hi, im currently a high school student doing a very large project on photography (40% of my grade). im looking for photographers whom i could use as primary sources in my paper. i need feedback on black and white photography and my thesis, roughly, maintains that bw photography is more dramatic and artistic than that of colour. i need valid opinions ( you need to be a reliable source) and even if you disagree with me, id love to hear your views as well. Thanks!

-- yang kwon (yko123an@aol.com), December 16, 1999

Answers

I'll bet you get a lot of help from the folks at this site. My credentials (I guess I can be called an "actual photographer") include a degree in photojournalism and 21 years as a photojournalist beginning in the days of black and white photos being about all that was used in newspapers and on the "wires" and ending utilizing digital photography just over a year ago. I got my first camera when I was a kid and the fastest black and white film was "Super XX" the forerunner of Tri-X. Super XX had an ASA equivelent of 160. Anyway, I think black and white photography is more dramatic and artistic than color because the photographer is forced to find more drama and exciting lighting because without colors to help make the photo black and white can be really, er, blah if not done right. It's just that photographers who shoot black and white, like the film makers in days of black and white movies, are forced to, well, try harder if you will. My son is a maker of documentary films in San Francisco and he pretty much agrees with me. With black and white, your photos are reduced to the basics of photography. Light and composition. That illustrates what Hemmingway said of writing, "it's not what you put into a story that makes it better, but what you leave out of it". That's even more true with photography. Next....

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), December 16, 1999.

By the way, what do you consider an "actual photographer"? I would think just about 90% of those on this site are "actual" photographers. You don't have to make a living at photography to be an "actual" photographer.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), December 16, 1999.

Thanks Joe- I would take it one step further and say that many "actual photographers" spend much more money than they make on photography. For your record I am an amateur photographer with 21 years of obsession under my belt. I've used 35mm mainly (Tri-X, HP5), and dabbled a bit with medium format.

Although I personally prefer B&W, I wouldn't go so far to say that B&W is more artistic and dramatic than color. I've seen many compelling color photographs- (reference Joel Meyerowitz, Ernst Haas, David Alan Harvey). As with many other technically-related issues in photography, I think it has much more to do with the personal vision of the individual photographer. Some of us "see" in black and white, others in color, and a few lucky ones can visualize in either one.

-- Asher Schachter (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), December 16, 1999.

99.9 per cent of my photography is b & w. I think you might be able to make the point that b & w tends to look more dramatic [whatever that is]than color, but artistic - no. I agree with Jean Loup Sieff, who in his book 'SIEFF 40 Years Of Photography,' says something like this: photography, painting, sculpture, music, etc. are not art in and of themselves. The person doing them is, or is not, an artist.

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), December 17, 1999.

p.s. I think you might want to take another look at the intent of your thesis. I believe it would be more appropriate if you were to ASK the question: ''Is b & w photography more dramatic and artistic than color? As you have it now, it looks like you are digging a big hole for yourself.

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), December 17, 1999.

I guess your only problem lies in the definitions of the "Actual Photographer" and the "reliable source". I don't think I know what "reliable" means when applied to opinions about issues conc. art.

I would think that all you have to do to get opinions about your theses from the people visiting this site is to put them forward. The rest will come on its own. The opinions may even be "reliable" in the sense that they give you a general idea (be it only that this one or that is controversial) how the photogs on bww feel about this issue or that.

As for your general statement that b&w is more dramatic and more artistic than colour: I would say that the abstraction to which you are forced by using b&w material can be a tool to make a photo look more dramatic (e.g. by enhancing contrast), but it can - for a different photo - also be used to make the photo look less dramatic (e.g. by attenuating the impact of colours which might otherwise yell at you from the photo). So your statement might need to be differentiated to account for different subjects.

Almost any kind of deviation from nature, be it a limitation or not can be used for artistic expression. Leaving aside colours brings makes us see other things (shapes, textures, contrasts) more clearly. Some time back in the history of painting, it was thought that realism was the highest form of art. Today, there are many different styles. I don't think you can say that any of them is more artistic than the others. They may be more convincing to you, but more artistic?

