|
|
|
|
Every few years, we see a return to "old" ways, although they're rarely labeled as such. Old color schemes reappear on new railroads. Radios, refrigerators, cameras, and whatever else are chrome for a while, then black becomes, we are told, the "fashionable" thing. And just about the time you're ready to expand, it seems that the colors you've accumulated have changed!--so much for matching everything. To add insult to injury, if chrome is becoming the rage, we are told how it resists scratching and that it reflects heat, so it's better for cameras. But if black is becoming the rage, we are told that it's less noticeable and distracting, that new coloring technology won't suffer scratches, or that it has better resale value.
In photography, there's a cycle beyond the color of cameras: printing in color or in black-and-white (greyscale or "b&w"). In the fabled "old days" the surest way to spark an argument among photographers was not to ask about prints vs. slides, but color vs. b&w. Even with technological changes, it's still a valid topic of discussion--even when using digital cameras.
Black-and-white was the original photographic format. When color appeared, it was a technological revolution, and many people used color just because it was new. Yet b&w endured. Many of the old arguments for black and white are now of little importance: it could be done cheaply and easily at home, and offered an opportunity to manipulate the image that color did not. If you're using chemical processes, black and white film, paper, and other materials are now at least as costly as color, if not more so. This is also true for digital printing. Digital offers one advantage all over: the ability to preview changes before printing, thus avoiding all the trial-and-error adjustments that used to take an enlarger and resulted in a pile of "not quite good enough" prints.
An advantage of digital is that conversion of a color original to black and white is simple: just a few clicks of the mouse, and there you are. Properly printing color negatives to black and white requires special paper which must be handled under color paper conditions, i.e., no safelight.
But back to the original question: why is b&w still around, and even the "in" thing again? One answer is technical. Read the fine print on a box of color film, paper, or ink. You'll see a notice along the lines of "color dyes may change with time and no warranty is given against such changes." When carefully finished, black and white negatives and prints will last much longer than color. This is the case even with printer output: black ink is much more stable than any color ink.
Fading color slides and negatives have become a particular problem for photographers. Color film uses several layers, each recording a color. Negative and Ektachrome slide films contained the dyes, which were process and then stabilized. Kodachrome used a proprietary process, one that required complicated machinery to add the dyes. Although Kodachrome is much less susceptible to fading, it can occur, especially if projected frequently. On the other hand, black and white becomes a stable compound if properly processed.
Beyond the technical matters lies a far more important topic: art. Color grabs attention. It's realistic, but that can be a problem: to hold our attention, it has to be different. Black-and-white is more subtle, making you look at composition and light. There's always something to ponder. Portrait photographers, in particular, have sought to capitalize on this difference. Along with the promise of permanence, they promote black and white so you will consider their work to be art.
All of this leads to the question: just what are we up to when we take photos of the rail scene? Are we, like photojournalists, recording events, and thus not interested in "art"? Of course, many rail photographers are looking for accuracy, and not necessarily an artistic expression. And there's no problem with that, as long as everyone understands what is going on.
But beyond this, we must ask just what constitutes "art"? Step into any Art History class and you should find a lively discussion. But beyond this, take a spin into the world of cultural history. Only rarely has the idea of "creating art" been in the minds of those we regard as great artists. And only recently has "fine art" become an exclusive area distinguished from "everyday life." Art has always been a visually-oriented reflection of daily life. Much of the "great art" of the ancient and classical world is remarkably similar to photojournalism in intent. There's a need for both art and accurate records in photography. Whichever you prefer (even if only for a moment, for there's no reason to be exclusive), I encourage you: don't look on b&w as an inferior relative. Give it some thought and its own place, so you can expand your photographic horizons.
