Lucy Melford: Black and White

Some years ago Leica started a trend, offering a version of each successive M-Series rangefinder camera that could take pictures only in monochrome. They are no longer the only manufacturer to market such cameras. Black and White is becoming mainstream again.

Originally B&W was of course the only way to take pictures, and despite early experiments in colour film, it remained the chief way until 1960 or so - certainly if one did one's own developing and printing at home. And until that date, reproductions of colour photos in books and magazines were something special. Then gradually colour became commonplace everywhere, and B&W photography morphed into a branch of pictorial art. I may be wrong, but I think its final eclipse as a major medium coincided with the arrival of colour TV in 1969. Kodak and Ilford continued to support the ongoing development of new B&W emulsions that gave ever sharper and subtler renditions (remember the introduction of Kodak T-Max in the 1980s and Ilford Delta in the 1990s?), but the main market was in colour film, and the prime thrust for an entire range of manufacturers was on perfecting their colour products.

Then digital photography arrived and, in the space of only half a dozen years, overtook film and eventually drove even Kodak to the wall. It didn't take long for digital technology to surpass the old chemical method of capturing an image, although it remained true that a good film image had 'something' about it - a certain look - that was to many superior to the unnaturally sharp digital rendition. And that remains the case. Digital photography is by now capable of producing super-detailed pictures in almost any circumstances, which was never true of film photography. And the thing is, most recent smartphones can provide a taste of that. Indeed, the market for 'proper' cameras - and of course their lenses and other supporting accessories - has shrunk drastically. Hence the closure of most High Street photo dealers, and the shift to online business. Hence the concentration on expensive but pro-standard equipment, to maintain an adequate revenue stream with decent profits.

New models supersede old ones very quickly, as it is essential to get customers to upgrade as often as possible. And the psychology employed is correct. An awful lot of amateur photographers drool over online photo news and reviews and persuade themselves that they 'must have' the latest and best equipment in order to feel 'professional' - which in turn may, they hope, enable them to take better pictures. Or at least give them the appearance of being pros with the right kit.

Of course that is not true. Great kit does not turn a person with no talent into a master. All you need is the right tool for the particular job in hand, and the personal skill and imagination to turn out something arresting.

It's only my own opinion, but I think one should be realistic and honest about what kind of pictures one ever takes, and get hold of a camera that suits that limited purpose. It's a waste of money to buy stuff that will never be needed, no matter how sexy it might be. And an older camera, so long as it's capable enough, can be as good for that as the latest wonder-machine.

This said, there are plenty of people around - men mostly, I'm thinking - who believe that impressive-looking and, above all, expensive equipment makes an important statement about their commitment to photographic excellence, and by extension their worth as human beings. Just as there are those who must have large and powerful cars to express their personal value and importance. Ownership is all; practical usage is very secondary. I don't mock serious collectors, if they have the cash to indulge themselves. But I am sorry for lesser mortals who spend money on a dream, spurred on by the hype churned up for every new product. Unless genuinely need-driven, that money could be better spent.

In my own case, I have put together a sufficient kit. I can't justify further purchases, at least not for a long while, or unless circumstances force me to replace something lost or damaged. For the next few years I intend to hone my skills, such as they are, on what I have got.

Returning to the opening of this post, the appeal of (very expensive) monochrome-only digital cameras is that the light coming in through the lens and onto the sensor does not have to pass through the usual array of filters that analyse the colour-components of the light. It goes straight in. Nor is there a filter to smooth out any of the jagged edges associated with cameras with only a small number of megapixels: it isn't needed, as the megapixel count on these monochrome-only cameras is so high.

The result is astonishing sharpness, and a full range of grey tones from the blackest black to the whitest white, and everything in between. These are digital pictures with a very special look - the ultimate in high definition. It's no mystery at all why professional-level photographers want that look. Especially those who incline to fine art photography, or dramatic documentary pictures.

Leica, as I say, started the current trend for offering monochrome-only cameras. And such has been the resurgence of B&W photography, I would say that in 2023 the B&W man or woman commands greater respect and accolade that those still working in colour. B&W is fashionable; but it also has a certain 'purity' about it. Need I also add that it takes a higher level of skill to produce stunning B&W images, compared to colour? One reason why I won't personally be buying one of these specialist monochrome-only cameras, even second-hand, is that I haven't the skill, and am never likely to develop it.

That said, I do occasionally take B&W shots when I feel the scene or subject in front of me would look good in monochrome. I have two 'User Profiles' set up on LXV, one for colour shots, one for B&W, and it isn't too much trouble to switch between them. The profile for B&W has extra contrast. I could of course take everything in colour, and then select shots for conversion to B&W when post-processing. The end result would be the same, or could be made so. But the world looks different if you compose the picture in B&W mode, and I think the most successful B&W pictures are generally those that looked great on the screen before actually taking the shot.

How many of that kind of 'composed and taken in B&W mode, and not converted later from colour' pictures do I take? Not many! I can't put an exact figure on it. If the shot doesn't work, I discard it. I don't know how many have been deleted. I do know how many have made it into my 'Most Important Photos' collection - which contains about a fifth of all my pictures - during the last twelve months. Just 71 pictures. And I do know how many pictures I've taken in the last twelve months: 23,031 with LXV, my Leica X Vario; 787 with the little Leica D-Lux 4; and 996 with Prudence, my Samsung Galaxy S20+ smartphone - a total of 24,814 shots.

71 B&W pictures saved (and considered decent) compared to 24,814 taken altogether is hardly worth working out as a percentage. Obviously, only a tiny part of my output is purely B&W. I'm surprised it's not more. Perhaps it should be!

Few of those 71 are exhibition-quality shots. I'm easily satisfied. But let's look at some of them, to see what scenes or subjects made me set up B&W mode and press the shutter button.

Clearly strong shapes, strong lines, strong shadows and various light-effects make me think on B&W lines.

Stone is a natural subject for B&W!

I've only taken the rare B&W shot of myself, and nothing of my friends.

Lately I've been much drawn to taking moody pictures of the sun and passing clouds. And in general, I think I've been leaving the shadows dark, to maximise contrast. The reader will have to be the judge as to whether that has led to photos with more punch.

Although I do like the effects that B&W pictures bring out - the accentuation of shape and texture for instance - I still prefer colour photographs. Here are some taken on the South Downs, close by to the last four of the B&W pictures above, and on the same occasion.

I prefer colour because not only is it a richer, more refreshing, stimulation for the eye, it conveys so much extra information about what is in the picture. If you are history-minded and want to take record shots of places you have been to, or things that you saw, then a colour photo is better. I value the colour photos I took with slide film (Kodachrome) in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. They bring back those scenes so vividly. I don't think B&W would have been the right choice, even if it would had been the more 'artistic' medium.

When looking for pictures to illustrate this post I came across some pictures that appeared to have been taken in B&W, but in fact had been taken in colour. But such was the stark lighting, or the lack of any strong colour in the shot, that some of them are virtually monochrome. Pictures like this: