Why does is most street photography in b&w? Can't color street photography be just as valid?

Question

I have been doing street photograpy for a while now but I have always done it in color and I realize some others have (Helen Levitt's and Esther Bubley's color work for example; or Alex Webb) but it seems most people seem to think that it still has to be done in b&w to be considered "artistic". Examples of my work can be found in the link below.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonjamesabbott/

Answer 1

If someone is an artist the can use any medium they want and get the results they want. Art is really about speaking your own personal right brain language and saying stuff that can't be said with words (which is why its visual). If your successful then your art will speak that language. It is up to the audience to try to understand and appreciate the artist's language so it doesn't matter at all what the medium is b&w photography or color photography; just speak your language through it.

Answer 2

Black and white is preferred over color simply because of the increased details you will find in black and white photography.

Don't forget, the vast majority of street photographers did their own developing and printing, whereupon black and white was the medium used for home darkrooms (color is a tad more difficult, the chemicals must be maintained within strict temperature ranges that cannot differ more than 1 or 2 degrees, the chemicals are a bit more expensive, along with the paper, etc); I suppose digital technology will change that but many feel that color distracts from detail, and very often the details help tell a story, not that it's "artistic" (that's just an over-simplified reply).

With black and white, you'll usually see photographers using yellow filters or light orange filters to help bring out details while with color, there are a multitude of filters for different lighting situations that can and do affect the overall effect of the images. Having to fumble with filters when you're trying to catch something on the spare of the moment is not exactly considered spontaneous shooting.

There's nothing wrong with shooting color if that's what you prefer to do. It's all a matter of personal preference.

Answer 3

All the above answerers are spot on, as far as B+W being more detailed and an art form in itself. You have to look more at lines, texture, shape, and really add that third demension. With color, it can be distracting from the elements that make up a good street scene. I suspect also, however, that since street scenes are usually done more candidly, or "photojournalistically", it hearkens back to the old Newspapers and such, and really sets the mood. That is just a theory, but it would explain why some prefer B+W for this purpose. Also, with black and white, you actually have to filter less. If you use good film and darkroom techniques, it actually is easier to get a good B+W shot, since you take out the worry of color balance, color casts, etc. B+W film has better contrast and tonal range than some color (negative) films, and much better than digital at this point, so the photographs have more "depth", even though at first they seem to be less distracting without color being present. As far as it being more "artistic"... Well, it is. Most people can develop or print their own B+W still, while the chemicals and work involved in color processing is easier to leave to a lab, and in this way, you have complete control over the process. The prints will always be better from B+W film as well, since if you don't do it yourself, most times minilabs send it out to labs that use traditional printing, rather than digital dye-sub or pictrography that Ritz, Walgreens, Walmart, and other minilabs use, which are still not at the quality of silver halide prints. So this quality, and the control over the process makes it more "valid", I suppose, than snapshots with a digital camera or color film, printed with the methods mentioned above. Most consumers nowadays will never recieve a "real" photo back from the lab, but artists and photographers who still demand film quality will find a way to get it.

Answer 4

Black and white photography doesn't carry any more information than color, in fact its color photography that yields more details. People are biased to think that its more artistic since all the greats of the last century shot in black and white especially for street photos. But the reason why is simply technological; color never became easy to develop and let's face it, if you were an artist you would want to see your work as soon as possible. Its quite enjoyable to see those prints come to life in the solution when developing.

Its not that black and white has is any better than color it was just easier to control from taking to the picture to the final product. It was also much more cost effective.

Digital photography has, of course, changed all that. I think the question has changed from why shoot color to why shoot black and white. I think street photographers now need to justify why their photo wouldn't work in color, not the other way around. If people get "distracted" by color in street photos then I think they need to spend more time viewing them; they can because there is more to see.

By the way your photos are great so keep shooting!!!

Answer 5

I love photography myself, and I take pictures of random people all the time. I never really thought about doing it without being intrusive, I just do it. If I see someone who inspires, I just take the shot at that very moment and I don't think about it too much. Then, I go home with all these great shots. If they inspire, take the shot. If they notice, smile, a smile goes a long long way, and then walk away. No big deal.

Answer 6

Black and White is an art form it itself. By not distracting the viewer with colors, the photographer can keep the attention to the scenes. It also underlines the harshness of the street; especially when using a coarse grain film the naked, roughness of street scenes convey very well.
Color works very well in fashion and product photography. Nature scenes benefit from both approaches. B&W is inded more artistic, because the photographer has less to work with and the viewer is less bothered with attention to color.

Answer 7

From photography and DSLR camera basics right through to advanced techniques used by the professionals, this course will quickly and easily get your photography skills focused! Go here https://tr.im/NjZLc
By the end of this course you will have developed an instinctive skill-for-life that will enable you to capture truly stunning photos that not only amaze your friends and family... but could also open the doors to a brand new career.

Answer 8

Sometimes color can distract attention from a composition. It may be more due to historical perspective that B&W is more dominant. B&W is not the way we see the world so it changes our impression of a scene, it looks real but something is "wrong". It's an interpretaion that we don't see with color vision.
It's personal preference of course, but the "masters" shot in B&W so maybe its become the "norm".
Have you ever converted any of your pictures to B&W? Sometimes it does offer a different interpretation of a scene. Not to say it's the right one, but a different impression might be conveyed that was unseen in color and vice versa.

Answer 9

1

Answer 10

There is nothing wrong with coloured photographs. The only thing in favour of B/W photography is that the photographer has to play around with filters and the timings to get the BEST, while in colour it is that much simpler.