a monochrome, it strikes me as presumptuous for some chromic tyro to casually posit "That'd be lots better in color !" When I hang a matted and framed B&W, it's clear that my purpose was to have the image appreciated and judged as such...did I accomplish all that could be accomplished with that image given the handling of the zones and my placement thereof? Did my treatment result in a valid and rational visual impact?
would you look at Picasso's blue period "Guitarist" and suggest it would have been better rendered as a block print? Or suggest that Degas ballerinas should have been oils? Or that Breugle the Elder's village scenes would have come off better rendered in pen-and-ink? You could, of course, freely render such opinions...and reveal yourself basically ignorant of the potentials and purposes of those artist's chosen media in light of their individual artistic visions.
Were I to judge a color photographers color print, one he or she carefully post-processed and printed as a color print exemplifying his or her vision and abilities in that particular medium, I think that photographer is entitled to have that work appreciated and judged for what it is. Not as a watercolor painting, a pastel painting, a bas relief sculpture, or a pen-and-ink drawing, or a dry-point impression. Black-and-White photographic prints are as different in vision and accomplishment from a color print as a watercolor is from an engraving is from a pastel is from a wood-cut rendition of a similar or the same scene or subject. The photographer who comments that that "It would be better in color" reveals merely his own narrowness of vision, rather than any putative degree of visual sophistication re: the photographic arts.
But then again... ....No!. There is no "But, then again!"
That's the way it is!
In my humble, yet considered opinion, of course!
Dave Graham, Estelline, SD
There's ALWAYS a "But, then again!"
But then again, a critique forum is for all kinds of feedback, and isn't the same as a gallery exhibition, fine art sale, or even a normal website posting.
But then again, if I think that Guitarist would have been better rendered in red, and I have the experience and background necessary to make that an informed opinion, then there's nothing wrong or ignorant about it.
But then again, sometimes even experts on art don't see things the way they were intended.
But then again, not everyone who suggests color for black and white has access to the same information the creator did, so they may just be curious if color was considered.
But then again, these are only my thoughts. And my opinion is that everyone should show what they want to show, and take opinions and suggestions simply as that - opinions and suggestions, from curiosity, different perspectives, different attitudes, or even different levels of experience.
What if you had a B&W that really was much, much better as a color photograph? And what if you didn't see it that way because you were stuck with it in your head as a B&W? Shouldn't it at least be considered? And if you already had, it might be simple to just point that out...
After moving into the digital world, I went out with a large-format guy I met online here at NPN. Looking at an Everglades scene with cumulus clouds in a blue sky on his 4x5 ground glass with a red filter on his lens was an epiphany for me. I finally 'saw' it!
I still shoot mostly color, using a DSLR. But occasionally I shoot black and white because I see the scene in that way. At first I would put the camera on monochrome, but now I don't bother. I convert the color image to black and white and apply digital filters. I've only had one image that I intended to shoot in color and later converted to black and white. In color, the image just didn't work for me and months or maybe a couple of years later, after my black and white epiphany, I went back and made it into a reasonably acceptable black and white image. Only that once.
When I got a comment on a black and white photograph "I think I'd prefer this in color," my immediate reaction, in my head, was, "No, you wouldn't." But it didn't irk me. He just didn't know. So this isn't a pet peeve for me.
But there are some things that I guess I could consider peeves, if not pet peeves: Some folks think a photograph is good, just because it's "black and white." Some folks will convert any color photograph to black and white simply by grayscaling it without any attention to tonal values. I occasionally see on a photographer's website both color and grayscale versions of the same photo. Does this mean that the photographer likes them both equally or just can't make up his mind? I see it as artistic indecisiveness and/or lack of vision.
Recently, a friend emailed me a link to a site of proofs of informal portraits she had had made of herself and her new twins. There were several different venues, mostly outdoors. In each venue there were both color and grayscale pictures interspersed with one another. It seemed to me that the photographer should have known during the shoot whether the pictures were going to be color or black and white.