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), December 17, 1999.

I'm a former newspaper photographer for your source of info. I'd suggest takin' pictures of the same subject in color and in black and white, and compare. I believe you'll find the black and white better than the color shots. Subjects can be people, ol' cars, barns, clouds, just about anything.

-- John L.Blue (bluescreek@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

John- in what way do you think the B&W would be better than the color? Doesn't it depend on many factors including the subject, and more importantly, the viewer?

I think it's been said that the artistic process is not complete until the viewer participates. Since there a millions of different viewers, each with his/her own perception of the work in question, how can we really say that B&W is better than color?

From a journalistic (i.e. impact) point of view, there's a good chapter addressing this issue inone of the older Time-Life series books entitled "PHotojournalism". There's a picture on the cover of Anwar Sadat's assasination. The examples given in favor of color show photo essays that depended upon color for impact- i.e. to depict death (red blood).

-- Asher Schachter (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), December 19, 1999.

Another color photographer whose photographs have both artistic appeal and impact: Eric Meola (http://www.ericmeola.com/home.html).

-- Asher Schachter (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), December 23, 1999.

Black and White Photography is more dramatic and artistic than color. I agree with your thesis Yang Kwon, and would even go as far as to say that your thesis is FACT. From the representation of light and texture, to the subtle nuances of the various shades of gray, black and white photography rules. Artistically it rules for this reason: Black and white photography is mostly done from negative to print by the photographer. He/she decides what film to use, what developer to use, what paper to use, what print developer to use, how long to develop, how short to develop, what temperature...ect...ect..ect. All of these decisions effect the final print, and thus are all part of the artistic process. One can not be a truly great black and white photographer if he/she does not have full control (a.k.a. full artistic control) of the image from start to finish. Color on the otherhand is different. Most color photographers do take their pictures and put much time and thought into it. The problem is, that is where their part in the process ends. Usually they send their negatives off to a lab where someone else prints the negatives to a scientific standard of color and sends them back to the photographer. Not very artistic in my opinion. As for dramatic, all you need to find an answer to that question is look at Ansel Adams print of the snake river and the tetons and try to find a color print that is as dramatic as that. i think you would be hard pressed to do so. Good luck and i hope everyone who responds is a help to you.

-- Josh Randall (joshrandal@excite.com), December 30, 1999.

I am a high School aged Professional photographer, I just photographed a Record Album for an Award Winning Latin Artist and have had many publications of my work along with any different awards.

I also worked as an assistant for two photographers one who was a mayjor photographer for Harpers Bazair, Vogue and the other photographer was the photographer for Rollingstone. Thats how I made this Record Album, through a photoshoot with him.

I would love to share my views with you.

In concearn with the term "Actual Photographer" like many people have added comment to I think you mean a serious photographer that owns a lot about photography.

You have 3 scales and this goes to everyone: 1. amateur - someone who is new to the field or takes pictures once and a while. Doesn't know much about photography - small hobby 2. Pro Amateur or Semi-Pro - Someone who does do photography for income sometimes - or does it alot as a hobbiest - and usually knows something to alot about photography. 3. Professional - Someone who does photography as there job, for there income. The same thing as a Semi-pro but does it for a living. Usually knows alot about photography.

Now you ask "how can a high school student" be a professional. Well, its simple, I do go to school, but I dont have any other job, just as most high school students have after school jobs so do I. But my after school job is usually 8 hours. I guess you can call me a Semi- Pro/Pro. I have done National, Internation Ads, Magazine covers and Record Albums.

Contact me at MicaSoHo@aol.com if interested in my views on your topic and give me alittle more information on what you want. Like which one I think is better? and why? or what is the features of Black and White, or what?

Thanks, Sean Siegel MicaStudios SoHo New York City.

-- Sean Micha Siegel (MicaSoHo@aol.com), January 01, 2000.