5 ms·

Do I see that right that the first color picture is from 1969 on that whole list of exhibitions [1]? Even tough the color photography is available to anybody s

Do I see that right that the first color picture is from 1969 on that whole list of exhibitions [1]? Even tough the color photography is available to anybody since the early 1900s [2]? Is there a reason for that? Is it a choice of art? [1] https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1918?locale=en https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1918?locale=en [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_photography_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_photography_techno...

danso 10y ago
I didn't live during that period of time, but I wouldn't be surprised if the field had some recalcitrance for cultural reasons -- think of all the classic photography that is in black and white. B/W may have started as a technical limitation but it's something that could have become inextricably associated with "classic photography". On NPR today, they were interviewing the latest Sulzberger to take a leadership role at the New York Times (the Sulzbergers own the paper), and when asked about how the NYT will adapt to the technical changes, he talked about how even in his lifetime (he's only 35ish), the NYT heavily debated having color photos on its front page because it was unseemly (the first color front page photo was 1997 for the Gray Lady) [1] From an artistic perspective, B/W photography absolutely has advantages from a dramatic perspective. Think of how we describe clear-cut situations as being black-and-white. In certain situations, the actual color in a scene can be extremely distracting and cut away from the photo's intended center. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Style
- douche 10y ago
  Some of the early color photography is pretty stunning. I was watching a documentary on color photographs from WW1 using the Autochrome Lumière process the other day, and it was just incredible - it's hard to think of that era outside the black-and-whites and sepias that we usually see. Some examples from a Time piece[1] [1] http://time.com/3803957/rare-color-photographs-from-the-trenches-of-world-war-i/ http://time.com/3803957/rare-color-photographs-from-the-tren...
bendykstra 10y ago
It wasn't until 1983 that half of American daily newspapers included some color[1]. It was probably not economical before that time to print the catalogs in color. And if you're not going to print them in color, it doesn't make sense to capture the images in color either. 1. https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-did-newspapers-start-printing-in-color https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-did-newspapers-start-prin...
teddyh 10y ago
It might have something to do with that 1969 was around the time where TV started to broadcast in color.
jonlucc 10y ago
Like the others here, I'm not sure. My guess would be something to do with the archival requirements for museums.
bbctol 10y ago
Color phtography was hardly easily available from the early 1900s. It would be theoretically possible for them to have shot in color, but it would have been expensive, inconvenient, and much harder to reproduce; most images were shot in black and white well through the 60s, and people were used to the format. It's like asking why they didn't preserve all their galleries in 3D VR starting from the 2000s; it would have been possible, but not worth it.
notgood 10y ago
If you look for 60s photos you quickly realize most of them are black and white, check for yourself: https://www.google.com.co/search?q=60s+photos https://www.google.com.co/search?q=60s+photos Color cameras only became common at the end of the 60s and beginning of the 70s
- ghaff 10y ago
  >Color cameras only became common at the end of the 60s and beginning of the 70s Huh? What is a "color camera"? Kodachrome film was invented in the 1930s. It wasn't immediately commonplace and, yes, we still tend to think of the 40s and 50s largely in monochrome. But color slides were certainly common by the 60s. What was true (and what you're seeing) is that news photo reproduction for print was primarily B&W. Therefore, most news and documentary photography was still done in B&W even after color was readily available for consumers.

danso 10y ago

I didn't live during that period of time, but I wouldn't be surprised if the field had some recalcitrance for cultural reasons -- think of all the classic photography that is in black and white. B/W may have started as a technical limitation but it's something that could have become inextricably associated with "classic photography". On NPR today, they were interviewing the latest Sulzberger to take a leadership role at the New York Times (the Sulzbergers own the paper), and when asked about how the NYT will adapt to the technical changes, he talked about how even in his lifetime (he's only 35ish), the NYT heavily debated having color photos on its front page because it was unseemly (the first color front page photo was 1997 for the Gray Lady) [1] From an artistic perspective, B/W photography absolutely has advantages from a dramatic perspective. Think of how we describe clear-cut situations as being black-and-white. In certain situations, the actual color in a scene can be extremely distracting and cut away from the photo's intended center. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Style

douche 10y ago
Some of the early color photography is pretty stunning. I was watching a documentary on color photographs from WW1 using the Autochrome Lumière process the other day, and it was just incredible - it's hard to think of that era outside the black-and-whites and sepias that we usually see. Some examples from a Time piece[1] [1] http://time.com/3803957/rare-color-photographs-from-the-trenches-of-world-war-i/ http://time.com/3803957/rare-color-photographs-from-the-tren...

bendykstra 10y ago

It wasn't until 1983 that half of American daily newspapers included some color[1]. It was probably not economical before that time to print the catalogs in color. And if you're not going to print them in color, it doesn't make sense to capture the images in color either. 1. https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-did-newspapers-start-printing-in-color https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-did-newspapers-start-prin...

teddyh 10y ago

It might have something to do with that 1969 was around the time where TV started to broadcast in color.

jonlucc 10y ago

Like the others here, I'm not sure. My guess would be something to do with the archival requirements for museums.

bbctol 10y ago

Color phtography was hardly easily available from the early 1900s. It would be theoretically possible for them to have shot in color, but it would have been expensive, inconvenient, and much harder to reproduce; most images were shot in black and white well through the 60s, and people were used to the format. It's like asking why they didn't preserve all their galleries in 3D VR starting from the 2000s; it would have been possible, but not worth it.

notgood 10y ago

If you look for 60s photos you quickly realize most of them are black and white, check for yourself: https://www.google.com.co/search?q=60s+photos https://www.google.com.co/search?q=60s+photos Color cameras only became common at the end of the 60s and beginning of the 70s

ghaff 10y ago
>Color cameras only became common at the end of the 60s and beginning of the 70s Huh? What is a "color camera"? Kodachrome film was invented in the 1930s. It wasn't immediately commonplace and, yes, we still tend to think of the 40s and 50s largely in monochrome. But color slides were certainly common by the 60s. What was true (and what you're seeing) is that news photo reproduction for print was primarily B&W. Therefore, most news and documentary photography was still done in B&W even after color was readily available for consumers.