How can I make richer looking Black & Whites?

[wheelygirl]

Hello to one and all!
I'm going to add my $. 02.5 in: I agree that a novice/ beginner photographer such as I, doesn't necessarily need to purchase top-of-the-line camera! In fact, and I've posted about how my Minolta SRT-101 quite literally landed on my doorstep with a total 3 prime lenses!
The only expense I have 'put out' has been for film, a ball-head[for the tripod a fellow APUGer gave me!] and a camera bag. I have been severely blessed!!!
So, I share this with one & all to make a point: one never knows exactly what gifts might land on your door-step!!

 

[Gary Holliday]

I don't think the guy you are referring to FlyingCamera is quoting the latest photography magazine adverts, but merely suggesting that the equipment used for professional looking photography IS expensive stuff. You can't argue that you don't need a good quality lens, a flashgun which will give you a decent range of apertures and an accurate light meter.

Whether you were handed the "gear" or bought it cheap secondhand it still requires a professional standard of equipment. Otherwise Mr Zeiss and Rodenstock must be talking out of their arses. Obviously he can't buy experience, but he'll get there. Experience, technique and quality equipment will give you professional results. Maybe throw in some talent.

 

[aldevo]

Hi,

Please help me learn how to make rich black and whites. I don't develop my own film, is this what I need to learn?

I like ones like the cover shot for this page: http://pervalentin.com/index2.htm

Thank you very much.

The link you cited shows a page that is clearly a PhotoShop job...

 

[Ray Heath]

The link you cited shows a page that is clearly a PhotoShop job...

so, is that the extent of your contribution?

why is it "clearly" a digital image?

what if it is? see my previuos post

Ray

 

[Mateo]

It's clearly a digital image because the light does not match in the figure and the background. Nothing to do with the validity of the image but for help in achieving analog method goals that example sucks.

 

[dpurdy]

I think the term Rich Photograph is pretty useless. You can tell by reading these posts that everybody has their own definition of Rich. You could spend your life trying to define it for yourself and then the next day change your mind.

Certainly a print that is Rich in tonality, whatever that is to you, can be made regardless of the camera or even without a camera or an enlarger.

It would be better to think in terms of long or short tonal scale and high or low key and image color and mid range or local contrast. Get the conversation to a point where people at least know what the question is.

On the other hand you could just read Ansel Adams and he would tell you that your print must include a near paperbase white and a very deep near black tone and plenty of detail everwhere in between. If that is what you want then you need a darkroom. Commercial labs don't do rich tones.. unless you are talking relatively rich, which I guess is unavoidable. Back to the uselessness of the term.

Sorry it is late, I had a hard day.

 

[Ray Heath]

It's clearly a digital image because the light does not match in the figure and the background. Nothing to do with the validity of the image but for help in achieving analog method goals that example sucks.

not necessarily, just some form of seperate lighting on the foreground that didn't reach the background

regardless you and the previous poster have missed the point, it doesn't matter if it is digital, it is also possible with analogue, it is a well executed image using techniques to seperate the foreground subject from it's background

 

[Mateo]

It's not that we've missed YOUR point; we simply disagree with you. The image in question is really neato but I think that stems from the striking sense that something just don't connect. That disconnect between the figure and the ground is the hook the image, not any rich printing skills. I think dpurdy has a good point about the meaninglessness of the term "rich". Another thing to be brought up is that different mediums look best in their respective display mediums...home field advantage if you will. I've never seen a scan of a platinum print that did it justice and I've never seen an inkjet print that was good enough for me framed on a wall. The image in question is striking and really cool, but for someone wanting to learn to enlarge negatives on silver and doesn't have the darkroom skills of Jerry Uelsmann yet, it still sucks.

PS how much do you to bet that figure is pasted on to the background? It screams at me that it isn't just flash or lighting. It just don't fit.

 

[eddym]

PS how much do you to bet that figure is pasted on to the background? It screams at me that it isn't just flash or lighting. It just don't fit.

You win. See page 104 of B&W magazine issue 55 (US). The portraits are pasted onto other backgrounds. Don't care for them myself.

 

[Sparky]

I'd go further than Roger with the Zone System detraction... and say simply that if you want "rich" looking black and white prints - then practice practice practice. You don't even need a knowledge of sensitometry - just care about what the print looks like and listen and learn and most importantly - LOOK. Start learning to print. If at first your prints don't bring you happiness - that wouldn't be a big surprise - try try again...! I'd think it would take an average of about 50 hours in the darkroom before you're even starting to get prints you're somewhat happy with... and before you start seeing the limitations of your negatives. That's a minimum probably... then start reading here and ask questions and see if you can't troubleshoot each of the faults you're finding. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. But while you CAN shortcut SOMEWHAT and avoid common pitfalls if you're really perceptive and care - there's really no substitute for experience. But learn as much as you can - and hopefully you can avoid wasting time going down roads that shouldn't be gone down.

