Hi All,

Just came across a truly twisted article, "Screw Black & White". Written by a photojournalist, posted on Dirck Halstead's Digital Journalist site. Thought some folks reading this might find it entertaining. Check it out, post reactions here. :-)

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9904/colburn.htm

~mason

PS: Here was my emal to Dirck Halstead & his response:

>Hi Dirck, > >Very funny...I laughed until I cried. Someone should tell David Turnley to >read Jim Colburn and wise up. Yeah, those incredible photos from Kosovo are >so obviously "pointlessly nostalgic"... I'm >thinking of writing a response, called "Screw 35mm" and advocating >the use of APS. > >Cheers, >Mason Resnick

Mason, I was just saying I really don't need all this heavy lifting, socially-conscious stuff on the Digital Journalist....all I need is to run Jim Colburn...he is getting all the mail

-Dirck

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), April 13, 1999

Answers

I hope nobody takes this person seriously. He is either very cynical or just out to make a splash like Rush Limbaugh. If he really believes what he wrote, I feel sorry for him...he's missing out on a whole genre of aesthetic experience. Also I wonder if he does his own processing and printing...

-- Edward Pierce (edpierce@together.net), April 13, 1999.

To quote Colburn "there was a lot of crap published". There was, and obviously there still is....Here is a nice example of non-mathematical recursion (self reference). Its not only the color blind who cannot see.

-- Richard Newman (rnewman@snip.net), April 13, 1999.

Hmm. A nicely provocative article. I suspect I could write a better case against B&W, even though I don't believe it.

IMHO, the main point Jim misses (or ignores) is that B&W is a different aesthetic to colour. Not better, not worse, but different. Technically, B&W is just colour with the saturation at zero. Aesthetically, it is quite different.

Many photographers are much better at handling one or the other. Personally, I 'see' in B&W. The world would be a poorer place if we only had colour.

I can't wait for someone to make a B&W digital camera, with three- times the number of pixels. Technically, no problem, but I don't think it will ever happen.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), April 14, 1999.

Screw BW

Haven't read the article but just wanted to point out that BW only existed in the first place because colour was not possible in the beginning. If it was then perhaps this forum would be called Velvia World.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), April 14, 1999.

Alan, Mason, has Tribbie seen this? We should unleash our resident slavering Cerberus upon the unsuspecting Jimbo.

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), April 15, 1999.

Andy, while I like Velvia and think it's a fine film even if it is color, my preference for chromes is Fuji Astia. Better color balance, less contrast but still saturated. Oh yeah, and it's the only color film I know of that maintains neutral color balance when reciprocity failure kicks in!

ASTIA WORLD???

OK enough of that. Back to our regular monochrome mania

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), April 15, 1999.

Richard wrote: To quote Colburn "there was a lot of crap published". There was, and obviously there still is....Here is a nice example of non-mathematical recursion (self reference).

Or, to quote my former boss, Jason Schneider: "Don't give me that crap...give me some other crap."

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), April 15, 1999.

Don't forget that Mr. Colburn's diatribe was published in the April issue. Maybe he was trying to be funny. If he were really serious about moving into the 20th century he'd advise us to throw away our film and pick up digital cameras. Then we'd have CCD World. Hey! That's not such a bad idea. I get first dibs on the URL!

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@clicknet.com), April 15, 1999.

Darron, I think you have the right idea about this guy...

As for CCD World, it's on it's way--but it will have a different name. Go to www.photohighway.com and sign up for a sneak preview.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), April 15, 1999.

If he would have thrown in a Nikon vs. Canon rant he might have p***d everybody off!

I'll go on lazily doing my black and white, it's just to darn hard to drive to the one hour place with my color. Besides I bought a Mavica and may never need another roll of color again, at least not for 99% of what I shoot in color, which isn't much.

I have to agree with him, there are a lot of boring pictures and articles in magazines. Take People for example, OOPS!!!!, thats color isn't it! My, my some problems transcend the color/BW dividing line, go figure.

-- Marv (mthompson@clinton.net), April 15, 1999.

Some one once told me Black is a combination of all colour and white is the absense of colour. I only shoot B&W so do I'll have to buy a special colour back for my Hasselblad, or I do have two other bodies and backs so could I have them modified to take colour shots.

This thread would be funny if the moron wasn't serious.

The absence of colour in a shot helps focus attention on the drama of the subject without the inevitable "OOOOh aren't the colours pretty." The majority of work that AA did over his lifetime was black and white even though he had access to colour. Add colour to "Half Dome" or any of his other work and the drama is reduced and it become just another picture. A good one I will admit. So do I say **** colour, no, of course not as colour helps me see in beautiful B&W.

By the way are the Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblad designed to take coloured photos, I only ask because when I was younger some cameras had colour written on them and I suppose that makes the difference. I can't see colour written anywhere on the Hasselblad.

Steve Nicholls [Adelaide Australia.]

-- Steve Nicholls (gl1500@chariot.net.au), April 16, 1999.

colour

I think it's the other way around. White is the combination of all colours.....

I have been posting on www.photocritique.net and indeed many comments of the colour photographs use the 'great colors' routine but I have also seen good images produced in colour. I think it depends on the photographer. I have also seen BW works that rely heavily on the tonal quality of the photograph ('great tones'). AA made good use of this since many of his compositions are quite ordinary and fall flat in the hands of a lesser craftsperson.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), April 16, 1999.

