On Mu-43 we see nearly all genres of photography and many different methods for the presentation of each style in that genre. The many different genres, combined with the nuance of presentation, increases exponentially one’s options to display an image. These are choices we make each time we prepare an image for viewing. The question is why? What leads us to our final decision? The topic has been bandied about in various threads, it usually rears it head as a comment intended as constructive (or not so constructive) criticism. Some threads seem predisposed to this debate. While no thread is exempt, our very popular Street Thread is among the most prominent, and easy to identify for these purposes. So lets begin there. Why is street photography most often offered in monochrome? Why is street photography most often served to the viewer in black & white, or as a monochromatic image, be it sepia, tintype effect etc. In the beginning, B&W was all the medium had to offer, (mind you we are not returning all the way to camera obscura, daguerreotype et al) I would suggest we are talking about the birth of photojournalism. (a term coined by Frank Luther Mott) Some universities and art schools will tell you that photojournalism began in Germany in 1925 with the Leica 35 Mm camera. While still others suggest there was in fact photo journalistic coverage of events predating the US Civil war in the 1860’s. We’ll stick to the accepted “birth’ by academic standards. (because everybody likes a Leica) Even accepting the 1926 birth, by 1962 National Geographic would become the first major periodical to publish an all color issue. So in a period of 36 years we went all color.. Lets see then, for the past 49 years we’ve had full color periodicals, and since 1982, with the birth of the USA Today, an all color newspaper. So that’s 29 years of full color newspaper stories at the very least. Can we then effectively rule out “the news is in black and white” theory? There just isn’t a any black and white digital film…. Our cameras capture color. We spend hours trying to figure out the very best way for them to accomplish their neat little digital trick. Capture the scene, get the white balance, adjust for the correct exposure., dynamic contrast, oh please let it be punchy, on and on. After all the effort, I take a photo of five guys on a corner, and process it as a B&W image. What’s up with that? (This is not a complaint, but it might be a cry for help…) Could it be a matter of artistic influence in and of itself? Is it as simple as; Henri Cartier-Bresson? Robert Frank, Paul Brand, Karl Hugo Sclmotz, Stieglitz, Atget, Kertez? Just someone you saw at a gallery, or even here on the board. Does black and white add gravitas to the image? Does it imply or lend seriousness, urgency? Or hey, would it be a snapshot if it were in color? Is this a conclusion? I don’t think so, as I can speak only for myself. It’s influence, It’s art for the sake of art, it’s taking the color out of the scene to strip it bare of influence other than the subject or the composition of the frame. It’s following in the footsteps, It’s personal. It’s all of the above. Then, unexpectedly I’ll leave the color in… for all the same reasons I took it out. Oh no, not borders... I use borders to separate the image from the electronic medium that is MU-43, just as in the 1970’s I matted my prints to provide them with “a place” in their final frame treatment. But borders, borders are a topic I hope someone else will address in this thread… What is the determinate factor in your choice of presentation? What has influenced your presentation style?