 

[JBrunner]

You win. See page 104 of B&W magazine issue 55 (US). The portraits are pasted onto other backgrounds. Don't care for them myself.

eeewuuuuu.

 

[BWKate]

I quite agree with Sparky. I've been printing for nearly 20 years and
I'm just starting to get some good results with my prints. Definitely lots of time, practise and good advice from master printers that can help you achieve the look you want. No shortcuts, just burning up lots of paper. I'm not saying I don't need to keep practising. That's the fun part.

 

[genecrumpler]

Good Blacks

quickest wasy to get this is to attend John Sexton's B&W printing workshop. I did and I do

 

[keithwms]

By "rich" I assume that you mean with deepest possible black point and crisp white point.

There are many ways to get this done. My suggestion is to read up on split grade printing and Se toning. Split grade is a methodical way to control whites and blacks.

If you want the ultimate Dmax, then pigment ink printing on glossy is the way to do it, but a traditional RC print can bring you indiscernibly close and also give you more options apart from ultimate Dmax.

Of course, getting the result you want all begins with the negative, and if you optimize that, then you will be able to get a rich tone scale from pure Dmin to deep Dmax with minimal fuss. If you don't do that then you will be working hard on split grade with VC papers. Either way you will probably want to Se tone, and beware that some papers will disappoint (e.g. turn purple before giving rich blacks) while others respond very well and make the tone scale more manageable.

Let me just also mention that the Fuji instant film fp100c actually produces prints with tonality approaching the ones linked. Agfa scala also produces positives with very well separated white and blacks with distinct, crisp edges. Based on my limited experience with them, I'd venture to say that most dr5 positives have similarly snappy tonal attributes, if that's what you're after. So there are many ways toget this look, not just red-filtered digital.

 

[CBG]

I assume the people saying buy the most expensive equipment you can buy are either self-deluded or being sarcastic/smart-aleck. The price of ones' gear is not in any way a determinant of the quality of ones photographs. Especially when learning the craft. Andre Kertesz didn't shoot Leicas or Hasselblads or Sinars with Schneider lenses. Edward Weston only had one camera for most of his career, an old beat-up Korona, which even when it was new, was not considered top-of-the-line.

When you're learning, use the camera you have, put your money into film, paper and chemistry, and make lots of photographs. Make lots of prints, develop lots of film, and get a firm grasp on your materials and how they perform. Then, when you've got a firm grip on the medium, worry about getting a "better" camera. The "best" camera for you should be one whose behavior most naturally fits your working style, or at least does not interfere with your working style.

I'm with Flying Camera on this one. The last thing a beginner needs is to be seduced into the magic thinking mode of belief that the more Leicas and Sinars one has, the better a photographer one will be. I'd send a beginner out with a plastic cheeepo camera like a Holda / Diana / pinhole box or the like and lots of film, and get that person shooting and beginning to see what happens when the 3D world is compressed into the 2D world of the photograph. As abhorrent as digital can be to us who are devoted to live material based photography, a cheepo digital camera might give a beginner a chance to see his/her first 10,000 images and mistakes fast and cheep.

The real ingredients are not money and things, but time and vision, and any camera can offer that - if used enough and then critically examined.

It would be wonderful for the novice, fairly soon after starting, to develop everything and print everything and get a handle on the things that go on under the hood.

I am completely unsold on the advantages of enless film / process testing and H&D curve drawing, etc, etc - for the novice .... I believe they are properly in the province of a single particular way of working, and not a cure all for what-ails-you in the tonality department. For a beginner, the zone system can be a endless mechanistic technologic exercise that gets in the way of looking and thinking. It can be loaded with foolish substitutes for real thinking about what may work for an image. Witness the endless repetition of the mantra about the complete range of tones from pure black to pure white. While many images benefit from the drama of a maxed out tonal range, some images may not benefit from that treatment - say an image of a foggy vista at dusk - but the phrase gets tossed about as if it's a perfect, absolute and unalterable truth. Technique is not magic, and will not get one any further till vision is strong enough to provide a purpose. Once one has a visual direction and purpose, then it's time to apply appropriate specific techniques to get to the images one seeks.

To advise elaborate equipment and technique prior to the development of some personal vision is to get the cart before the horse, and may impede the creation of that personal vision.

