B&W, BTW, allows one to shed the unnatural blaring sirens of color so one can see the humanity in the scene. Colors are to attention getting for no damn good reason. In general, to me at least, street photography is likely to be better in monochrome. It's not a rule, just my experience.
I totally agree! Also, the use of extreme contrast in an image can do the same and focus our attention on what is more important in the image...
Colour has always been a bit of a bane to me in photography, especially in street photography. I see the street and all it has to offer in colour every goddamn day of my life, and I want to see it in B&W! I watch B&W movies and I do still own a B&W TV, I would watch it if only the analog signal hadn't stopped working...
Asher, Paul,
Regarding the matter of colour vs B&W, I couldn't disagree more. We see the world around us in colour, not in B&W. If colours would have been like blaring sirens, how would we ever be able to function normally? To me, colour is essential unless where it really distracts or it does not add any information to the photograph. Only then I consider B&W as an option. But this is my opinion, feel free to disagree.
"colour is essential unless where it really distracts
or it does not add any information to the photograph"
Cem,
This is exactly what we are dealing with! In the natural state, colors generally work harmoniously. We're uplifted by what we see. Well we humans have learned to exploit color dyes and so each person venturing out on to the street shouts their presence in their
own eye-catching color of that day. Unlike nature, there's no "blending in" or balance with nature. Add to that stores and signage, we have a cacophony of competing distractions.
The architecture of our great cites, by contrast, were mostly planned with form dominating and stone, bricks and wood (and now glass too) as the final expression. The colors and tonalities were designed for harmony, elegance, or to be distinguished, but still colors were hardly ever haphazard and to contrary purpose. The streets with paving or cobblestones supplied pleasant textures with natural colors.
All this shaping and textural signature becomes more
"present" in B&W. As in this form, we can optimize allocation of hues to bring out the shapes, structure, textures and even
"personalities" of streets, tunnels and doorways. People always look great in B&W, as it's kind and does not reveal, so readily, skin imperfections. A smile in B&W or the hand of a child is at least as magical!
Now I did say that it's no rule to use B&W: My experience with the best photographic work is with B&W. Could be that, that if a picture doesn't work in color, perhaps it really should be in monochrome and
vice vace. Certainly one cannot always achieve success in B&W and color might indeed rescue the scene with beautifully added emotion and drama. But here it's use with
sensibility for it's inherent perceptual riches. That's the difference!
BTW, when the lights are dim, its also more monochromatic and romantic too. We get closer to each other and are more intimate. We listen to each other more. Perhaps our love for monochrome is a manifestation of those twilight hours.
So I don't argue with anyone's use of color to deliver their own idea of what's impressive, thrilling or wonderful in some way. That would be a foolish and destructive way of greeting original work. It has to be as each one of us feels most passionate about. Whether or not it's how we'd show that scene is irrelevant. The last thing we'd want is to try and have some approved or fused style here!
I just restate that if one is going to go a photography show and they'll exhibit street photography, B&W pictures will almost always be a major component. That's my experience. This is not because the folk were arrogant. They just discovered how well the medium removes the destructions we are faced with and brings us a close kind of view to what's really there, stripped of the extra signaling that color carries.
Asher
