Architectural Photography: Black and White, or Color?

see more at www.LucasDul.com

I must say that I've been eager to talk about this for a long time.  There are different "factions" within photography, and I have dabbled strongly in nearly all of them.  Architectural, Portraiture, Street Photography, Product shoots...etc.  I haven't done weddings or any event work, but I wouldn't cross it off the list.  Another thing I want to preface this with is the fact that I much prefer medium format for architectural shots than 35mm.  Square format in particular gives very nice symmetry which compliments the subject matter very well.  It's not to say that 35mm can't or shouldn't be used, or not to say that I make it a rule not to, it's simply a preference.  As always, the camera you have is better than the one you don't.

35mm can work very nicely

Nikon F3 - Ektar 100 (+2)

My choice for medium format is the Hasselblad V series.  It's much more ergonomic for me than a TLR, it's more compact than a Mamiya RZ/RB, and it looks a lot cooler than the Pentax 67.  Of the great medium format cameras, and of square format cameras, I like it the most.  The benefit of shooting with the Hasselblad is the ability to swap film backs mid-roll.  With two backs, one can load two different ISO speeds, or two different film stocks, insert the darkslide and switch between the two at will.  This feature, in addition to the insane resolution, is part of what makes the Hasselblad system so desirable among professional photographers.  Indeed, even in the age of digital cameras, the V series still finds its way into weddings and portrait shoots.  For a long time, one of my film backs has been broken, 3 months in fact.  I had it repaired at the Central Camera Company on Wabash in Chicago.  They did good work on it, and it was much cheaper than sending it off to Hasselblad USA.  Of course the first thing I did when I got it back was to load it with HP5 and go shoot.  I tend to prefer loading two stocks with similar ISO speeds, such as Ektar 100 and Acros 100, or Portra 400 and HP5.  It helps eliminate confusion when metering, as I'm more focused on the shot, then the ISO change.  When I took these shots however, I had Portra 160 and HP5, almost a two stop difference which I disregarded entirely.  

Civic Opera House - Portra 160

Outside the Merchandise Mart Overlooking the River

HP5

The reason I prefer black and white over color for architecture mainly stems from an aesthetic point of view, and also why I tend to prefer medium format.  Black and white allows the focus to fall mainly on the structure of the subject, like the lines and the facets.  Color on the other hand, pulls the viewer's attention towards the color palate of the image.  Color influences many things for people, and it is an additional distraction that is usually unnecessary when looking at architecture.  That's not to say there aren't situations where color isn't helpful to the composition, it just isn't always ideal.  This leads to the medium format vs. full frame debate.  Black and white on film tends to have a denser grain than color.  The grain is less apparent on larger formats because the image isn't being blown up as much.  In digital black and white, you sacrifice the organic nature of the image for low noise, sharp photographs.  I prefer film, and when shooting a film with a known grain structure it's best to shoot larger formats for smoother results.

Both these shots were taken on HP5 at the Willis Tower.  The lower one is a little hazy from shooting through double pane dirty glass.  Both photos still show some grain, but being three times larger than full frame, one could say that it is three times less pronounced.  

The main goal of architecture is much more different from other art forms.  The focus is more on the form rather than the colors.  Black and white allows the eye to naturally fall on the physical elements rather than the colors, which could be influenced by a variety of things including weather.

The two color shots here are taken on Portra 160, my first time with the stock.  I switched backs halfway through up there, and got two good shots on both.  The color images show a lot less grain than the black and white, it is almost non-existent.  I am much more drawn to the black and white images, but I think both came out nice.

And to wrap things up, I have a colored interior photo of Union Station. This shot in particular I felt was nice in color, though it would also have been nice not.  The thing about color is it can always be converted to black and white in post processing if need be.  I mainly shoot black and white because I like to retain the ability to projection print if I wish.

I don't really have thoughts on Portra 160.  I like it a little better than 400, but Ektar remains my favorite color stock.