Thought provoking for sure. I can't begin to get too deep about it but what AA said once comes to mind. Paraphrasing, he said that he could control color to a certain point until it became obviously unreal. With black and white, although it can be presented as very unreal, it may not be obviously so, at least to the lay person. The degree of tonal manipulation can be quite extreme, but it more easily becomes lost in translation when taken in context with shape, form, space, and texture. Whatever it is, you are right, it just works.
Thanks for the comment, Finn. Yes, I agree of course that we do view prints with the full benefit of cone vision. Nevertheless, I wonder if our response to a b&w scene might be conditioned. Because the brain may associate dehued scenes with night (or perhaps even dreams?), might this association affect how we interpret a dehued image?
Here is an image that got me thinking along this track some time ago. Just a simple image at the end of a roll of film.
Now, to me, this image evokes moonlight illumination. But actually, it was taken in high noon light, with infrared film. That set me off wondering: what are the cues in colour and tone that affect how we interpret a scene even before we start really analyzing the composition. In other words, what are the really powerful cues that are important in the very first glimpse of an image. In this particular case, I think the b&w tone and contrast is what made me associate the scene with moonlight.
I suppose that the mind, foremost, wants to identify reality within a scene... that is how our image recognition is conditioned. What if the first step in that process is either to confuse the scene with a night or dreamlike image, or, on the other hand, to realize right off the bat that this isn't a literal representation because it shows something we know to be coloured. In either case, there has been a fundamental change in how we proceed to interpret the image after that first glimpse.
At any rate, regardless of whether scotopic vision plays a role as some sort of primary cue for interpretation, I think the more important point is that b&w images tend to evoke... they tend to ask for broader, more abstract interpretation.
Your point that saturated colours can be "too much" in a print is quite interesting. Whereas I tend to like smallish, intimate b&w prints, my instinct with colour landscapes is typically to print them large. I suppose that I think of colour prints as a sort of large window into a reality, whereas the b&ws are entirely different.
The scotopic vision idea is interesting but, as we generally view b&w photographs in relatively high light levels, I wonder. Something that has always interested me is the scale effect. When I look around me I never observe colour until I think colour, if you get what I mean!
In viewing colour landscape photographs however, I'm immediately forced to see saturated colour especially where large colour areas are concentrated in a small print. Maybe the concentrated colour, tone, texture etc. are just too much to relax with and enjoy.
that's what I call real Math! I need to learn from you man. I bought 2 Graflex holders and they came without the slides! Then I bought a 65mm sekor lens and had to get serviced CLA for $130!! Not everything is bad, I got good deals as well, lenses for $9? Yesterday I click again "Watch this item" and a message came up! "You pass the limit of items you can watch" please delete some items.
Anyway, I think you have your G.A.S under control. You scored on the P/N 55 for $40.00.
Interesting, isn't it, how much tone manipulation is now routinely added to digital colour work.
Honestly I didn't get the concept of "literal colour" until I tried some digital stuff myself and then it dawned on me: hold on! The reason why I like colour film is not because it shows me the world precisely as it is. Rather, colour film shows me the world as I want to see it (just like somebody once said).
What if colour photography were merely a literal capture of what I see... would I still care to do it? Probably not, honestly. So I personally do not see colour as inherently more literal than b&w, though literal colour certainly does exist and has its own distinct artistic force... e.g. Eggleston.
I think that with the rise of digital imaging where color is the de-facto norm, and that creating black-and-white imagery from it requires a removal of color which produces a distinct look from imagery made with black-and-white film, color imagery will become more mundane and less "artistic" in some ways. When color imaging became affordable to the masses, and adopted as the primary means of image-making for the general public (really starting in the 1950s), it separated itself from "artistic" photography because of the proletarian nature of color image-making.
There are certainly enough people doing color photography as an art form that you can't assert it is NOT accepted as an art medium (Cindy Sherman, Alec Soth, William Eggleston, to name a few), but it is definitely a minority medium. Interesting exploration.
Not yet. My room is getting walls though! I am still haveing fun with the camera and feel like I'm learning lots. Only a couple of pictures turned out on the first 2 rolls as far as I can tell. I didn't realize that you had to wait to use the chems after you mixed them! Oh well, lesson learned! I figured I'd give my husband a little more time before I take over the laundry room with my mess. Mabey a couple more weeks? I am getting impatient though!
Its now the last day of Feb. How did it go? I know you developed your film. Did you get anything in print?
About stop, just use water, changed frequently.
Here's a shot from the excursion: