Black and white vs Colour? Which subjects suit one better than the other?

If colour does nothing to improve the picture or even more, if colour leads to more confusion, monochrome is probably the better choice. Sometimes monochrome doesn't work at all, as only colour makes the picture not confusing, but that's more seldom. But I would not decide on the subject, it's more depending on the situation, the light and how you do the framing.

So, if you start with digital photography, just work with raw files, so you may always change your mind afterwards. And even better, if you go to monochrome you may leave out or enforce colours, so you may have effects, which in former times you would have gotten by using filters. E.g. yellow for darker blue skies. With digital you just may pull down the blue channel, for a similar effect.

I prefer also colour film as if monochrome is better for a certain photo, I convert the scanned image to black and white, same thing as for the all digital process.
 
I think that you're trying to generalise, Jerry, whereas photographs are individual. With digital in particular, we have the luxury of being able to experiment freely, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

But sometimes the colour in an image can provide too much information and / or be too prosaic, whilst a mono image can be more distilled, and maybe more allusive.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
I'm interested in your use of the work "confusing" in the first paragraph. Can you expand upon that?

How does colour make a photograph "confusing"?

(Not a criticism at all, by the way.)
Click to expand...

You may have started by asking a question you weren't really prepared for the answer to.

Start at the beginning:
What's the point of a photograph?

To tell us a story or something about the subject.

So now we know we are creating a narrative, how does that work?

Lighting, composition and timing.

Colour makes up part of the 'composition' element.

Some colours are more dominant and will grab attention, so they have to be used carefully within a composition. There's also the whole subject of colour theory.

The above should be enough for the basis of some study.

Many photographers never grasp this, which is why we see horrific examples of spot colour.
 
Yes, I am trying to generalise. It's just a theory I'm working on to help me in my own photography. For me certain subjects DO look better in B&W and I just wondered if there were any other thoughts out there.


Sometimes colour seems to be a distraction and any meaning the photograph has tends to be submerged..
 
Last edited:
It's about the information in the picture, and what the picture's meaning is intended to be. Thus there may be a range of possible treatments with different outcomes. Aesthetics is one thing and meaning is another, though they may be linked.
 
Colour can be confusing when there are lots of different colours in a background, distracting the eye from a foreground subject, for example.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Colour can be confusing when there are lots of different colours in a background, distracting the eye from a foreground subject, for example.
Click to expand...
Which can be governed at the time of taking, surely ....?
 
So let's say one has the opportunity to take some pictures. With digital we have the option of converting to B&W (Lucky us). What would make you /one decide to do a B&W conversion as a preference. Would it be the location or the subject or would it depend on the individual image?

Does colour do "gritty" as well as B&W?
 
There are tools for muting things or disappearing them, such as selective focus and change of viewpoint ....
 
jerry12953 said:
What would make you /one decide to do a B&W conversion as a preference.
Click to expand...
If it looks better in B&W, I'll convert. And, what seems important to me, never provide both versions to the public!
 
In mono, you can pull and push tones around quite violently if you want to, to make a different picture having a different message / meaning. You can hardly push and pull colours around as freely.

But yes, as Lemo said above.
 
Note that I have taken certain pictures that couldn't be made to work satisfactorily in colour OR mono! The perils of a small vf, perhaps?
 
jerry12953 said:
So for you, then, it depends on the individual image, and it's a purely personal decision.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.

And if I use B&W film, what I still occasionally do, I would try to figure out, if the image will work. And it might work, if I don't do it, just because of the colours, which might take some practice. But if in doubt, take it! You always can throw it away. ;)
 
jerry12953 said:
Does black-and-white suit certain subjects better than others? Or vice-versa? I have a few ideas but would just like to get some other perspectives on this.
Click to expand...

I'm biased, because all my serious photography is black and white, and on film. I belong to the generation that found colour confusing and difficult to use (one photographic history says that it was only in the 1970s that (amateur?) photographers finally got the hang of colour).

That said, I'd suggest that it's not that the subject per se suits black and white better than colour (or vice versa) but rather the photographer's treatment of the subject that determines which is better. On that basis, it's how the photographer sees the subject rather than how the subject appears to others that determines the answer. If we all see things differently, I doubt that you'll get a clear cut answer, just a measure of popularity of one above the other.

And I HATE the idea that black and white is for gritty subjects - but then I hate grain...
 
On the basis of 10 seconds thought (way too little) my first thought is that the colours capture the eye and the foreground is ignored. The effect of any lead in lines or direction of the eye by compositional elements is lost because the colour screams out for attention. The green tank is far more obvious and distracting in colour.
 
StephenM said:
On the basis of 10 seconds thought (way too little) my first thought is that the colours capture the eye and the foreground is ignored. The effect of any lead in lines or direction of the eye by compositional elements is lost because the colour screams out for attention. The green tank is far more obvious and distracting in colour.
Click to expand...

Interesting comment, thanks. Just a couple of points from myself - the colour version is so subdued due to the intentionally drab lighting that none of the colours really scream out to me at all. Your phrase "colours capture the eye" is very relevant to my way of thinking, though. So maybe this isn't a good example to discuss.

What is lost in the B&W is the colourful film of oil in the l.h.foreground, which adds to the gritty, grimy feel of the picture, in my opinion.

No actual grit........or grain.
 
I think the subject is completely irrelevant to the use of colour or monochrome.

