10 years later - lower contrast

darkosaric · Apr 7, 2020

I have wrote about this before, but now in this situation, where we all sit at home: I am reprinting some old prints that I printed like 10 and more years ago. It is interesting how taste changes - in time I find less, but enough contrast to be satisfactory. Before I was all about high contrast. Here is one example: printed in 2010 and today:

Tom Kershaw · Apr 7, 2020

I tend to prefer the richer full tone of the second print. However high contrast printing styles do seem to come into fashion every-so-often.

pentaxuser · Apr 7, 2020

Second one wins "hands down" as the British saying goes but the brown slightly pinkish tone in the second one may be adding to the effect of the lower contrast

The first one from 10 years ago reminds me of the kind of painting and figures that the British artist L.S. Lowry used to make. The effect is dramatic but I find that I quickly tire of it

pentaxuser

ic-racer · Apr 7, 2020

One reason why I don't keep many notes. Frequently they won't help, as I'm always interpreting negatives different. I like the one-of-a-kind nature to that workflow.

NB23 · Apr 7, 2020

The sad thing is, there is no one truth. Tastes and vision change.

the important part is that the negative shall always be well developed with full tonal scale. I’m really annoyed by high-contrast negatives, always have been. The negative development stage is not one to be artistic, especially not with the stupid (imo) stand development and such “creative” ideas.

Both your prints are very nice.

Sirius Glass · Apr 7, 2020

The second is much better.

grain elevator · Apr 7, 2020

This comparison is difficult because the picture of the second print is too dark. Could you adjust it so that paper white is the same brightness as the first one? I think I'll like the second one better. Blown whites in the first one is just bad printing, sorry (unless that's due to the scan). As a stylistic choice that's more of a lomo-esque fad or special effect for when we want to make prints look amateurish on purpose... High contrast with details in the light tones is possible. Gotta say I do like the look on the buildings in the background.

NB23 said:
[...]
the important part is that the negative shall always be well developed with full tonal scale. I’m really annoyed by high-contrast negatives, always have been. [...]

So true. Unfortunately I just hung negatives to dry that I overdeveloped... used lower dilution than usual, then forgot to adjust the time... we'll see how that goes, I think they'll be ok but some will need loooong exposure times.

Dusty Negative · Apr 7, 2020

Thank you for thinking to create this thread. I experience the same vacillations, but in much quicker succession than ten years! I've made a print and then questioned my (contrast, saturation, etc.) within days. FWIW, to me, the first one is more immediately engaging and eye-catching. But I find much more to ponder in the second one.

darkosaric · Apr 7, 2020

grain elevator said:
the first one is just bad printing, sorry

Yes, I agree, now also think that is bad printing. But long time ago I was happy with this result, as I was in this too high contrast thing, probably also influenced with Japanese 1960's & 1970 style.
That is why is important to develop negative normally, not with high contrast. You can boost contrast in printing with filters, but if negative is "healthy" - you can always later print again with different taste.

Wallendo · Apr 7, 2020

When I first started shooting B&W, I expected images more like your older print. I suspect that when we are younger, we prefer flashier images. With maturity, I suspect we have a fuller appreciation of nuance.

Steve Roberts · Apr 7, 2020

To me, the prints convey different moods with the second perhaps reflecting the gloominess that hangs over us all at present.
Before I got as far as reading pentaxuser's comment, I'd already found myself reminded of Lowry. Just shove a couple of mills and chimneys in t' background lad!
Steve

Ariston · Apr 7, 2020

pentaxuser said:
The first one from 10 years ago reminds me of the kind of painting and figures that the British artist L.S. Lowry used to make. The effect is dramatic but I find that I quickly tire of it

pentaxuser

I'm not sure I like the first more, but it certainly would stand out more in a crowd of prints. I agree that more intense prints may become tiresome more quickly; but I think that a lot of art is viewed intermittently, so usually won't suffer this problem.

Actually, I've made up my mind. I like the first better. I appreciate the intent invested in the first print, and the second looks more commonplace... like what most people would print.

Ariston · Apr 7, 2020

Really the toning may be throwing me off, though....

mohmad khatab · Apr 7, 2020

darkosaric said:
I have wrote about this before, but now in this situation, where we all sit at home: I am reprinting some old prints that I printed like 10 and more years ago. It is interesting how taste changes - in time I find less, but enough contrast to be satisfactory. Before I was all about high contrast. Here is one example: printed in 2010 and today:

View attachment 243491 View attachment 243492

We in Egypt cannot build other pyramids.
you too ,,
You can never.
You produced a cartoon image, which I expected to be from animated films. Even if you saw the original picture, I felt some shit.
What compels you to distort this original artwork, this contrast is just worthless nonsense.
Forget this extremism.
Napoleon Bonaparte, shot the Sphinx by French cannons, and this caused the Sphinx's nose to be broken.
We have not thought about rebuilding the statue's nose since that incident.
Why ?
You have to think a lot.

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 7, 2020

Ansel Adams printed his negatives differently through out his life. You're performing your score differently.

The artist Wayne Thiebaud would buy his paintings so he could make changes. Life changes your perception and there are no right and wrongs for me here.

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 7, 2020

The first one hurt my eyes as I sit here in a darkened room. I too like the second. But the first has clipped blacks and whites; the details are lost in these areas. Not so in the second. So I'm not sure I would blame different contrast levels only.

grain elevator · Apr 8, 2020

Alan Edward Klein said:
The first one hurt my eyes as I sit here in a darkened room. "

If that's not hyperbole, you need to look at your brightness settings. You can't avoid white on your screen altogether. White on the screen should be the same brightness as a sheet of white paper held next to the screen. Adjust screen or lighting. Everything else strains the eyes.

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 8, 2020

grain elevator said:
If that's not hyperbole, you need to look at your brightness settings. You can't avoid white on your screen altogether. White on the screen should be the same brightness as a sheet of white paper held next to the screen. Adjust screen or lighting. Everything else strains the eyes.

Well, I'm 75 so maybe it's that. It only hurt for a couple of seconds when I switch on the photo. so there's that too. My screen is calibrated for daytime use, no reductions in brightness at night. Screens emanate light like a bulb unlike paper which reflect light.

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 8, 2020

I prefer the graphic quality of the first one.

cowanw · Apr 8, 2020

The tone Paper white of the second one; Is that an accurate representation of the actual print?

darkosaric · Apr 8, 2020

cowanw said:
The tone Paper white of the second one; Is that an accurate representation of the actual print?

It is some automatic color tone that smartphone camera makes by itself, it is more neutral in reality.

cowanw · Apr 8, 2020

I ask because "grain elevator's" comment implies that the paper should be the same white white as the first image. Whereas if the warm white of the border is "paper" white then both images have maximum white highlights - the balloons- and both have max black. So total contrast, black to white, is the same. but local contrast is a world of difference.
Another aspect not relevant here but nevertheless, is that old eyes like more contrast and as photographers age they may well tend to more dramatic contrasty renditions. e.g. Ansel Adams.

Sirius Glass · Apr 8, 2020

A little pop can help a black & white print.

jtk · Apr 8, 2020

I prefer the buildings in the first but the foreground looks like ice... Needed a test print and reprint. The second seems very muddy.

Vaughn · Apr 8, 2020

We'd always warn our students to build up contrast slowly when printing an image for the first time. If we start out with high contrast, we have a tendency to over-do it, so to speak, and get trapped by the visual impact of the contrast -- whether the image needs it or not.

10 years later - lower contrast

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency