My ideas on color are based on much thought of others and then on what I have found works for me. This is my current general overview of color. First accuracy is an academic delusion since color is contextually interpreted. Further, color is often not needed and even distracts from what is better in the picture. so here goes with my very approximate guide. There are however no laws in this!
B&W is far more challenging: since there is an illustrious body of work against which B&W is considered. Color is wonderful. I use it for most of my photography. However, working with B&W is for spacial projects where form, line, texture, shadow and dimensionality build a sense of presence and character hardly ever achieved when color distracts.
Where color does not do so well: Garishness and superficiality is most obvious with synthetic hues not found in nature. They more easily become garish caricatures of the marketing esthetics of the post industrial and modern world. Nevertheless, when, color is just that, and for just titillation and the "Wow!" factor, then it has its place.
Where color excels:
a) When color is of a flower or an aspen stand or gazelle, that is a perfect celebration of nature. That, IMHO and b) surrealistic or c) abstracts is where color best belongs, at least to my consideration.
If you think about these distinctions for use of color, then you might agree.
and yes, you are correct, the lady might well have looked great in color too. I'm just appreciating the B&W form which for character and mood seems fitting.
Well, i think this discussion about B&W and colour is very interesting and significative.
It's not easy to define B&W : too often, people today consider B&W as a rescue solution when their color digital pictures are too noisy or bad exposed. It is a bad way to consider B&W, which is seen as a technical solution to DSLR typical problems of sensibility and noise.
Other people consider that B&W is the past. In their mind, B&W was good when it was the only way to do but since we have color films it became superfluous. B&W is old and is not reality.
So, what is B&W today ?
I think it is now another way to consider photography, a parallel but different way.
B&W is a choice, while we could use color film instead.
It gives abstraction to the picture. As Asher previously noticed, matter, textures, lines and shapes become the main subject. You can do that with color, it's true. But B&W is the pure way to explore shapes and lights. It is a very spiritual approach of pictures : everything boils down to light and shadows, lines and textures... Subject tends to become universal and timeless.
If i had to make a comparison, i would say that color photography looks to painting while B&W photography is closer to sculpture. Especially when you work about grainy renderings.
Here are some works of mine :
1. Abstract :
2. Saint Lazare station in Paris :
3. Sculpture in Orsay Museum :
4. People in Orsay Museum :