Steve, I do not know what Hasselblad/Zeiss thinks about it, but from my experience I do think that relatively speaking across all marks and between B&W and colour Hasselblad/Zeiss is 'best' for colour, while Schneider (LF) and Leica M is 'best' for B&W, although I like Schneider in colour too.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), April 16, 1999.

I think this man is right in an historical sense, when he says that Capa and Cartier-Bresson didn't have that speed in colour as with Tri-X, so what would have happened if...? Furthermore there have been produced very impressing photojournalistic colour photo's, especially when printed on journal-paper, e.g. the Algerian woman mourning. Somehow or another however, hikers have discovered the tonal scale in B&W photography of Yosemite. I doubt if clicking Image >> Mode >> Grayscale >> Okay can replace this part of photographic reality.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), April 16, 1999.

"They like to worship at the feat of their heros..."

FEAT?

Yeah, he's real believable. Feats don't fail me now.

-- steve (swines@egginc.com), April 16, 1999.

A april fool! I doubt very much that Colburn can sit still long enough to watch un-colorized old movies much less have the patience to fiddle with color temperature. Oh well, I've been warning you all about the latest crop of digital dunderheads. I don't think you've taken the time to really talk with them. Mr. Colburn is in all seriousness probably very serious. I've met folks like him, they can't understand why some movies are still shot on black and white stock, they can't figure out what the other spoon's function is, they ponder for up to five minutes before answering the question "what is your last name?", they don't mind what they're wife buys them to wear, and if you asked them to shoot a decent black and white neg and told them to process and print it they would only say why? "I've found something like that on a clip art cd-rom and I'll just give it the greyscale. He is the rule we are the exception. Ever wonder why so many people like Garth Brooks? Because they are stupid and have no taste, it is what we deserve for decades of unchecked "keeping up with the Joneses"! Homogenization and blind faith for all!

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), April 22, 1999.

I took the time to look at the photo galleries at his web page. Faamous shots of famous people and events, widely published around the world, mostly because he was paid to be at the right place at the right time. Photojounalists are paid to "record" events, not to take great pictures. Sometimes an event is a "great" event, but it doesn't make it great photography. My 2 cents...

-- Peter Thoshinsky (camerabug1@msn.com), April 27, 1999.

here here!

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), April 27, 1999.

The above two comments reflect a lack of understanding about photojournalism and, unfortunately, a willingness to slam some photographers to make themselves feel better. It's a whole lot easier to knock someone else than to put one's own work on the line.

There are two basic types of photojournalism. There is a requirement for photographs of whatever is in the news, and the presence of the photo is generally more important than any artistic requirements. Most people would be disappointed if the newspaper had no photos because the photographers didn't have the time or opportunity to make great photos. There is a real requirement for record shots, and some of the people who do this work also put together wonderful portfolios/shows/books of their work regardless of what they are paid to do.

And then there are the photojournalists whose work is typified by the old Life Magazine and by the Magnum Agency - documentary photojournalism, often filled with extraordinary images, and on a par with any other discipline of photography.

None of this has anything to do with the original article being discussed here, and maybe if participants focused on it they would make useful contributions.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), April 27, 1999.

Get real Jeff, most photojournalist barely know how to develop film and usually its not done correctly. I know because I begun my photo education at one of the top three schools for pj in U.S. and the technical knowledge imparted by teachers and gained by students was very limited. I only knew one person there who decided that knowing anything more than the barest amounts of information was worthwhile. Meanwhile, I get to laugh at countless images that are so badly exposed and/or printed, that the purpose of the image is clouded or missed all together. I do however salute those photojournalist who create powerful images, not only by way of subject matter but also by the power of high quality craftsmanship. This is achievable regardless of the subject matter; those who deny this are either ignorant or lazy.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), April 28, 1999.

Unfortunately a generation of photographers that never lived without autofocus or autoexposure has joined the ranks of photojournalists. Either Colburn is one of them, or was lampooning them in his column (my guess is the latter--am I giving him too much credit?).

While some excel at their craft and have taken the time to master the process, others simply put their cameras on auto and never bother to learn technique. That's a pity.

OTOH, I haven't seen the kind of poor exposure Mark refers to in my daily paper. I get the NY Times and the New Jersey Star-Ledger, which both offer good quality images and reproduction, so my point of view may be a bit skewed, though...

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), April 28, 1999.

To Colburn I would simply say: Get away kid, ya bother me.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), May 02, 1999.

I agree with Mason; this may be a 'put-on.' I'm more concerned with the apparant vitriol from the respondents. (In fact, the comparison to Rush Limbaugh is unfair...to Rush.) A photojouralist is not concerned with aesthetics (or shouldn't be.) His job is to take pictures for the magazine/newspaper to help sell more copies. Something so that people won't have to actually read them! Color always gets more attention; garish color gets even more. B&W is much too subtle for the pablum published by Time-Warner. Besides, B&W is archival, a quality completely useless for the publication of future bird cage liner or fish wrapping. Oops! I forgot to turn off my own vitriol...

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), May 07, 1999.