In the days before digital, “color or B&W” was a decision you had to make at the front end, based on the subjects and intended use, and your decision was then cemented when you chose the appropriate film to use.
Today it’s all in the processing. No need to decide before hand.
I thought today’s morning dogs would make for interesting comparisons.
These are simple conversions. There are a lot of tweaks I could to do emphasize different things, but that’s for another day.
Let us know which you prefer.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Both processes have their pluses. Check out the Coen Bros, ” The Man Who Wasn’t There ” film noir. B&W for effect.
Walker makes an interesting point about film noir, which literally means black or dark. I cannot imagine the Bogart film, “Casablanca,” in color, for instance. Or almost any of those great forties crime films.
The same goes for still photography from that era and earlier. The stunning work of Dorothea Lange during the Dust Bowl, for instance. Or Walker Evans. Or Ansel Adams. Would they have the same impact in color? I think not, but perhaps only because they are already iconic in black and white. I do think, however, that black and white often displays more grain and detail—which is why, of the photos Ian selects, I prefer the b/w of the first image. The others are probably better in color.
Personally, I think B&W works better on human subjects, especially in photojournalism but also in portraiture. The doggos in the pics just look so much better and alive in color.
Color makes things look better, like restaurants that put a little butter in everything. Looking at the B&W version of a photo can reveal which photos have the better composition and lighting, etc., and this is a useful tip for selecting which photos to keep. The first two photos look fine in B&W (especially the second photo), but to me the third photo in B&W is not as engaging. Although, of course, I love the dogs.