I shoot both B&W and color but I prefer B&W for the texture. Color has its place too, so sometimes I'm torn . I very often take 2 cameras when I go out on a shoot. One with color and one with B&W. I know the old pros tell you not to do that but I've always liked to rebel and I enjoy the results. A couple weeks ago I was in Grand Marais, MN and did that. I shot the same subject both ways for about a week and thought it was great.

One does not have to shoot B&W to print B&W and using two cameras can be redundant. I learned a rather painful lesson a couple of decades back.

A country music star's PR firm called and said he was to be performing in the area of the country where I worked, had new band members and needed some fresh B&W publicity shots. After getting the required band shots, I also shot some of him at the mic. One - he, his wife, his management, etc. - felt was the best shot ever taken of him. He had an album in the works and I got a call from the creative director of his record company wanting it in colour. There was enough in the contract to pay the rent for quite a few months. There was a 72 hour deadline to have it at the record label's Los Angeles office.

The only problem was that I had shot it in B&W.

I printed a stack of photos on matte paper and headed out to find the finest airbrush in the city. I spent the next 48 hours without sleep learning to use the thing, and in the end came up with a nice hand-coloured picture that they liked and used. I just made the deadline - no slack.

The album SHIPPED double-platinum, and was named "Country Music Album of the Year". The picture was used on huge posters in every record store I saw - for months. It brought me a lot more work - and I came so close to blowing it.

The remaining stock of B&W film was abandoned and replaced with Kodak Panalure panchromatic paper which produced gorgeous B&W print quality. I shot every B&W assignment on colour negative film from that time on.

Many times when I brought in the proof-sheets, the client would take a look and say "I wish now that I had specified colour!" I would reply that it was no problem - it had been shot in colour. All manner of sentimental client/photographer bonding took place. Clients quickly learned and began to specify colour negatives, even when chromes were potentially needed. Either I or a commercial lab, could produce excellent quality chromes from a colour negative, with the added bonus of good colour balances even when the lighting was mixed.

I have tested B&W mode with my digital cameras, and I can do better in Photoshop, starting from a colour shot. I can also scan from my legacy negatives - or chromes - and apply any filtration I need when converting to B&W. I have not upgraded yet, but I have read that Photoshop CS3 comes with a highly sophisticated B&W conversion tool.

It is much easier and more effective to take the colour out of a shot, than put it in after the fact. Unless it is to satisfy some sort of materials fetish, there is really no need to every shoot anything but colour.

Thanks Larry, I hope many read your forum reply. I always shoot color with digital then take the color out. Just coming back from Colorado I have many shots of "Garden of the Gods"and other images that just demand color. I always have the option to take the color out. I was thankful I was not using film because I always carried and shot BW mostly Fuji and Agfa film. I would not have had color prints for my wife. She would not have liked that.Now most of what I do is BW but I like the choice of either if the need arises.