cmon wayne. not true.
@
Eduard the picture would look great in BW. but the exposure and the editing is off for it. it doesnt pop and looks way too muted with tones. it needs a bit of exposure in the water and needs some dodging and burning to make it stand out. the color in its form looks like some old film and has a retro look to it.
What is not true? As an opinion as stated, it is of course 110% correct. And the world definitely is in color. Our eyes and cameras and photo labs and computer monitors are in color. And photography, magazines, movies, and television all did abandon B&W about 50 years ago. The public wants color. This thread wants color.
I was very active in the 1960s (50 years ago), and was influenced by the popular photography media then that "art" is done in B&W, so I hardheadedly stuck with it (way too long). Had a Nikon F and was buying B&W film in 100 foot rolls, many of them. Of course, the family naturally wanted color, but the media kept promoting the work of Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson, etc, etc, who all of course worked back in the 1930s, before color technology was developed. But I was young and impressionable (didn't know any better). And B&W was easy in the dark room. But now, those years are gone.
Re Eduards posted picture. It says NO EDITS, so I will just comment. The levels (white point and black point) are naturally done, proper for many things, but here, the sun is sort of a specular highlight, it has no detail, and could be clipped more. The key for B&W is to create ample contrast, specifically to have some very black areas and some very white areas. It was Ansel Adams best advice. I'd move the White Point down to where the water begins, about 200 level (clipping the sun, who cares? It helps the water.) Clipping color can change the colors, but this is B&W, little concern except for clipped detail.
Blacker blacks and whiter whites is contrast (opposite of flat).