|
In the beginning there was black and white, and the day was good. Then, in the 1930's there came color [Kodachrome is vintage 1935.] Color print film took the lead in the amateur marketplace beginning in the 1970's. It all had to do with costs. Snapshots, One-Hour Labs and all that stuff. Black and white photography is making a comeback, primarily because many folks have found it more satisfying "creatively." And, now, one can get the new chromagenic films developed usng C-41 chemistry in One-Hour Labs. Color is fairly easy because you can see what you're trying to photograph. B&W requires a lot of visualization. From my perspective, there's a lot more to consider in B&W - especially in assuring you get the right exposure to capture shadows versus highlights, etc., etc. Generally, B&W still affords the amateur [and, of course, the professional] the opportunity to develop his own prints in a home [wet] darkroom. This can be a very rewarding experience. Generally, color developing and printing at home is more expensive. There is no difference; that is, neither is better than the other - speaking from a general viewpoint. Each photographer must determine for himself what he cares to shoot and what film to use. The advent of digital photography muddies the water. I haven't seen the amateur's B&W computer prints that equal those from the wet darkroom. There are some really great things that can be done via unique papers and the computer; however, these tools may be cost prohibitive for the amateur.
December 13, 2004
|
