In a message dated 1/13/2003 5:42:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> And.. What I am saying is exactly the same thing (regarding B&W). What I am > also saying is that Color prints do not invite the eye to look closer. B&W, > 35mm or larger) deliver a crisper image than Color, format > for format. Well, maybe a war *is* started. I am no photography expert -- far from it. But I find B&W boring. Put some color photos next to B&W photos and my eye will skip right over the B&W to the color. It reminds me too much of the B&W TV I grew up with. And everyone on the street was estactic when they finally got a color TV! Our family certainly was, because we got ours later than some. I instantly found TV more interesting (not necessarily a good thing as a child, but you get the idea). Yes, I can see why people like B&W photos and like using B&W film -- for the "abstraction" -- but my vision isn't B&W and never has been, so they always look like they are lacking something to me. In newspapers and books that don't print a lot of color, okay. But even that has changed over time. Also photographs can be "abstracted" by what they include/exclude in/from the frame; it simply does not REQUIRE the subtraction of color. Subtract a lot of background clutter instead or focus in closer for abstraction. That all said -- phooey to any broad generalizations re photography. It really depends on the picture. Backing up somewhat out of fear of retaliation -- my experience is very limited, so I admit have not cultivated a palate for B&W photographs. That is not to suggest I will someday, but I realize that they may be an acquired taste. So maybe no war after all. As long as all the B&W fans don't beat up on me. Hey, to each his own. If everyone liked the same thing it would be one boring world. Doe aka Marnie ;-)
