Baker's Dozen: 'It Must Be Color' (Part I)

Photo by Jan Kwarnmark

Photo by Sean Geer

Photo by Mike Newton

Photo by David Comdico

-

Jan Kwarnmark writes: "In January 2017 I spent two weeks in the countryside of Sierra Leone with a volunteer doctor, an old friend of mine. We were the only white men in several miles. I took pictures in the hospital, of him educating in the villages and of 'anything that caught my eye,' especially the beautiful people. Helped by his authority I could photograph people almost without limits. They are friendly, calm and dignified, in spite of the poverty, in a way that other people who have been in Africa recognize. I don't speak their language, Krio, based on English. So the portrait sessions took a few seconds and a smile.

"When I saw my own pictures I could almost not believe they were mine.

"Here is 'Emma' 800 pixels wide and not cropped. Metadata: Canon 5D MkIII, 70–200mm ƒ/4 @ 78mm, ISO 4000, ƒ/7.1 @ 1/320 sec.

"We produced a calendar for 2018 and we have sold 1,000 of them, and every cent besides printing costs are used to help the people in Sierra Leone. My friend has a website, so far only in Swedish (and Facebook too). Bombali Health Development—We Are the People."

Sean Geer writes: "My name's Sean Geer; I live in London, England. I've been lurking at TOP for many years, but this fascinating idea has finally lured me out of the shadows.

"This really is an interesting challenge, and this is the only picture I could find from the last 18 months that I thought absolutely had to be in colour to really tell its story. I almost literally stumbled upon these Parisian pigeons feasting on a volcanically hot pavement last summer; I saw them only at the last second as I tried to avoid their lunch. It's imperfect for many reasons, but it's one of only a dozen or so images I printed last year.

"Technical details, for what they're worth: Fuji X-E2, 35mm ƒ/2 WR. Shot in JPEG at bizarrely random settings, as I had no time to do anything but grab the camera and shoot.

"Thanks for your exceptional efforts over the years. You're one of only a small handful of photo bloggers I still read. Really looking forward to seeing this Baker's Dozen!

Mike Newton writes: "Here's a submission for your colour post. My name is Mike Newton, and I'm a university lecturer based in Edinburgh, UK.

"My photograph was made in Mongolia, using a Panasonic GH2 and a 14–45mm lens. Here's my website."

UPDATE: Mike Newton adds: "What a privilege to be included here. Thanks very much, Mike. I feel a little sheepish now to have included such a dull commentary about my photograph...as with a lot of other folk, I really liked the idea for your post (and the previous B&W series), so thanks for the inspiration.

"For what it's worth, I've probably spent more time trying to print this image than any other. And perhaps learnt the most as well. I've tried it in B&W several times, but in print there is just something I prefer about the colour versions. I think it's the relative simplicity of the colour palette, which helps provide separation in what could be quite a busy image.

"This was made somewhere in the north of Mongolia back in 2012. We had stopped for dinner at a roadside ger cafe (something meaty, as I recall...), before continuing on our 18-hour drive northwards. A few miles down the road we crested a small rise, and the trees thinned to reveal this incredible layered landscape of green and blue. It really had the feeling of being a live, slowly evolving watercolour, which is something I've tried hard to capture in the various printed versions. A 'final' version hangs in my house, printed on Canson Platine, and is about 16" square. Given the number of work prints, I guess this places me well within the 'amateur' category...! (C.f. 'The Digital Glow.')"

David Comdico writes: "Here is my entry. I wasn't sure what to send so was likely not going to (from indecision) until I read your 'yellow and blue' rant of January 23rd. Now, I love your rants because they are usually driven by some deeply-felt insight. But, being a contrarian, I couldn't help but send in something with yellow and blue. So, cheekily, here it is.

"I live in Collingswood, New Jersey, which is right outside of Philly, where I was born and raised and where this photo was taken. I think it is fairly self-explanatory, but what struck me about it—when editing—was the generational progression and how vibrant colors are worn on the extreme edges of age.

"I have lots of cameras that I actively shoot with but this was taken with a D810 and an old 180mm ƒ/2.8 (D, I think?). I don't use that lens too often but it worked well for this shot. Here is my website."

So what do you think? Do you agree these pictures "have to be" in color? Your comments welcome.

[To be continued....]

Mike
(Thanks to everyone who submitted to this Baker's
Dozen, and to all of you for your patience with me.)

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ed Hawco: "Wow! I could look at Jan Kwarnmark's portrait of Emma all day long. Without the blue comb it would be a gorgeous and classical portrait that would work in either color or B&W, but that crazy comb ads a shock of humor and whimsy, and the fact that it is blue, and completely outside of the color palette of the rest of the image reinforces the oddness and perfection of it. In B&W the comb might just be a distraction."

