Hi, Collin, Well, for one, it's what I'm used to. When I started taking photos as a teenager, b&w was far cheaper to buy and process than colour. Over the years, I've stuck with what I feel I know best.
I love what can be done with colour, but for me, colours sometimes detract from the "essence" of a photo. If one doesn't have the "crutch" of pretty colours, one must concentrate on composition, texture, form, pattern. I suppose that the type of photography that I do - or rather that I ~don't~ do, is part of it, too. I don't take much nature, macro, landscape and seascape - places where colour often abounds. It seems that there's not much colour in the city, where I take most of my photos - or rather, colour isn't essential to capturing the cityscape. When growing up, the photos that impressed me the most were b&w, so I suppose that had an effect on me as well. All of that being said, I take most of my family snaps in colour, and about 1/2 of my vacation snaps in colour as well. But my "serious" stuff (serious to me, at least) is about 90% b&w. regards, frank Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > It was stated by someone yesterday that b&w > is nice for the "abstract" character it provides. > > I use b&w for the sense of texture it provides. > http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzoQwn-p13184249 > http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzohTn-p13184249 > (which is why I also like larger formats for color) > > Why do you use b&w? -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
