In a message dated 1/14/2003 5:27:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> IF you are photographing something to show what it means, the colors > that also show in the picture are random. If, on the other hand, you are > looking for color and that's why you shoot the picture, then the meaning is > random. Don't agree with that, but, hey, you're a B&W guy. ;-) Okay, this is a trivialized example as you said... > I'll give you a trivialized example just for illustration purposes. Say > you're shooting a bunch of kids. They find a dead bird. As they look at it, > you notice one child has a disturbed, thoughtful expression on his face. > Reacting to that, you take a picture of him. But he is also wearing a garish > puce shirt. In color, your viewer might react by thinking, "wow, lookit that > awful puce!" In black-and-white, they look at the kid's expression. > > Conversely, if you are shooting color film, you tend to look for colors. So > shooting that same group of kids, you might notice the puce shirt and go > after that. And your picture ends up being of a puce shirt and may not even > include the kid's face. Not an experienced photographer here, but I think one could: 1. Focus on the kids' faces. 2. Use shallow depth of field that blurs out the puce. 3. Use a type of film that has a pale palette -- one good for portraits. 4. Shoot at the kids' waist level, focusing upward. 6. Shoot down focusing on the dead bird. No argument that color presents challenges. Hehehehe. [snip] > At > the artistic level, I think people are wise to take a stand > based on their > own gut reactions and stick to one or the other. > > --Mike Right. You like TomatOES, I like TomAtoes... Doe aka Marnie ;-)