Mike adds: For the record, brown and blue was a recurring color motif in quite a number of pictures sent in by readers. Here are a few:

Photo by John Yuda

Photo by Neil Sutherland

Photo by Jim Palmer

...And that wasn't even all! There are a number of other good ones as well. Based on the popularity of these colors in this Baker's Dozen, I'd say, whenever you get a chance to take a brown-and-blue-themed picture, go ahead.

Terry Burnes: "Do these have to be in color? Only Sean's I think. I imported all of them to Photos, clicked Edit and simply chose one of Photos' B&W filters. Nothing more. I liked Jan's photo better in B&W. It became about the girl rather than the comb. The comb was still an interesting quirk about her, but I find her beauty more compelling than the oddity of the blue comb. Sean's subject just looks like a mess in B&W. Much more vibrant and interesting in color. So yes for Sean. I also liked Mike's photo better in B&W. Color actually seems like a distraction from the forms and light that the photograph seems to be about. As to David's, the B&W conversion seemed to bring more emphasis to the people. Yes, the juxtaposition of the painted and real clouds is interesting, but the people more so I think. All very good photographs, just not sure about needing to be in color. It's a tough assignment. After all, for decades all photographs were B&W and good photographers found a way to capture almost anything well."

Steve: "Ooh, these are going to be controversial! I have no credentials as an art critic, but do feel strongly that all four of these work much better in color than B&W. Here are my thoughts:

• First picture: In B&W, while the girl is still beautiful, the picture as a whole doesn't make sense any longer—the comb is a major thematic element but for no apparent reason. In color, you see the reason.
• Second picture: Seems like there's agreement on this one—hard to even tell what it is in B&W.
• Third picture: Works much better in color. In B&W, there isn't anything interesting about the green portions of the landscape. In color, it makes me feel like I want to walk right in.
• Fourth picture: this is the one that you can make the strongest case for in B&W, especially if it was converted in such a way that the shadows in the lower portion of the image weren't distracting and dark. Still, it seems to me that what's being said in this image is about way that the blue and white sky and clouds in the actual sky and in the mural match up so neatly. That doesn't really come through in B&W.

"I've been waiting for this feature with great anticipation—it has been well worth the wait!"

(Conversion by) Daniel Smith:

(Conversion by) Stephen Scharf:

[Conversions posted with Jan's permission —Ed.]

David Dyer-Bennet: "Even though they're 'the same photo,' and I find them both quite good, the two versions of Jan's portrait of Emma (photographer's, and Ricardo's unauthorized B&W conversion [in the Comments —Ed.]) aren't all that much the same photo. If that makes any sense. I think I'm preparing to argue that it belongs in this collection even though a fairly simple B&W conversion (same cropping, no really drastic tonal changes) is still IMHO excellent—because, while excellent, and having the same perspective and object outlines and all that, they're not really the same photo. What makes them good isn't the same things (well, except the actual good looks of the model). This may be taking sophistry a bit far, though."

David Comdico: "Not sure of the protocol, but Ricardo I don't think either of your B&W conversions looks better than the color versions. The question isn't if they look OK in B&W but if color brings something to it that is lost in B&W. Jan's portrait is not just about the blue comb but the various shades of brown that offset it. The color palette is very effective. For example, in the B&W, her eyes start to take over and her posture is less awkward. I also think the scrape on her arm better parallels the tree markings. The color version is humane whereas the conversion starts to border into fashion. For my photo, the B&W conversion drains it of whimsy."

Comments

[Speed]

Worth the wait.

I've never been a fan of critical (or critic) commentary on art of the type -- "this picture succeeds because … " It is interesting and valuable to see what people say about their own creations.

[JOHN GILLOOLY]

At long last - great selections so far!

Thanks.

John

[Chester Williams]

Mike...so sorry to say this but I tend to disagree with the first image. There is an incredible BW image lurking there which, I must confess, may rival the color version. Personally speaking, of course.

[Ricardo Silva Cordeiro]

Nice set of first photos and good to know we will see some more good picture in the future!

Regarding agreeing with having to be in color, I undoubtedly agree with the first two, not so with the last ones. I think the David Comdico photo might actually be more interesting and intriguing on B&W, I took the liberty of making a quick and crude conversion (hope the author doesn't mind):

I think it adds to the visual mystery of the image, further matching the top and bottom tones.

[Eolake]

Great pics there. Evocative.