I love black and white photography. I still find it not easy to do well, but then that applies to color photography as well, doesn't it? Artistically, I think there's a big difference between a black and white image and a grayscale one. There are a lot of folks out there who simply haven't seen the light, so to speak. I don't hold it against them. It's not an automatic thing to be able to 'see' in black and white and maybe for some, seeing a black and white image alongside the color file from which it was made might lead to their epiphany. But they won't see it from me because the color file only exists in RAW.
I've never thought about this until just now but I can honestly say that I've never looked at a B&W by Ansel or by any other of the landscape masters and wondered if it would look better in color. It just doesn't enter my mind I'm totally focused on the image itself for good or bad. Shouldn't the images shown here be given that same consideration?
(On the other hand, I've seen many gallery posts that post both a B&W and color version and ask for feedback about which is best. I've done it myself and I think that's fine.)
Barry - The fact that this happens with some regularity likely adds to the possibility that people will question whether B&W or color is better for any particular scene. (Add that to the fact that often, people "arrive" at B&W after intending a photo to be color, and you can see where the questions come from.) I don't think you can have both things exist in the same gallery - people questioning whether a photo should be color in some cases, but just assuming that the photographer knows what they want to show and what their vision is in other cases. How is a critiquer (if that's a word) supposed to know the difference?
Of course, I don't think we need to limit questions on B&W versus color in the forums at all.
I definitely have. Somewhat frequently; If only out of curiosity, not because I don't love B&W images.
In short, no. These are critique forums with a dialog possible. Someone seeing an Ansel print in a gallery HAS to judge it just based on what's presented. But if Mr. Adams were standing there asking for opinions (much closer to the critique galleries here) I'd have no problem asking if he considered doing a color version.
I DO agree though, that the color questions are better done as an addition to an actual critique and good feedback given. If commenters post something like "eh...it should be in color" dismissively, I could see that as off-puting.
I'm a big fan of B&W photography, but often there have been B&Ws that I'd like to see in colour, and colours that I'd like to see in B&W. Doesn't mean that I think it would necessarily be better the other way.
What makes saying "I'd like to see this in colour" or "I'd like to see this in B&W" different than saying "I'd like to see this with a longer exposure" or something along that line. These are image critique galleries, not only-give-praise galleries. Questioning a photographer's choice, whether it be from composition, to exposure, to colour, to the paper they print it on will make that photographer think about their choices and whether they were indeed the best option. You certainly don't have to act on the comments if you don't agree, but if they stimulate some thought, what's the harm?
If you're a truly stubborn person and don't want any differing opinions about a certain aspect, then just say so in your description. Problem solved.
Well, yes. Because in one case you're asking him to actually DO something (perhaps seemingly demanding), rather than just offering an opinion. I would say that telling Mr. Adams that you think something would actually be better in color could also be respectful, as would saying you'd like to see a B&W photo done in color. I'm not suggesting we be impolite or demanding, just that it's OK to question (is there a color version? did you consider color?) and offer opinion (I think I'd like it more in color. I wonder if color wouldn't have been better.).
"Just throwin' another shrimp on the barbie,"
Paul
I judge others photos in the same fashion, "grading" them on overall comp first, and only looking at the color in terms of how it adds to the impact of the basic comp. On the rare occasion that I will actually tell the photographer that a color photo would make a great B/W, it's a compliment and not a criticism. I'm really saying that they nailed the comp, and that they could expand their marketing or artistic potential by also producing a B/W version. If that pulls their panties into a bunch, I figure they've got other issues in their life that have nothing to do with my offer of a compliment.
This may be true and if I'm understanding your original "peeve" is that you wish folks would comment/critique the work as presented rather than say they would like to see it, say with, a Gaussian blur, or in color, or in sepia,.... or with less contrast, or cropped 10% here, branch cloned out, etc. etc. I understand your point about capturing as b&w and wanting the image critiqued as is, but can't that same logic be applied to everything else about an image? AFter all, this is a critique forum.
