Age and contrast

[Ryuji]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNcFToL_KdE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laZw3Y3JCJ8

In case of Trevor Horn, the 1980 version is Ektagraphic-HC-in-D-11 contrast, while 2004 version is Tri-X-in-D-76 contrast. He lost contrast with age.

Debi Doss gained weight with age. Linda Jardim still looks very nice. (I'm much younger than those people.)

 

[MattKing]

In case of Trevor Horn, the 1980 version is Ektagraphic-HC-in-D-11 contrast, while 2004 version is Tri-X-in-D-76 contrast. He lost contrast with age.

Debi Doss gained weight with age. Linda Jardim still looks very nice. (I'm much younger than those people.)

Ryuji:

I think that this is the first "joke" that I have ever seen you post here.

You should do it more, you do it well .

Matt

 

[Tony Egan]

I noticed that I tended to print in harder contrast after I started wearing reading glasses. Unless my glasses are absolutely crystal clean they seem to knock some contrast off the print - blacks don't look quite as pure black with a bit if a smudge on the glasses. I now tend to check shadow contrast with my glasses off and and sharpness/highlights with them on.

I also tend to agree with others that with age and experience the repertoire improves considerably and I would say I'm much better at producing a much longer tonal range leading to output which is "contrastier" than the quite flat printing I produced in early years. I'd like to think my eyes have not changed that much but no doubt they have as evidenced by the swearing which often erupts when trying to read a street directory in the car at night....

 

[Paul Howell]

I started with 35mm as a PJ, military and wire in the late 60s and early 70s, my work was very high contrast, grade 4 was normal for most of my work, newspaper and wire services needed a higher contast negative for printing. In the past 20 years I moved towards MF and LF so my newer work is now grade 2 for normal and 3 for hard for MF/LF and grade 3 as normal for 35mm.

 

[bjorke]

I'd cite both Gene Smith and Irving Penn as counterexamples, whose contrast ranges varied in both directions over the years.

 

[Mark Layne]

I'm 63. My prints 40 years ago were high contrast and meaningless.

Today my prints exhibit more sublety than ever, partly due to better film processing. I suspect some people are influenced by the garish prints you see in exhibitions these days, tonality seems to be out of fashion.

On the other hand there are more lith prints with tonality being made than ever. What goes around comes around.
Mark

 

[Jim Jones]

Perhaps the available materials have affected taste in contrast. Negatives from even before my time are usually contrasty. This may partly have been because they were often contact printed. It may have been an attempt to record mid-range tonality better with those films. Some alternative printing required contrasty negatives. Short toe negatives and multi-coated lenses have changed the way we photograph and print. Mass production B&W printers could make flat prints easier than full range prints. Personal preferences of master printers may change our standards. Cole Weston prints from his father's negatives seem contrastier than Edward's prints. Brett Weston's prints from his own negatives seem contrastier yet. We often have better lighting under which to view prints. There are a mind-boggling range of factors affecting how we see photographs, let alone print them. More important than all of this is for us to print the way that feels best to us today.

 

[Papa Tango]

Back when I started with film in the early 70s, I used Pan-X and almost exclusively grade 3 (or 4) papers. Yes, quite a bit of contrast pop, and this is what formed the scenes that I visualized in the first order.

Now I find that I am stepping backward; seeking greater local contrast in detail, fine graduation and a long curve between dMin and dMax. Some shots demand a hard 3 in Ansco 130. Others are a fine division between Dektol and Selectol... But, the final result must not need to be viewed in bright light to avoid the "mushy" greys. This is one of the reasons that I am taking up 8x10 and setting up contact print on AZO (yes, I have hoarded a boatload in the recent past).

In other things, I find as I get older things appear much more black and white than they used too...

 

[roteague]

I started with B&W years ago (30+), but have almost totally migrated to color. Where does that put me?