[Michael Ferron]

Nice shots. Now the pigeons and the umm salad? Absolutely has to be color

[Stephen Scharf]

Of these photographs, I think that Jan Kwarnmark's is very strong, but personally, I think this wonderful portrait is even more beautiful in black and white. In fact, If it were my photograph, I would have submitted it your B&W Baker's Dozen.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

These are each excellent choices, Mike. Jan Kwarnmark's stark portrait of Emma really hit me right between the eyes as it loudly resonates with a project / current exhibition that I am very proud to co-sponsor.

Sean Geer's image and story are terrific. I love images that take a moment to decode, particularly color. At first I thought I was seeing the remains of a pigeon who had been run-over. (And, yes, this one really had to be color!)

Mike Newton's landscape also has to be color in order to transmit the lush quietude at its foundations. If you stare at it for a few seconds you'll swear you see those cloud shadows moving.

David Comdico's image is cute in color. But I do think that Ricardo makes a good case that it could be at least equally engaging presented in b&w. I think such determination would largely depend on the context of its presentation.

Well, Mike, you've at least posted a third of the project's images. (This will teach you to stumble into color you old monochromer!)

[Joe]

Oh, this is going to be fun!

Great shots -- and I couldn't agree more with Ed Hawco. That portrait is nearly perfect in every way.

[John Krumm]

Opinions are going to be all over the place with these. I agree that the only one that probably absolutely has to be in color is the sidewalk pigeon feast. But I appreciate the color in all of them. Love the blue comb in the first, though it's her expression and stance that really makes the photo for me. Fun stuff. I want part II.

[Anthony Shaughnessy]

The top two, yes, the bottom two, no. The girl with the comb would I'm sure be a good BW photo but regardless of how good it would be, it would still be just a portrait. In colour, the comb adds a "WTF?" factor. It adds to the girl's personality, makes her seem aggressive but in a good way, like punk rock. Like she's put the comb there to make you look, then when you do she can say "what are you looking at?". Absolutely fantastic.
The birds have to be in colour because it just doesn't do anything at all in B+W.
The bottom two might be better in colour, but it isn't essential and Ricardo Silva Cordeiro's BW conversion of the bottom one I actually prefer to the colour version.
Anthony

[Ricardo Silva Cordeiro]

Stephen Scharf comment about the possibility of the portrait working better in B&W made me think... So I made an experiment with a quick conversion (hoping again that the author doesn't mind):

And now I'm divided, I like them both.

[Dogman]

I think you made good choices. But, really, all are such good photos I can't say they absolutely HAVE TO be in color. While the blue comb is a great compositional contrast, Emma's eyes are the strength of Jan's photo. I think it would work well in B&W because of that. The others would work in B&W as well although the pigeon salad would lose impact (and maybe it should 'cause it is sorta over the top).

But, then again, I've become a B&W guy in the last couple of years. In my own pictures I often see color as a distraction rather than a necessary element these days.

[Kurt Kramer]

You said some months ago that many of the submissions overlooked the concept that (to be successful) the photo just HAD to be color. My bad.
That said, WOW! These are really good and I think that color is a strongly contributing factor of their excellence. Can't wait to see the remaining selections.

[Stan B.]

Honestly don't know about the portrait- the blue is equal parts evocative, and distracting. Would have to darken and adjust tonality of comb, unlike conversion shown.

[Steve Jacob]

As a heretic, I think one should justify making an image black and white, not the other way around. I see the world in colour, but very occasionally an image has the tonal depth and simplicity to be more successful in B&W.

That is a rare event for me. I prefer to exercise my cones than my rods.

I certainly would not convert any of these to black and white. They lose their uniqueness.

Good images too. I particularly like the first for its slight ambiguity, and the last for its serendipity.

[Clayton]

Photos like Jan Kwarnmark`s are why photography needed to be invented.

[Ed Hawco]

Continuing the trend of B&W conversion in the comments, I'm fascinated by Mike Newton's green rolling hills. It's essentially monochrome, with the "chrome" being green. So what if the chrome were black?

I find it works well both ways. Each is lush in its own way; original is lush with color while B&W is (or can be, with more care) lush with tone.

Oddly, I find the B&W one looks really nice when really small, and I imagine it would look really nice if really big (if converted with care).

[Stan B.]

Stephen Scharf's B&W conversion with a half grade higher contrast, and a kiss more burning in would do it fine!

[Stan B.]

That portrait is quite the conversation starter, to say the least- apologies for the # of comments. I've waffled and sat with it long enough, verdict finally in- (IMHO) the blue is just way too gaudy, gimmicky and ultimately distracting; it really does a disservice to the subject at hand. It's a great character adding detail... not the center of attraction. This is exactly why B&W was created!

