Eye of the eclipse...

by darkhausen

submit your photo

Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Sign up ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I think at first it was because of a limitation of the cameras present at the time, but with the color cameras that we have available now, what do you think of black and white photos?

In other words, what does a photo being black and white visually suggest as opposed to the same picture in color?

share|improve this question

5 Answers 5

I think there are subjects and shots that work much better in monochrome than in color. There are others that don't.

For pictures where the color itself is a major component of the picture (e.g., rainbows, sunsets) color is essentially always preferable.

In other cases, however, a monochrome image can can eliminate distractions and do a much better job of portraying the real essence of the shot. Just for one example, I find this is often true of portraits -- most of the color in such a case will be the people's clothes, so monochrome often helps emphasize the person over what they're wearing.

share|improve this answer
+1 Agreed, the effects that you can get out of the shadows and contrast can be stunning when done right. – RiddlerDev Jun 5 '11 at 16:05
As you said, in portrait photography I find it preferable in many situations. Wedding photography is almost always fantastic in b&w. – dpollitt Jun 5 '11 at 18:48
interesting take on portraits, very true. – JoséNunoFerreira Jun 5 '11 at 22:33

Do Ansel Adams' photos make sense today? Obviously they do. There are not many photographers who can produce color images of the Yosemite valley as good as Adams did in B&W.

Mostly, the choice of B&W is artistic, rather than technical. The link provided in the comments to the question suggests many of the considerations.

share|improve this answer
I would expect that a black and white camera back could offer a couple f-stops better sensitivity than would be possible with a color one. Such a sensor would be a specialty item and as such demand a specialty price, but I would expect such a sensor could be very useful in some challenging lighting conditions. – supercat Nov 11 '14 at 0:37
@supercat - Can you elaborate on why would you expect that? Given the photo-sensitive elements of a color sensor are essentially monochromatic, why would there be a "couple of stops" different? – ysap Nov 11 '14 at 8:47
Only a fraction of the "red" photons that enter the camera will end up hitting a red pixel; those that hit blue or green pixels will be ignored. Likewise any "green" photons that hit red or blue pixels, or "blue" pixels that hit red or green. Depending upon how selective the color filters are, the attenuation could be closer to one f-stop or might be more than two, but would be significant in any case. – supercat Nov 11 '14 at 16:22

Sure, it does, and in some circles, it's still pretty popular. I just did a quick survey of the photos currently on exhibition on 1X.com, and there are around a dozen B&W (or monochrome) photos there out of 32 on that page. These guys tend to favor highly-processed fine art photos, but this still gives some idea that there's enough B&W photography going on that it's still relevant.

One difference with B&W today vs. "way back when" -- I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of these photos were shot in color (very likely RAW) and converted to B&W. The power of processing software like Photoshop and Lightroom provide you with some awesome tools to control how your photo is converted.

When I see B&W photos that work well, they tend to be fairly simple in one way or another -- maybe they've got a single subject (a person, for instance) or they show a scene that's dominated by a single color (a forest picture that's all shades of green). Good candidates also have a lot of contrast in them -- this contrast can stand out better in the photo when color is removed (think about how the colors in your scene can map to black, white, and grey).

share|improve this answer

Yes definitely.. people have their own reason why they do it. Ansel Adams was definitely the master of B&W. For more recent example check out Chase Jarvis' Seattle 100: http://s100.chasejarvis.com/

Personally I convert a picture to B&W when color is proving to be more a distraction or if it doesn't really contribute much to the theme of the picture..

share|improve this answer

This question is tagged "history" so, some history --

Photographs (of course) don't have to be literal captures of a scene. Plenty of photographers (past and present) have manipulated the image to reflect their feelings about the subject (or other stuff).

Pre-digital (and really, before desktop computer image editing -- which pre-dates pure digital photography by a bit), making color prints in the darkroom was tedious and the number of variables you had to control for using a limited number of tools you had made artistic exploration difficult. But with traditional B&W film photography, you had a wide number of tools (colored filters on the lens to change contrast, different contrast papers and all of the other darkroom techniques) and a limited number of variables in printing -- the exposure and the contrast curve for your single "color channel" (gray).

Also, by removing the color -- which humans have a good memory for in terms of what looks "right" -- you have more freedom to move away from a literal capture of the scene.

For color, a lot of people ended up preferring slides instead of prints, but it can be difficult to hang a slide in an art gallery. So color became less important in the art world.

Post-digital, there really aren't any limitations on what can be done with a color image and people have done some amazing exploration with HDR images, manipulating different color channels independently in different ways, etc. All of which are important additions to the creative toolbox.

But there is a huge history of B&W imagery in western culture, so there are still people interested in it. And sometimes a self-imposed limitation can be part of the creative process (like folks who just post the JPG files straight off the camera, without any post processing).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.