I hadn't heard this quote before. There's a lot of truth to it.
“When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!”
― Ted Grant
Hmm, I wonder how much of that statement has been infuenced by society's use or 'interpretation' (wrong word to use but I'll edit this if I come up with the right one) of colour. Commercial photography has always necessitated colour for marketing reasons. A 'modern' family photo album is full of colour photo's because the memory of the moment it generates requires it to be as close to reality as possible. These are but two examples, but they form much of colour photography in the past and today. While the images produced are technically good, I guess they lack the soulful side which Ted Grant refers to (generally speaking). However, I do not think this is the preserve of black-and-white (b&w) photography, rather that the soulful side of colour photography has been swamped by the 'everyday' images I referred to above.
With reference to your later post, I agree you have to have a different eye for b&w imagery, where shades are more important than in colour photography. I regularly use colour filters (for film) to enhance or reduce shades to get close to the image I have in my mind's eye. This manupulation tells me I'm looking for a more 'arty' image than I would in colour. However, I wonder if this is because obtaining an 'arty' b&w image is easier than in colour, and that many photographers really haven't explored the potential of colour to convey 'soul' as Mr Denton puts it, even after all these years of playing with it. I also think that, as b&w is viewed as artificial, (and you touch on this) it lends itself to an 'outside-of-the-box' interpretation and more liable to artistic interpretation/recording. However, I feel that both 'genres' can be made to give different impressions of equal validity.
I also think that digital photography is killing the 'arty' side of certain types of colour photography. For example, one thing that despresses me about modern landscape photography is that the image, while pretty, is too 'perfect'. They're absolutely fine for calendars and postcards - everything is in focus, sharp, clean, full of dynamic range, and colourful (often too colourful), but... ...utterly soulless. Like a woman (or man) who wears too much make-up, but has no personality; it doesn't captivate you. The penchant for image manipulaton nowadays (focus stacking, layering of different images, HDR, etc., which is getting more akin to CGI than photography) doesn't help, taking away the natural air of the subject/scene which I feel is a requisite for representing the 'soul'. The less said about the infatuation with colour accuracy and the like, the better. I won't labour the point further, but I'll summarise by saying that there is no imagination in today's colour photography, particular digital, but there should be.
The analogy to painting is a good one. I paint oils. The one advantage over photography is that I have complete control of the image, and can produce the 'perfect' image (imaginary or 'real'), at least in my mind's eye. The disadvantage is that I'm limited by my own abilities and what I have in my mind's eye rarely ends up on canvas (and usually in the bin). So I combine both painting and photography to vent my artistic side. There is cross-over between the two, usually with colour, whether it's a portrait or landscape. My own painting/photography is based on what I observe in Nature, so my comments do not include abstract art.
What I have noted is that b&w painting/drawing tends to be more 'of the moment', lending itself well to whatever the artist is feeling at that exact moment. However, this does not mean that they are more 'soulful' than colour imagery. Indeed, the images that portray real feeling (a soul) to me have all been in colour, e.g., Bierstadt, and Turner, which obviously took a little longer. They are to a great extent 'naturalistic', and yes, idealised, but it is that idealisation that conveys the emotion or feeling which gives the image a soul. In my photography, I have found it easier to create, or idealise, an image with 'soul' in b&w, repeating what I wrote earlier, than in colour, but I have been able to do so in colour too, it just takes a little longer to get to that 'other-worldly' image because it can look too close to reality, because of colour itself. Bierstadt and Turner have shown that such images can be achieved with colour, so why not with photography!?
Since b&w film uses shades of pure grey, it's artificial not only because of the lack of colour, but because none of the grey shades used would occur naturally. To me, that makes it likely that b&w film would have been invented even if colour film was invented first. It would have been invented because artists like to experiment, and don't always care if their creations resemble reality.
Ah, but what you refer to is human perception. Indeed, not all humans percieve colour the same way while a very few do indeed see the world in shades of grey (achromatopsia), while many animals also see the world differently. It questions what is 'natural', but it is a mute point and a digression from the point you are making, but I had to get it in there.
I do agree that b&w photography would have been invented regardless. Humans have always seeked to represent their visual artistry in many different ways, whether a reflection of 'reality', or their interpretation of 'reality' whereupon they seek to represent visually the emotions they feel when confronted with that 'reality'.
Hope some of my waffle made sense.
Cheers,
Duff.