My Take on 'Emma'

Jan Kwarnmark, Emma

I've added quite a bit of new material to the "It Must Be Color Part I" post, so you might want to catch up with that if you haven't already. Part II will be along on Monday.

I thought I should mention where I come down in the debate over Jan Kwarnmark's "Emma." Let me acknowledge that my opinion isn't necessarily more valid than anyone else's just because I have the "bully pulpit"*.

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

Even though they're 'the same photo,' and I find them both quite good, the two versions of Jan's portrait of Emma [color and B&W] aren't...the same photo.

Bingo.

Steve says:

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.

I agree with this. (Jan K. doesn't, just for the record.)

But...

D. Hufford says:

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.

...And of course D. Hufford is right as rain as well. Except that anyone is allowed to second-guess, of course, because we're humans and humans tend to do that a lot. Especially artists do that a lot, because we're used to having control over our own work and applying our aesthetic judgements to that, so it's tempting to apply it to the work of others as well, especially when we think others have made a misstep. But his comment emphasizes that there's no right and wrong in matters of interpretation—there's only what the creator of the work wanted, and then there's your own estimation of whether his or her choice works (succeeds) or not.

Anyway, I guess this is obvious since I chose "Emma" for a feature called "it must be color," but I think, well, it must be color. Actually, Jan's photo of Emma, which he sent me for a different reason, was what inspired this particular "Baker's Dozen" in the first place. I thought, wow, if ever there was a picture that had to be in color, that is it.

...Even though B&W is my first love, and even though I'm  on record as having wished that John Moore's famous picture of Mary McHugh had been taken in B&W.  

And (back to "Emma"), nobody even remarked upon the lovely little tidbit of orange (and yellow and green) in the lower right-hand corner! I particularly like that.

Mike

UPDATE: ...And Ben said:

I’d argue that it being a good picture in B&W is part of what makes it work in color. Because you have her expression, along with the light, the shadow, the composition, the tonality...this is the foundation of the image.

I agree with that, too. In fact I think that often (not "always") a good clue as to whether a color picture is good is to see if it's also a good picture in B&W. If it's not, then it probably depends (or "might depend," if you prefer) too much on color for its appeal. [See Ben's Featured Comment below.]

*"A public office or position of authority that provides its occupant with an outstanding opportunity to speak out on any issue. Early 20th century: apparently originally used by President Theodore Roosevelt explaining his personal view of the presidency." (Dictionary.com via Google)

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:

Mark Kinsman: "While I did not contribute a comment in the original post of Emma, it is that little bit of orange in the lower right corner, complementing the blue comb, that make it a Must Be Color photo, in my opinion."

James Bullard: "The fact that the blue comb and the 'tidbit of orange" in the corner pull the viewer's eye away from the face is exactly why I feel it works better in B&W. The subject is Emma, not the comb and whatever the other bits of color are. But then, I'm old school."

Randall Teasley: "When I look at Emma in color I see Emma first and then the comb. In black and white I see the comb first and it feels distracting. I'm really enjoying these Bakers Dozen posts. I feel like I'm attending a master class in photography."

Ben: "I agree 100% with Mike on this. Sure, in B&W it’s a nice portait, but in color it’s enough more to make all the difference. I’d argue that it being a good picture in B&W is part of what makes it work in color. Because you have her expression, along with the light, the shadow, the composition, the tonality... this is the foundation of the image. Without all of this, the comb would be much less effective. But with it, that fantastic interruption of blue has something to stand on, and we have a reason to keep looking."

Comments

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Huh, I hadn't even noticed the orange and other bright colors at lower right. Now that I do, I notice a bit of orange (or brown or yellow; that family) turning up on the handle of the comb, too, though a bit small to be a major compositional element I guess. (Huh; Firefox doesn't think "compositional" is a word.)

[John Camp]

I really like Stephen Scharf's conversion of Emma. The problem (IMHO) in the color version is that her eyes and the comb are at war with each other. I can see the argument (mentioned by another poster) that the comb adds an idea to her personality, but her essential personality resides in her stance, her dress, her eyes and her general visage. (And the comb adds an idea to her personality even in B&W.)

I suspect that the best portraits go straight to the most essential parts of a personality, which wouldn't include a comb. So I don't think of the color version as a portrait at all; it's more of an artistic construction, one in which there is a struggle between her eyes/stance and the comb. I think Picasso would have chosen the color version; Degas would have gone for the B&W.

She is certainly a striking young woman.