I use colour if colours are important to the picture and I use monochrome if tones are important to the picture. I am with StephenM in that most of my photography is monochrome (and much on film) and that is because my vision is tonal rather than chromatic. I don't mean I do not see colour - I do - but the way my brain deals with my eyes is tonal.

Any scene can be rendered either chromatically or tonally - both renditions can produce an excellent picture of the same scene. Which depends on the aspect of the scene you want to dominate the picture. I prefer the tones to dominate in the main.
 
jerry12953 said:
Interesting comment, thanks. Just a couple of points from myself - the colour version is so subdued due to the intentionally drab lighting that none of the colours really scream out to me at all. Your phrase "colours capture the eye" is very relevant to my way of thinking, though. So maybe this isn't a good example to discuss.

What is lost in the B&W is the colourful film of oil in the l.h.foreground, which adds to the gritty, grimy feel of the picture, in my opinion.

No actual grit........or grain.
Click to expand...

It's a great image to illustrate the theory (if you experiment).

The green water tank isn't grabbing any more attention in the colour than the B&W version, because the light patch on its roof is the brightest part of the image.

If I was processing this image to make it work, I'd lift the red on the engine a touch, and tone down the highlights on the roof of the tank.

I wasn't there and I don't know what's to camera right, but id have tried a shot from further right to make more of the leading lines toward the train and lessen the green tank.

But interestingly to prove the point about colour domination, try making the train green and the tank red and see how the shot is completely ruined. And if that had been the colours of those objects, a B&W image would have been the obvious fix to save it.
 
Last edited:
Phil,

As far as the composition is concerned I did also take plenty of pictures of the engines themselves - traditional steam engine pictures. This particular one was intended to convey the grimy, industrial feel of the place which I felt suited the conditions (rain, wind) and which most train photographers would have avoided like the plague. I'm difficult like that. ;)

I hadn't particularly noticed the highlights on the green tank, but I do I take your point about the processing, should i want to make this work as a colour image.
 
jerry12953 said:
Phil,

As far as the composition is concerned I did also take plenty of pictures of the engines themselves - traditional steam engine pictures. This particular one was intended to convey the grimy, industrial feel of the place which I felt suited the conditions (rain, wind) and which most train photographers would have avoided like the plague. I'm difficult like that. ;)

I hadn't particularly noticed the highlights on the green tank, but I do I take your point about the processing, should i want to make this work as a colour image.
Click to expand...
I'm not knocking the image, just suggesting that using the track to your right might have strengthened the composition, a leading line from the bottom rh corner being a stronger element than the lines disappearing off the rh edge. Indeed, converging lines leading to a red engine would be classic use of composition and colour. And have succeeded in your aim to show the engine in its environment better.

I'm on an iPad which makes this easy, but if you crop into the image to remove that highlight you can instantly 'feel' it's a more balanced image.

I'm not sure I'd find a more 'traditional steam engine picture' more attractive in any way.
 
Phil V said:
I'm not knocking the image, just suggesting that using the track to your right might have strengthened the composition, a leading line from the bottom rh corner being a stronger element than the lines disappearing off the rh edge. Indeed, converging lines leading to a red engine would be classic use of composition and colour. And have succeeded in your aim to show the engine in its environment better.

I'm on an iPad which makes this easy, but if you crop into the image to remove that highlight you can instantly 'feel' it's a more balanced image.

I'm not sure I'd find a more 'traditional steam engine picture' more attractive in any way.
Click to expand...


Yes, I can see how the bottom left hand quarter is rather "empty" which some people may not like - definitely food for thought. I won't bore anyone with any of the other pictures from this sesion, though.........
 
jerry12953 said:
Yes, I can see how the bottom left hand quarter is rather "empty" which some people may not like - definitely food for thought. I won't bore anyone with any of the other pictures from this sesion, though.........
Click to expand...

It's not about it being 'empty' it's about using known composition techniques (rules) to lead the eye into the image.
 
jerry12953 said:
Rules......who needs 'em.......
Click to expand...
It's a debate for another day.

But the 'rules' of composition aren't 'rules' as such.

They weren't invented by a committee of old men in cardies, they were discovered by studying images that 'work'.

And if they didn't 'work' you wouldn't have put that red engine on the top right intersection of thirds ;)
 
Point taken! As you say it's a discussion for another day but I've always felt it was natural to put "the subject" on one of those intersection points - long before I ever heard of rules!

I'm going to be away for a couple of days now but If anyone would would like to contribute their thoughts to this thread I will be keeping my eye on it. :)
 
jerry12953 said:
Point taken! As you say it's a discussion for another day but I've always felt it was natural to put "the subject" on one of those intersection points - long before I ever heard of rules!

I'm going to be away for a couple of days now but If anyone would would like to contribute their thoughts to this thread I will be keeping my eye on it. :)
Click to expand...
You should ignore the fact they're called 'rules', they just 'are'.

The number of 'photographers' who make a dramatic stand against following rules and then take images that fit the rules is astounding, we've had people post images with titles like 'I like to break the rules' when the image clearly follows a number of those rules. Then they'll try to make up some rules they want to have 'broken'.

But back to your image, a couple of 'rules' are that bright spots grab attention, as do red objects. So you have 2 objects fighting for attention, and my advice to sort that fight out would work.

Edit to add:
People who are said to have a 'natural eye for a photograph' habitually use the rules without ever having been aware that they exist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top