On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:33 PM, John Francis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maybe it's because we actually see in colour, and it seems > unnecessarily restrictive to eliminate that information? > Even, possibly, counter-productive; when the absence of > colour becomes the principle feature of the image, it > takes attention away from the actual subject matter. > > I find the B&W purists about as convincing as any other zealots. > If they choose to value things that way, so be it. But don't try > to persuade me that theirs is the one true way. And attempting > to belittle a different choice by intimating that anyone who > appreciates colour photographs is an ignoramus seduced by over- > saturated REDS is the sort of strawman argument I would expect to > hear from someone who can't come up with anything more convincing.
For the record, my beef with the photo I showed is that I thought it was originally B&W and that it had been colourized by some charlatan (who then forged a signature). It seems that I was wrong, and that it was a staged photo, originally in colour. I'm disappointed to hear that, but c'est la vie... I prefer B&W for some work, but as anyone who saw the nature photos I took last year (and will soon be taking again with the advent of spring), some things ~need~ to be in colour. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