[D. Hufford]

I like all of these and think they work very well as examples of good color photography.

In judging whether another person's photo is better suited for black and white or color, I tend to allow that if the photographer understands these two types of photography and he or she decided it was better suited for color, it is.

It is that person's photo and that person's interpretation. It is not my business to second guess.

[Mike Newton]

Thanks for all the interesting comments and opinions. It's very illuminating to read how different folk interpret the 4 images.

Interesting conversion, Ed, thanks for that. It actually works quite well, but as I noted above I think the relatively simple colour palatte in the colour version just helps provide a bit of separation between the various darker tones. Of course some further work in conversion might help with this.

For most of my work these days I've tended towards B&W. Quite a lot of the 'colour' images I've made in recent years now seem to work better, certainly in terms of being more cohesive bodies of work, in B&W.

It's probably just a phase...

[Omer]

Perhaps the rush to convert these color photographs to B&W suggests your–and apparently many others–preference for a monochromatic look. After all, these are monochromatic but have splashes of color, conveniently so.

Lets see kaleidoscope color photographs that owe little to the black & white hegemony.

PS Yes, the original photographs are really good.

[Jim A]

I think Anthony's on to something with his comment on the combs color revealing a bit of the girl's personality.

As a viewer I think I prefer the B&W version of Emma but the color version respects the look Emma wishes to project and so is more accurate. As Mike said in his Moore link, more information is good.

Perhaps color and B&W versions of Emma should hang side by side.

[James Bullard]

I'm going to be contrarian. I think all four of them could be made to work as well in B&W as color with the possible exception of the pigeons. I grant that they would have a different feel and that is part of my reasoning, especially in the case of "Emma". As an old-time B&W photographer who has made a lot of portraits, I like that B&W can downplay the distractions of brightly colored clothing, background and props and zero in on the person's 'presence'. I really like the second B&W conversion of "Emma". I feel like the more harshly toned ones intrude on her presence. JMO

[Animesh Ray]

Awesome choices!

[Stephen Scharf]

Some really great and insightful commentary by the TOP community.

@Stan B: Spoken like a true B&W printer! ;-) Your comments were in terms of paper grades and burn-in; I thought of it in terms histogram EV and micro-contrast. While I spent my fair share of time in darkrooms, digital just gives you so much more control over the entire tonal range. I used Skylum's Tonality CK to do this conversion to try to create a "glow" that highlights Emma's beauty and personality.

For me, Jan's superb portrait of Emma exemplifies the key points of portraiture that Kevin Mullins recently discussed in his recent (and excellent) YouTube video Finding Emotion in Photography: light, composition and emotion.

"I'd say, whenever you get a chance to take a brown-and-blue-themed picture, go ahead"-Mike

Okayyy, here you go... ;-)

[Bill Wheeler]

Photographs one and two answer the assignment; photographs three and four, less so. The blue comb in an otherwise monochromatic image, the very blues's of the comb, makes the image. The success of the photograph depends on the blue comb. Take away the color and you take away the uniqueness of the photograph. Same goes for the pigeons and salad. Gotta be color.

[Henning Wulff]

A good friend and long time photographer has said "If you photograph a person in colour, you photograph their clothes ('or accessories' - my addition in this case) but if you photograph a person in B&W, you photograph their soul". I generally agree with this, but in the case of 'Emma' a lot of her soul comes through because of the colour.

As others have said, the pigeon salad really needs to be in colour but in any case leaves me nonplussed.

The last two could be in B&W or colour, but the variation in my response to the two versions is less than that of the two versions of Emma, without taking the different conversions into account.

Excellent choices, Mike.

[Perceptiveligh]

Michael Newtons beautiful work is worthy of a stamp of approval from Michael Kenna both lovely, both elegant in their simplicity and yet different.
Michael a wonderful choice
Cheers
Michael

[Rick Denney]

When I am using black and white film, I tend to make a black and white photo that stands on its own in monochrome. When I'm using color film, only a handful of times have I come across a photo that compels me to attempt a conversion to black and white. Here is one such:

(Made on Fuji 160C 4x5 film, but it just worked better in black and white.)

I have on a number of occasions wished I had color film when I had black and white--that conversion is a little more challenging. "This photo would have worked in color, maybe." Or, maybe not.

But trying to justify doing one versus the other? That justification was already made when I put the film in the camera. The trick then becomes to find the photo that takes advantage of the medium at hand. Granted, there are times when I imagine that my digital camera has black and white film in it and go from there, but even that happens rarely.