>>3536403Well yeah, but that's not what we're talking about at all. If your photo works whether it's in color or B&W, that's completely fine. There's nothing wrong with au naturel. But, nowadays it's common to hear people asking for justifications for B&W photography and accuse B&W photographers of trying to be artsy. There's no default choice. If use of B&W needs justification, use of colors needs it too. I shoot a lot of B&W photos, because I try to concentrate on the composition, shapes, textures, light and all in all just the basic elements. Most of my photos would look quite bad in color, because the colors don't work together or are ugly by themselves. If I wanted to take similar color photos, it would be a lot harder and I'd need some way to affect the colors in the scene or just try and try until I found an aesthetically pleasant scene. I'm not a storyteller by any means, I mostly care about the mood in the photo.
So if you just concentrate on the subject and story, it doesn't matter as much what the colors look like. They are what they are. If on the other hand you want to use colors as an aesthetic choice, some colors just look unaesthetic together and that's when color theory steps in. It comes down to whether the use of colors is deliberate or not.
>>3536409>Mind elaborating a bit on that?Think of colors like notes in a chord. Combining certain intervals sounds better than others. It's the same with colors.
