http://www.petermet.com/writing/whymono.html

Cool article..great post....'specially good for the colour blind like me,heh heh heh.. ...

I actually really hate that style of writing.  In a nutshell, that whole thing just said: Monochrome is the true photographic-artistic medium, and i love it enough to spout pretensions verging on the philosophical.

He is right in a way - monochrome does exhibit things he mentioned and plays a large part in artistic photography based on it's unique qualities, but the guy needs to lower his register if he wants to reach out to the non-converted "commercial"/"social forefront" which he seems to be disparaging towards and the general article being a reply against...

Thanks for this links and I see true "But can monochrome work be anything more than an exercise in nostalgia? Is the grab from the cellphone at a disaster, or the emailed grotesquery sent from the frontline, not infinitely more important that the marginal dabblings of a time-rich few? Certainly so, if we measure importance by the barometers of immediate social consequence."

I agree with Rich, the writing is just a bit pretentious...

Why pretentious ?

Valerie - The language used is is very "high-brow", and the turn of phrase long winded using concepts which are extremely abstract to describe something rather simple.  Here is the definition of pretentious:

pretentious adj 1 pompous, self-important or foolishly grandiose. 2 phoney or affected. 3 showy; ostentatious.

And here is just one example of over-doing it (imo the whole article is but here is just one phrase)::

But it is a picture of a peculiar kind: simultaneous release from, and anchorage to, the “out there” on which it ineluctably depends, gives it its power.

I'm a native english speaker just graduated from uni (where style of writing does border on this), and i have no idea firstly what "ineluctably" means without looking it up nor really what he is getting at.  The syntax and punctuation/grammar stink of the archaic (hard to explain why on a linguistic level without writing an essay), which is all i really needed to point out to show this guy is being "foolishly grandiose" as per the definition.

Ineluctably - I'm sure is a made up word. Originating from Elecution. So I guess what he's trying to say is that some thing can't be executed... That's my educated guess...

I just thing the first few sentances are highly demeaning. He's writing to tell everybody that isn't using film, B&W film to be specific, are not photographers and can't be successful, saying that their work is far less meaning full.

(ineluctably: unable to be resisted or avoided; inescapable)

I wonder what happens when a B/W adept finds a scene with really interesting colors, and then suddenly realises: "Oh yeah, that's right, I'm into black and white... Pity."

Agreed that monochrome images can have that certain special appearance and mood; and often, when the image doesn't have any noteworthy colors to begin with, the choice for monochrome might well be the best choice... but not all images that are excellent in color, would turn out great in black and white.

I think the difference lies in the way that attention points are accentuated... color accents can make all the difference in a color image, whereas a 'color-accent-less' monochrome image has to define its accents on other levels (often light contrast or tone balance).

That being said, I do believe it's a great exercise to 'think and see' black and white from time to time...

It's true, I don't see this style of language like you all. Thanks Inshaala for it, I like to learn and you know

As for the language style, it depends on which seat in which room you occupy to hear the words.   A seat in a seminar will do just fine;  a photo chat with a casual passerby will not.

As for monochrome vs. full color, I remember images from Vietnam during the war there.  Battle line shots in color simply looked hollywood while bw conveyed the situation better. Then of course, the little girl following a napalm attack, running naked in the street..that Pulitzer price winner was color as I recall.    Application one way or the other simply has to do with  elements of the image...well, I better still my typing or I will begin to wax philosophical..

WOW, the word exists... And I show my lack of English skills or lack of a dictionary... Damn I should've Wikipedia'ed it!

Quote - As for the language style, it depends on which seat in which room you occupy to hear the words.   A seat in a seminar will do just fine;  a photo chat with a casual passerby will not.

I have to disagree with you here. If I were sitting in a seminar this guy was holding (and he is a university teacher IIRC from his page) he would have lost me after the first two paragraphs. IMVHO teaching should be about making your point - and making everyone understand why you make that point, and your reasoning behind it. It should not be about waxing poetic on the point you are trying to convey, and thereby obfuscating your meaning. But your point about the Vietnam war images is a very good one. I had one of those "never more" posters on my living room wall for years, and I highly doubt I would have kept it there for so long if it had been a color picture. :-)

Andreas, unfortunately for the sake of lost communications there are seminar speakers, etc., who often speak in language more flamboyant than desired  to convey the point.  I would expect that from many speakers, not saying they will actually communicate well to me.  Ok, so I am doing a sort of flip flop from my pevious post..since communication is the key.

I suppose the way this thread has digressed to discussion of writing style rather than substance makes a statement of sorts.. : )

Despite the authors writing style, I think it does have some merit.. AND, it sparked some discussion..