[Ernie Van Veen]

Ah ha! I was thinking exactly along these lines for the last couple of days, but wondering how to express it in a comment. So, thanks, there endeth the lesson.

[John Krumm]

The thing about the “war” for attention between the comb and her face is that the comb loses big time after briefly catching the eye. More like a brief skirmish than a war. So it becomes a sort of character detail, not a distraction, maybe something like a framing element. In black and white it’s an artifact.

[Brian Stewart]

I comment as someone who nearly always prints and exhibits in B&W, but like others, occasionally I find that there is an image which needs be in colour. So I have given this a little thought. What do we mean when we say that an image must be in colour? In my experience there are two alternative possible meanings: (i) that the image is flat and boring in B&W, there's insufficiency tonal range and variation; or (ii) colour adds something extra to the image that you just can't replicate in even a very good B&W rendition.

The first possible meaning is a reasonably objective one. The image either works in B&W or it doesn't, although the skill of the person doing the B&W conversion obviously has an impact. I do worry a little about this category, as images that rely solely on colour for their interest often lack underlying appeal. I haven't tried to do any unauthorised conversions, but I suspect that at least two of your initial four baker's dozen images would meet this definition.

But not Emma by Jan Kwarnmark - an excellent image in the "I wish I had taken that" category. I'm pretty confident that I could create an equally compelling B&W rendition (but I haven't seen a sufficiently compelling one so far). But it would be a different image.

This is why my second possible definition is subjective. If both colour and B&W definitions are strong images, as can happen, to say that the image must be in colour is to say that the colour adds a level of interest that you simply can't replicate in monochrome. The image was composed in colour and not just shot in colour.

It probably also says something about what you think the subject should be. In the case of Emma, you think the comb should be as much the subject as she is, whereas those who prefer B&W prefer Emma as the subject, and relegate the comb to a supporting role.

Mike - I'd be interested to know which if either of these definitions you had in mind for this dozen.

[Brian, Thanks for your thoughts.

I was already accused of "sandbagging" when I wrote this post about the process:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/04/editing-it-must-be-color.html

So I think I shouldn't write any further about it. I've got to have Part II ready for tomorrow or there might be angry mobs. --Mike]

[Brian Stewart]

Since this is a topic dear to my heart, I will allow myself the rare indulgence of a second comment. When I said "I do worry a little about this category, as images that rely solely on colour for their interest often lack underlying appeal", I was trying to say the same thing as Ben when he said "I’d argue that it being a good picture in B&W is part of what makes it work in color. Because you have her expression, along with the light, the shadow, the composition, the tonality... this is the foundation of the image". A really good image should be good in either genre. If it only works well in colour, something is lacking.

The other comment worth adding is initial vs enduring appeal. It would be hard to resist doing Emma as colour image because that blue comb against the warm tones is so arresting. But I wonder if the impact of that would wear off, whereas the B&W image would be one of those that would continue to offer interest over time, in much the same way as Migrant Mother. Didn't you write about this at some stage, Mike?

[Ken Tanaka]

Plenty of good thoughtful conversation on this first set of images, and particularly of Jan’s “Emma”. Some very good b&w conversions offer interesting aesthetic arguments.

But the “it must be color” theme should run much deeper that simple aesthetics. Of course this is Mike’s game and his court, so he sets the rules. But, most fundamentally, color represents information. Removing that information is, to me, no different than any other post-capture manipulation one might make in the interest of personal tastes or dogma. Sometimes color information doesn’t add to an image’s value or, worse, distracts from its message (just like an unwanted pole, garbage can, etc.).

Often, however, a b&w conversion throws-out the most essential elements of an image’s life. That would be the case with “Emma”. That blue comb might be distracting to the casual eye but it should be distracting. It probably represents a fundamental part of this lovely young lady’s identity and her spirit. She may have lived her entire life in abject poverty, she may be unwashed and her clothes old and soiled. But that bright blue comb front-and-center on that slightly tilted head with its proud gaze tells us that her spirit’s intact. The colors here are utterly fundamental to the image’s communication.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Ken Tanaka has useful things to say about the Emma portrait there (that is, useful things that I hadn't already thought of). I'd summarize it by saying that I hadn't looked deeply enough at what the photo is saying, and when you do, the importance of the color becomes much clearer. I think the man has a point!

[Kenneth Tanaka]

As a (very) late postscript on the discussion of "Emma", I've come across a Ghanaian-American photographic artist, Michael Amofah, who intentionally applies such strong visual symbolism as the afro-comb in his staged work.