Now of course everyone is different, there are as many different expectations when posting an image as there are images posted. But I believe it is incumbent upon the photographer posting the image to actually state what kind of feedback or critique you are looking for. Many, many folks are posting simply to share and really don't care to hear someone telling them to crop half the sky. Others are unsure about their image and are really looking for any and all suggestions. Others want to learn a new process or technique. For example, if you as a poster mention nothing about seeing, capturing and presenting a b&w image for review and don't request specific feedback, then folks posting comments are pretty free to offer their opinions. Does that make sense?
There are many, many photogs that don't "see" in b&w. Myself, I think it's a learned vision and many times I evaluate a scene and think upfront at time of capture, this will do well in b&w. And so I may shoot with the intent of creating a b&w image - even though I shoot color film. So for those that are accustomed to seeing and shooting in color, it seems only natural they might want to see an image in color. I can only see it as a disservice if for example you specifically ask for feedback as presented and folks offer or make statements you didn't ask for.
Lastly, I think this is a very interesting topic and I would offer a possible explanation as to why this seems to be prevalent in people's comments on images, b&w or color. Oh, also we very often get comments on color images saying that, "this would look great as a b&w." With that thought, I think the digital age has everything to do with this perception. Back "in the day" when film was the only choice, you basically had two choices, color or b&w (yes, there's negative, positive, daylight, tungsten, yada, yada...) but basically they were separate because you actually loaded or had to choose up front which film you were going to use. B&W capture was it's own thing and color was it's own thing. Fast forward today and the photographer has all the options right at their finger tips. Right in camera you can capture, review images any way you want and can "see" if it looks good in b&w. Personally, I think it's more prevalent today to say, "hmmm, I wonder what this would look in b&w." Click a button, play with some sliders in processing and whala, instant monochrome. So more and more folks are inclined to more readily accept the idea of seeing what a scene/image would look like in either color or b&w. And I think that is reflected in people's opinions and critiques. It's not necessarily bad, just an outcome of where photography has gone and where it came from.
Hope it all makes sense and of course, just another .02 added to the mix.
Lon
I think what got me thinking about this is a feeling that a lot of B&W work here just doesn't get due respect as the separate art form that it is. It's a completely different way of visualizing landscapes than working in color. I'd like to see a commitment to pick one B&W for each weeks ES&S highlights. Maybe more people that normally don't even open B&W images would learn to give it more respect and attention.
On the other hand, I don't think comments about cropping, cloning, contrast, etc are at all the same thing as the B&W/color discussion. In fact it's exactly those types comments that are fair critiques of the "image as presented". Those are comments that go to composition and processing which are completely fair when critiquing an image.
I don't feel that it's a separate art form at all. A different way of looking and seeing, but no more or less than long exposure photography, HDR photography, abstract motion photography, or a myriad of other possible differentiations.
I disagree, and agree with Lon completely here. Maybe it IS the digital point of view (I've never shot film) that causes it, but I have no problem lumping color versus B&W choices in with exposure, toning, white balance, constrast, or saturation choices.
That said - I do not (or at least rarely) ask about the color version. I may wonder if indeed the color version would be nicer, but that is not what was presented for my viewing pleasure.
Color is overrated anyway.
In my mind, posting is for review and critique. That includes people making suggestions for improvement. Nature of the game, and be thankful they took the time to do it.
If you're only looking for pats on the back, you're likely to get tight panties from review and critique. Maybe you're posting for the wrong reasons?
Gallery displays and sales are a different matter. People are going to judge your work by how you talk about it. Ultimately they'll critique it with their checkbooks.
Agreed Hank...as does "is there a color version?", "I'd love to see it in color...", etc. I don't think it changes the value of the critique, except that maybe it changes what you take from it. The comments themselves are valid and I think should be very open.
One of my personal tests of my own color images is to desaturate them and look at a B/W version, whether or not I save that file or work with it in B/W. Basically, if it won't stand up in B/W, I'm not content with it in color. But that gets back to my B/W roots.
Overall, I'm hoping for a re-emergence of B/W among photographers, as well as in the markets. In the interim, I'll accept ambivalence!
Of course your standing point might be different....
Cheers,
Marko