C

 

[Ray Heath]

beautifully put C

i totally agree but would add that for many photographers there is no need for endless testing and equipment collection

these photographers have confidence in their abilities and don't need the false re-assurance that supposed technical proficiency may bring

after all, the testing has already done by professionals with much more training and insight than any photographer could possibly have or need

Ray

 

[CBG]

beautifully put C

i totally agree but would add that for many photographers there is no need for endless testing and equipment collection

these photographers have confidence in their abilities and don't need the false re-assurance that supposed technical proficiency may bring

after all, the testing has already done by professionals with much more training and insight than any photographer could possibly have or need

Ray

Thanks Ray!

I'd like to add some nuance to my thoughts.

For me it depends upon the intent of the user. I do believe there is a real place for zone based previsualization, exposure and processing, but it sometimes seems to have become a religion for certain evangelizers, and, I fear, gets plugged in at places where it may impede the process.

For very controlled, slow paced work, like contemplative landscape or architectural work, an extensive personalized zone practice seems like an entirely fair way to work. I do not see it as the only way, however, but it is one valid choice. I believe there are other modes of working - equally valid - even for subject matter suited to zone analysis.

For faster moving problems, I have a hard time with full Monty zone orthodoxy.

However ... I cannot think of any other way to as fully comprehend what's happening with tonal expression - the tonal jump from subject to film to print - as with having a solid understanding of illumination and replication through the zone concept. Regardless, I do not believe that comprehension requires the endless testing sometimes advocated.

Likewise, certain photographic problems demand equipment with matching capacities. I do not advocate that such equipment is universally needed. The armament should respond to the problem.

I believe the biggest problem for the novice is just getting a general sense of how a camera works and sees. A really simplified picture taking and hopefully processing routine and lots of shooting - seem a healthy starting place. At the point when a person develops a need for a specialized technique, he or she can take on the needed technical knowledge, be it micro-photography, zone based processing, high speed imaging, etc .... they are special ways of working for specific problems.

C

 

[spiralcity]

Most labs will set a print development to produce a standard print which lacks contrast and "bite". Prints which ,using a very apposite Roger Hicks phrase, are the colour of "cigarette ash".

Any pro lab worth its weight in developer will ask you what type of print your looking for. They will take notes and try their best to deliver what you want. If your not satisfied with the print they will redo it with any changes you request for free.
If your not working with a lab with these qualities it would be in your best interest to find a better lab. Gamma Photo in Chicago will work with their customers until they are completley satisfied with the print.

 

[ZoneIII]

It sounds like you want a simple answer that will give you instant results. At the same time, you question clearly shows that you haven't taken the time and made the effort to learn the craft. Of course you have to develop your own film! That's fundamental. Then you have to spend a lot of time and effort testing it and gaining experience and control with it. Even then, that doesn't mean you are going to produce images like the ones you admire. That only comes from your own vision skill. I actually have a hard time even responding to this question because it sounds like you think producing beautiful images is simple. It's like someone asking, "I want to learn how to make music like Mozart. Do I have to learn how to read music to do that?"

 

[Removed Account]

I'm reminded of the fellow here whose signature contains a quote to the effect f, "I think the greats were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked." Many times I will set up a landscape or still life thinking it will look really good, and even if it happens that I got everything that I wanted in focus and properly exposed it may very well just be a poor image. That's one place where training in the more traditional visual arts is coming in handy. Once I succeed in giving myself a good negative, I still have to make a print out of the damn thing! To do that well I need all the practice I can get. Which reminds me, I need more paper...

- Justin

 

[vet173]

For fat, shoot al low ratios.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Hi,

Please help me learn how to make rich black and whites. I don't develop my own film, is this what I need to learn?

I like ones like the cover shot for this page: http://pervalentin.com/index2.htm

Thank you very much.

Lighting, lighting, lighting.

(And yes, careful exposure, good printing technique, and all that -- but 99% of it IMO is lighting.)

- CJ

 

[Photo Engineer]

Cheryl;

Nothing can beat a perfect pose, especially by 3 tots all at the same time! Great job.

PE

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Thanks very much, PE. With three active pre-school aged subjects, containment is key. LOL.

- CJ

 

[JBrunner]

beautifully put C


after all, the testing has already done by professionals with much more training and insight than any photographer could possibly have or need

Ray

If you want to understand and control your process, this is entirely incorrect.

Manufacturer's testing is a baseline, established to give an acceptable result for the average user, using average processes. Predictable results for a given lighting situation, format, lens, stock, ratio, exposure, process, paper, and printing style can only be realized by an intimate understanding of the characteristics of the ingredients and how they are utilized.

An average aproach will result in an average result, dumb luck aside.

You don't have to use the zone system, nor do you have to be overly technical, but one way or the other you do have to understand how your choices and procedures will effect results, or you will be simply mucking about in a competely half assed way, looking for a magic bullet that doesn't exist.