Out of ten rolls of 135 or 120 I┤d say that roughly eight of them are b&w and the rest would be color neg. Positive films are so seldomly used that they would have to be rated as a few to a hundred or so.
[FONT=Arial]A moment of terror, is the beginning of life.[/FONT]
As of a couple of months ago, I have moved towards black and white for my work film, though I still SS some color now and then, family outings and such.
"Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti
B&W about 90% of the time, colour really only when I am snap-shooting. I don't mean any offence to colour as a medium, I simply find B&W a big enough challange, and find myself with so very much to learn, that I hardly thnk I could satisfactory results from colour.
Add to that the fact that I can't afford to pay $50 for an 8x10 print at a custom lab, and everything I get back from every "lab" (ranging from 1 hour drug store photo to supposedly specialized photo stores) come back ranging from pure crap to slightly diluted fecal cocktails.... I am sick of paying money and having every single sky have bands on it, digital artifacts, sharpening in addition to a slew of other issues that every lab hands me back - visible in a 4x6!!! Its always such an aggrevating experience that I simply can't be bothered most of the time.
I also find that B&W is more interpretive, since it takes an element out of the picture and replaces it with one that is more of a peronal take on it - tonality vs colour. Plus, I simply love it - like a favourite food, I can't really say why!
I'm running about 85% ...COLOR!!! I can hear the gasping out there from here.
What the heck, I have a reputation for being incorrigible anyway .... why stop here? I confess to being a terribly poor "lemming follower", and one who smiles - a lot.
Which is "better"? I do not consider that a coherent question. A parallel: Is an oil painting better than a charcoal? I can't say I know anyone who has worked in BOTH media who would even attempt an answer to that.
Which is "easier", or "requires more skill"? IMHO, it is equally difficult to obtain the same level of "value" from either media.
The media, Color, or black & white; IS important ... has an important effect on the perception of the work. I've noticed that some of my images "work" in black and white, and not in color; and an equal number work in color, but not black and white. There are FAR more important components to a work of art... MOST of which I cannot - in honesty - describe. Compositon, the surface of the paper; pre-conditioning of the "experiencer"; the temperature and lighting of the gallery; the phase of the moon; the wine at the reception ... all seem to have some effect ... just WHAT effect... I'm not sure.
I happen to make more color images than black and white. Why? Because I want to.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
trix all the way!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I was hoping this didn't have to be said, but I am glad you did
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
For me, both as Black and White and colour provide different challenges.
"Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
In by backwards, round about way, this is the first part of what I was trying to say - I simply don't think there is enough of the photographic me to go around at this point - so I simply picked the one that I liked a bit better.
Originally Posted by Uncle Bill
I shoot probably 99.9% color transparencies. The rest color negatives. Like Robert Teague, I have shot very little B&W for the past 20 years.
I've been shooting a lot of bargained 100 ASA color rolls lately to save their souls.