Yes, there is merit in what is said on the link. Thanks.

I agree

"But in contrast to the screen-based image, the photograph is crudely located in the domain of presence inhabited by the body not only as a seeing mechanism, but as a sensual and active complex.... In its making as well as outcome, the monochrome photograph has as much in common with sculpture as with any other medium. It speaks through an arrangement of form and tone, in ways which defy our customary verbalised categories. So despite (perhaps because of?) its wholesale eclipse within the worlds of fashionable image-making, I still believe that the monochrome photograph invites us to contemplate the world of appearances in resonant and enriching ways."

Yes, heady language but it does say something important to me.  This addresses the artist, the creator who is not the commercial puppet.  Nuff said.  Still, heady or not, an interesting read. (italics added by me)

Exactly what I meant to say, Tom... ;o)

Yes - i did not mean to detract from the fact that he had a point.  Black and white photography has a special place in the art that is photography, but it pains me to see it thrown into the "high-brow" corner of the medium by this guy.  The factworthy points he made are no less of a fact because of his language, i dont want anyone to think that they are strictly the realm of the pretentious artist.  But by writing such a piece he does seem to put it out of reach of the aspiring "normal" photographer who doesnt hold a masters in latin, english, history, photography, philosophy and greek..

Personally i aspire to being able to produce a good monochrome image, as the image itself is what is looked at, and not the "eye candy" colours of what it may be in the real world (as so many "good" photos these days seem to be).  The black and white photo holds a special place in my eye as being the pinnacle of being able to affect somone by merely force of image, disregarding any colour present within the scene.

I suppose this thread is a defining moment in people's understanding of what i think about photography.  It should be accessable to everyone.  Pompous articles about monochrome just put it further away from those who (maybe by virtue of education, geography, linguistics, upbringing or anything else) might not understand, but would wholly be able to contribute towards the richness that is the medium of photography.

My two pence - debate it as you will...

Don't be so acrasial. One can understand that you have a strong aeipathy -that borders at times on the pathological- against phrontists, that, in other words, you wish for a novaturient vocabulary. But lets not obarmate against sarcinarious tortiloquists: they also serve a purpose, even it it needs a synallactic attitude from us volgivagant quaeritates. Perhaps we should profit more from their lack of plebicolar demeanour even if their flosculations are on the verge of glaudiloquent exagerrations.

Yet at least you are not  trying to gnathonize them, you sycophantic buffoon!

woot woot
;)

Attached Link: on papers

But it tells how I feel about the matter. Imo, it are the works themselves that must "prove their case" and all talking about them is, at best, second-hand. Someone trying to influence people's opinion by showing his or her superiority in whatever way will only prove his or her point to those who don't really matter. Some will be able to see through the pompousness and separate the form from the content. These are intellectuals. Some will be halted by the form's lack of "aesthetic" relation with the content. (like me and inshaala). These are more emotionalists.
Both categories are, of course, ok.
It's like needing a wintercoat and not buying it because it's not your style or taste, despite the fact that it's warm and waterproof.

BW is of course ok. It's more like drawing. But, and this is once again my opinion, their real beauty can only be seen in print (printer with several colours or , not on a monitor.

Perhaps a good read on papers is the link above: http://www.silverprint.co.uk/paper.html

I do like bw for certain subject matter.  And, I agree about print being the real view of the image and the test of the photo.      

Yep i agree with you inshaala ...

Historicaly, the first emulsion was BW because of technology.  Now it's a part of our photographer education (doisneau, bouba, etc...) and their work is really great.

So, now, we have a large panel of possibilities : work BW, work color, work color to bw, even bw to color... So, just choose the right one for the right atmosphere, that's all.... or the right for YOU.

I work in bw because i feel bw, but sometimes colors are so nice .. so i use it lol

imho, photography is art, not technology ... so take pics with your heart and forget everything else...

imho :o)

But I like the pretty colors.... :unsure: Good discussion everyone. To address Olivier's statement, photography is art, but technology does play a role. Every form of art employs the use of technology in some way. The trick is not to make it about the technology, but rather your artistic vision. There is a balance that needs to be struck. Know how to use your tools, but don't forget the creativity.

Quote - I work in bw because i feel bw, but sometimes colors are so nice .. so i use it lol

imho, photography is art, not technology ... so take pics with your heart and forget everything else...

imho :o)

Exactly! :) I shoot landscapes much more than anything else and I sometimes find that they don't always turn out fantastic in colour but in b+w, where different parts of the image stand out more ,I  often get a great looking shot.

When I'm out shooting I'm not trying to capture the view in front of the camera but the one inside my head - if you know what I mean.

Yes TwoPynts, of course... no technology, no pic ! But 'you' create something with this technology, the technology itself didn't create anything. That's what i mean.
Color is life, we can see in color, so why not use it ? Of course, it's just a choice, your choice...

@astro : yep i know ;o) follow yourself ;o)

i think photographers have a 'gift' : we can see thing that other don't see, and we decide to show it to them or not by photographying it or not... you know : 'de gustibus et coloribus'....
so showing is a choice, how to show it is a very personnal and intimate choice ..

imho ;o)

Well, I hesitate to say this, but in fact everyone who wants to transcend the basic level of photography should try shooting black and white film, playing with green, yellow and orange filters, get a basic insight in the relationship between exposure and developement time, develop the film themselves and print it on various papers with various developers.

This is not meant to say that if you haven't done this you don't count, no. It's just that this is a very rewarding experience that deepens your insight in greys and the way "colours" translate into them.
Colours between brackets because ultimately they don't exist. They are "only" vibrations we interpret as colours. Or as greys. But that is rather abstract.

But the effect of those three/four filters (yellow, orange, red and green) on the distribution of greys is spectacular. And seeing an image appear on that sheet of paper...

Not to talk about the toxic fumes, the risk of scratch-lines over the whole length of your film etc etc ...

i fully agree with you Tanchelyn ! Using classic film from a to z is greaat experience. I'm still using it (and digital too)... but it's a different world ;o)

These filters are so great ! i really love the orange and the green :oD
see ya ;o)

I've heard that before actually.  Working with film B&W really gives you an appreciation of what makes it into a good image as you are there at each stage of the process and the thing which changes the image is the lowest denominator as "postwork" doesnt factor in, so you learn what to do in terms of exposure, filters etc to get the look you wanted - without resorting to the "technology" of postwork.

I've done film B&W once at school, and i was not really in control of any of the process - nor can i remember much of it.  Doubt i would want to do it these days unless i really had the urge to learn - i was at Jessops the other day and a guy comes in to buy a B&W 35mm film... cost £5 for a 24 roll!!  So yeah - i'l stick with digital thanks

lol yeah inshaala, the cost is different, but not very much ! ..
have a look :

digital
i bought a 20d + sigma 18-55 DC -> +-2000€ (2600$ ?) + 2 lexar 1gb (160€ 200$ ?)
-----> about 2800$ + a computer with a good screen( like my imac G5 20" at 1900€ 2300$ ?) + a very good printer A4 (150$) or A3 (>1000$)
total : from 5000$ to >6000$ (A3 printer)  (don't hesitate to correct the dollar conversion of course)
..oops i forgot : you need photoshop (800€) or the gimp (free)

classic
i bought a leica R4s2 + summicron 50mm > 600€ (800$ ?)
i need some basic labo hardware ->600€ (800$ ?)
i need film -> agfa apx 100 iso (excellent) 2.1€/36views (développing one negative cost 80€cents +-1$)
total : from 1300€ (1500$ ?) to .....

Of course, many of us have a computer & printer yet, so we don't take it the tco

This is not for or against classic or digital !!!!! It's just to say that the cost is not always what we think.

;o)

Yeah - entry costs to digital are a lot higher than film, but i am a believer in paying up front and having low running costs - although what are running costs? Because i seem to be spending a lot on accessories etc recently. But i probably would be doing the same with film anyway... ;)

ok, let's talk about running costs so ;o)

digital
what do i need to buy or replace regularly ? mmmm... may be capacity ? Pics took a lot of memory, but hard disk are cheaper than some years ago. about 150€ ?
What else ? if you are not lucky, a memory card lol (> 70€)
Printing a picture : i pay 25€ for a 40x50cm (excellent neutral and long life print)
And accessories, but it's not a must.
a new body after... 5-8-11 years ? difficult to say, but press say theses numbers
total : it depends on how much you print ;o)

classic
Regularly i need film of course (but you will take less pic in classic)
---> 2.1€/36 + 1€ develop. (i use 4 films by month, +-150 pictures)
i need revelator (7€ for 8 films), fixative(6.5€ for 30 films) and water (see it with your local water distributor lol)
Printing : it costs to me 6.5€ ton print a 40x50cm (if i'm lucky to do it correctly the first time lol)
a new body after ... 20-30 years ? my leica had 17yo and he is in perfect state.
total : +- 200€/year (it depends how much pic you take and print)

I repeat -> i don't defend classic or digital !!!!!! it's two way of photography, two ways of life ! Different and complementary  !!!