why are some films shot in colour and some in B/W?

[Brightstar]

Between 1950 and 1965 some films where shot in black and white and some in colour . For example a film made in 1955 is made in colour and the next one in b/w was colour film expensive back then?

[Rhino73]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Between 1950 and 1965 some films where shot in black and white and some in colour . For example a film made in 1955 is made in colour and the next one in b/w was colour film expensive back then?

You pretty much answered your own question, in the end.

[levcore]

Colour was initially seen as some kind of witchcraft or black magic if you will. It took a few years for this perception to change.

[Foggy]

Pretty much, a lot of dramas back then will be made cheaper than say the musicals, and colour was more necessary for a musical than a drama. Makes sense. Other than that, stylistic choices for what's better for the film, and obviously the change to colour from black and white needs many different tweaks technically, like in terms of lighting and production design, some filmmakers were just used to creating films in black and white.

[Coenskubrick]

Why are some films made with wide ratios and some not? Why do some films use handheld style camerawork and some on tripods? Why do some films use serif fonts for their titles and some sans serif?

[L.J.]

Yea it was cheaper then to make it b&w.

[obscurelabel]

Especially for three-strip Technicolor (used up to about 1953 or so), it wasn't just that it was a LOT more expensive, it was just so much more trouble. It required MUCH more lighting (as each strip filtered out two-thirds of the light that would expose the red, blue, and green strips) so everything was hot and uncomfortable, causing makeup problems (sweating), costume problems, the sets had to have accurate colors instead of the ones that registered best on B&W film, more electricity and electricians for the lights, the complex cameras were a bear to set up properly, and a hundred other things. It didn't help that the studios were required by Technicolor to have a consultant on set to advise them (they didn't get along with some of them), so when Kodak came out with their single strip 35mm color film, everybody dropped three-strip, even though in a lot of ways it had a superior look (although a lot of the superior look may be due to the exacting production standards that Technicolor's consultants required, which the studios didn't have to follow as closely when they used Kodak stock).

But yes, more expensive plus much more complicated for three-strip. When Eastmancolor film came in many more productions started using color. Color was still more expensive and complicated, just not so much.

[42041]

To put a number on the speed difference, in 1954, Eastman color film needed 16 times as much light as a fast B&W negative of the same time for their rated speed (and B&W film can easily be pushed far beyond its rated speed). Color film wouldn't reach those speeds until the mid-80s.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by UnknownBesideArch

There's a fantastic documentary called Glorious Technicolor which deals with this subject, included as an extra on the Adventures of Robin Hood Blu-ray. It's mainly about the Technicolor process, but it does go into some depth discussing the transition from B&W to colour in Hollywood, and why filmmakers would sometimes choose one above the other. Fascinating stuff, I highly recommend it.

A very good reason to buy that release then!

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by UnknownBesideArch

Fair warning, the doco is standard def, despite being on a Blu-ray disc. Still recommended though.

Considering it is an hour long extra and isn't a lone extra, it makes sense for it to be in stranded definition.

[Ultra_Violence]

Cheaper and it's a stylistic choice.

[mrr1]

I bet a lot of directors were also more comfortable shooting in black and white because it is what they grew up with and what they were used to.

Kind of like the luddites of today who still shoot movies on film, or geezer musicians who still choose to record on analog tapes instead of using digital technology.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by mrr1

I bet a lot of directors were also more comfortable shooting in black and white because it is what they grew up with and what they were used to.

Kind of like the luddites of today who still shoot movies on film, or geezer musicians who still choose to record on analog tapes instead of using digital technology.

Or they just resisted it like Charlie Chaplin with talkies.

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by 42041

To put a number on the speed difference, in 1954, Eastman color film needed 16 times as much light as a fast B&W negative of the same time for their rated speed (and B&W film can easily be pushed far beyond its rated speed). Color film wouldn't reach those speeds until the mid-80s.

Yes, 25T (less for daylight shooting) for colour negative. For B&W there was a much wider selection up to Tri-X at 320D/250T. B&W was simply technically superior - it wasn't just a question of aesthetics or cost.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Ultra_Violence

Cheaper and it's a stylistic choice.

It wasn't always a stylist choice, I'm sure all the directors of those wonderful B-Movies would have loved to shoot on colour, but it just wasn't an option. Black and White was just more versatile for some productions, it was easier to use in varied conditions and the equipment didn't need to be rented (like Technicolor's cameras).

[Trax-3]

I'm sure all the directors of those wonderful B-Movies would have loved to shoot on colour

I really don't think so. Filmmakers didn't completely give up B&W out of their free will, it was forced on them by the studios who wanted to sell their product to colour TV for premium price. From technical and artistic standpoint it was completely unjustifiable at that point.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Trax-3

I really don't think so. Filmmakers didn't completely give up B&W out of their free will, it was forced on them by the studios who wanted to sell their product to colour TV for premium price. From technical and artistic standpoint it was completely unjustifiable at that point.

My point was during the rise of colour pictures, audiences were drawn more and more to them and some of the directors I imagine would have loved to have the budget to make their movies in colour. I'm sure plenty of theatre goers got to the theatre and saw one black and white movie and one colour one and chose the latter just because of the colour. I'm sure some B-Movies lost business to colour features.

I'm glad those films remained black and white, but I'm sure some directors would have loved to shoot their films in colour.

[blonde_devil]

There are various reasons but usually it was a matter of cost since b&w film was cheaper and you didn't have to get any new equipment or anything. As well, made it easier to film in some ways as you could use weird makeup colors and such that would look fine in the b&w such as the green skin on Frankenstein that looked grey on film. In a color film, that could require more expense. Not unusual - Star Wars was released in 1977 and had stereo and mono version, Terminator was released a few years later and only had mono. Depending on the studio and what type of movie they were making(A, B, Z), they might not want to spend the extra. Classic example is Rebel Without A Cause - we know it as a classic but they originally started filming in b&w and when the studio saw the rushes, they liked it and switched to color.

The style option came once color was the standard as there was no reason to film a movie in b&w otherwise since it wouldn't go over well with the audience who were now expecting color movies. There would be literally a handful of movies that were given the choice and would go b&w instead of color since having your film in color was a status symbol that your film was important. More often than not, it was the studio that made that decision not the director and few directors had the stroke with the studio to have total control over their films.

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Tyou didn't have to get any new equipment or anything.

The equipment is the same unless we are talking about 3-strip (which was dead by 1955). In 3-strip era the budget was a legitimate issue as was the availability of Technicolor cameras. By '55 it was mostly an artistic choice on all reasonably budgeted productions.

As well, made it easier to film in some ways as you could use weird makeup colors and such that would look fine in the b&w such as the green skin on Frankenstein that looked grey on film.

As much effort and thought goes into colour design on B&W productions as in colour ones. The Monster was green because it was determined that it photographs best - it was no random choice.

[P-Rock]

The world used to be black & white until some smart guy in the '50's invented color, but not everyone realized this. They had lived so long without color they needed time to readjust their eyes.