What's your opinion on high contrast B&W?

[Manaloge]

Hi all,

Recently came across a photographer I didn't knew about: Trente Parke.

His black and white pictures are literally just that: black and white. Extreme contrast.

This extreme case made me releaze that when I look around for pictures and information, most people today prefer a high contrast look with very dark blacks and high highlights.

They seem to seek film that deliver high, almost harsh contrast like Tri-X, modern lenses and developing methods to push the contrast.

My question is why?

Personally, I think, the real beauty are in the midtones, 50 shades of gray, so to speak.

High contrast pictures may be striking at first, but most look superficial, almost boring to me. Not a lot of depth and details to look at.

The 2 pictures attached are a totally different theme, but give an idea what I mean.

Not my work, btw

 

[xkaes]

I would not label these two photos as just black & white -- or extreme contrast.

High contrast does help some subjects/compositions, and some times it is not "made up". A night scene, like the one about, is high contrast "naturally" because it is at night. There's no need to increase the contrast any more than it is -- and decreasing it would not help at all.

The second shot, I would not label as high contrast. The whites are not white, and the blacks are not black, but I don't know how I could improve on it.

Sure some photographers like higher contrast shots, some don't. To each his own, but it's a personal choice -- just as some photographers add intense color saturation to their pictures -- and other don't.

 

[MattKing]

Interesting subject for a discussion.
I've tweaked the thread title to differentiate it from run of the mill black and white imaging discussions, and moved it into the photographic aesthetics sub-forum.
By the way, there is a deep and varied history of photographers who've adopted this aesthetic.

 

[Saganich]

The why.. to use light like form... for sake of making striking compositions.

 

[Manaloge]

I would not label these two photos as just black & white -- or extreme contrast.

High contrast does help some subjects/compositions, and some times it not "made up". A night scene, like the one about, is high contrast "naturally" because it is at night. There's no need to increase the contrast any more than it is -- and decreasing it would not help at all.

The second shot, I would not label as high contrast. The whites are not white, and the blacks are not black, but I don't know how I could improve on it.

Sure some photographers like higher contrast shots, some don't. To each his own, but it's a personal choice -- just as some photographers add intense color saturation to their pictures -- and other don't.

I Should have explained it more clearly. The 2 pictures are examples of the high contrast vs rich midtones (the tree picture)

 

[Manaloge]

Interesting subject for a discussion.
I've tweaked the thread title to differentiate it from run of the mill black and white imaging discussions, and moved it into the photographic aesthetics sub-forum.
By the way, there is a deep and varied history of photographers who've adopted this aesthetic.

Thank you for moving the thread to a more appropiate forum.

The rich midtones and variation is what I look for and strive to achieve in my (analoge) pictures. T max developed in XTOL gave me promising results, but think of switching to HC110 and explore more film with this developer.

 

[agentlossing]

The high contrast allows the composition to be more graphical, or insert your own artistic descriptor. Impressionist, whatever.

I appreciate the style when done well, but I can't do it well myself.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Bill Brandt.
Ralph Gibson.

(drops microphone, walks away)

 

[MattKing]

Bill Brandt.
Ralph Gibson.

(drops microphone, walks away)

Pick up the microphone!
Daido Moriyama, as well as a whole bunch more.
I'm normally in the camp that prefers those midtones, but sometimes the subject, technique or equipment lead elsewhere:

Excuse the warm tones....

 

[mrosenlof]

Add Moriyama Daido to AnselMortensen's list. [edit, Matt beat me to it!]

My opinions on high contrast printing? It's a tool that a photographer can use to manipulate the feeling of the print. The greats use it to great effect, the rest of us screw it up.

I have experimented lately with low contrast printing -- think grade 0 or lower on Ilford MG paper -- with the idea that the midtones are where the action is. As you might expect, results have been mixed, but there are instances where it has worked well for me. For years I have avoided going low, but am now more willing to print with lower contrast.

 

[xkaes]

Good example. For me it's much too much PUNCH.

 

[xkaes]

Maybe it was AA or one of my professors, but the idea was that a good photo usually should have at least a spot of true white or a spot of true black -- or both -- somewhere. That doesn't mean high contrast, however. It just means to use the full range of the paper -- but that doesn't work on all subjects -- like the above shot of the trees, for example. I just keep it in mind while printing.

 

[Bill Burk]

As I sift through boxes of prints, I am more pleased with times when I made prints of slightly higher contrast and lighter overall tone. (We all go through phases, right?)

 

[Manaloge]

Bill Brandt.
Ralph Gibson.

(drops microphone, walks away)

Yeah, well, good examples of the high contrast genre

 

[Michael Howard]

I lean toward higher contrast in almost all of my B&W work. I visually dislike mud. No true whites, no true blacks, it's just mud to my eye. This applies only to B&W, surprisingly, or maybe not, the opposite is true for me in color. I like muted colors, garish does not strike me the same. Give me Velvia 50 shot on a dismal day.

 

[pentaxuser]

I Should have explained it more clearly. The 2 pictures are examples of the high contrast vs rich midtones (the tree picture)

Well each picture demonstrates why in different types of scenes, each work IMO

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

To actually achieve an inspiring level of nuance between extremes as depicted in the first post requires quite a mastery of film and printing. Brett Weston was just such a person. His prints are unforgettable. But what most people arrive at, attempting to do so, is apt to be that empty "soot and chalk" look characteristic of underexposure combined with overdevelopment, or simply due to the wrong kind of film to begin with.

 

[Carnie Bob]

Lillian Bassman IMHO one of the great masters of photography.