How can I make richer looking Black & Whites?

[Kekhotep]

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.

 

[KenM]

If you develop your own film, you'll have absolute control over your entire process, assuming that you do your own printing. The quality of your negatives will probably increase as well. On the flip side, if something goes wrong, you only have to look in the mirror for the reasons. This will allow you to better obtain a negative that will help you realize the initial visualization.

Regarding getting good blacks and whites, ensure that you're giving the negative ample exposure and sufficient development. This will ensure that you have good local contrast in the shadows (which will impart richness), and good separation in the highlights. Avoid underexposing your negatives, since your shadows will be thin, and you'll end up with flat black areas, which will lack depth. Overdevelop, and you'll loose separation in the highlights.

When printing, evaluate the negative you're printing. Is it highlight-dominant (a high-key image), or do shadows dominate? This will tell you how you want to approach the print. Personally, if a print is shadow-dominant, I'll work with the shadows, and then the highlights. For a normal contrast scene (both shadows and highlights), or a higher-key print, I'll work with the highlights first, then the shadows. This works for me, it may or may not work for you.

Also, realize that not every print needs a white and a black. Let the negative (and the contact print - you do make contact prints, right?) tell you how to print the image, in combination with your initial visualization.

Take lots of notes. Learn what works. Learn what doesn't. Experiment. Don't be afraid to fail. Strive to succeed.

And, above all -have fun.

 

[jordanstarr]

first of all that shot is digital.

secondly, if you're looking for a simple answer you won't get one. "rich photos" take a long time to learn. it's a lot of trial and error, a lot of money on quality lenses, gear and film. it will also require a lot of research and know-how to get those kinds of photos.

to try and answer your question, this photo in particular was probably taken with a very fast, wide angle lens, edited to hell in photoshop to make it look like it was taken with a red filter (for black and white film) and a diffused flash faced only on the man. it was probably shot at f2.8-5.6 with a shutter anywhere from 1/30-1/250.

Your question, however, is opening up a can of worms. it's kind of like me checking out a revitalized '67 mustang and saying i want to build one right then and there with very little knowledge of cars. you won't get the convenience of a quick solution on this forum or any other forum for that matter. Get out and shoot a ton of film and amerce yourself in education around the art of photography. it's a slow process, but it's worth it in the end.

 

[eric]

I think Per Valentine is in the recent Lenswork and there are some technical details in there.

 

[JLP]

Nothing much to do with photography. Sad to see a fellow countryman manipulate everything there is to manipulate in photoshop and get recocknition for that in LensWork.


jan

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day kek

not particularly helpful replies eh?

a little heavy handed there jordan

hang on a minute Jan, why has it "nothing much to do with photography", it is a photograph

it has many of the attributes of a beautiful conceived and executed image, so it may be digital, that doesn't make it not a photograph

it may actually be 'easier' to do such a thing digitally, but it is also somewhat possible in analogue, may be we could all learn something from such an image, don't be so dismissive

to answer the OP, this image is a good example of eye catching strong photography; a sharp, bright, strong subject visually separated from it's background by use of DOF, lighting, compositon, contrast and size

i.e. all the elements any photographer working with whatever tools and materials needs to address to create strong visual messages

Ray

 

[Roger Hicks]

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?

A lot of it is mid-tone contrast, and after that, it is clear contrast between light and dark tones. 'Clear' contrast is not the same as 'high' contrast: it's just that you don't want a lot of very similar tones shading into one another. That can work perfectly well too, as (for example) in subtle skin tones in a portrait of a young woman, but I don't think it will be 'rich' in the same way that you mean.

No, you don't have to develop your own film, though arguably that's best. Shoot Ilford XP2 Super, exposing generously (try EI 320 or even 250) and print on Ilford Multigrade Warmtone. I'd suggest that both of the attached are 'rich' in the sense you mean. One (the door) I shot with a Voigtlander Bessa R2 and 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar and the other was taken by my wife with a Nikkormat and 75/2.5 Color-Skopar. Both are from our website.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Enroll in a course that teaches film development and printing skills. You need to struggle with the medium to learn.

 

[Gary Holliday]

To achieve a similar looking photograph, purchase the most expensive lens you can afford and then some more. Lens quality is vital for high quality photography.

Attach a red filter to the lens, add some flash to your subject and print with high contrast. Grade 5 or split grade printing with grade 5 and grade 1 depending on the negative.

 

[eric]

Nothing much to do with photography. Sad to see a fellow countryman manipulate everything there is to manipulate in photoshop and get recocknition for that in LensWork.


jan

That's why I didn't buy it

 

[JBrunner]

Lets say that the shot is analog, since thats where your interest seems to be. It is perfectly possible to produce these type of effects with film and a darkroom, but you would first need a negative that could deliver the results you are seeking. That is the first step, and there is not much getting around it. Filters, for starters, and knowing what filters to use. (Perhaps yellow, in this case) You would also need to pop up the fellow in the foreground about a stop with a flash or some other lighting. That's just true for this picture, but other compositions might not need lighting. In the darkroom, a good paper that gives consistent results that you are intimately experienced with, and skill at dodging and burning. Split grade printing is a method that makes it easier to arrive at this effect, when you understand it.

 

[jd callow]

Excellent example.

 

[pentaxuser]

You don't say whether you intend to develop your own prints either. It depends on whether you are asking how to produce negs which are both developed and then printed commercially to get the effect you have posted and/or the effect that Roger Hicks has posted.

As he has said if you rely on commercial development then XP2 super is the the way to go as it is standardised and a well exposed neg should come out right in the C41 process.

As far as print development is concerned then the problem is that commercial printing, except by custom labs at great expense, is also standardised and as a consequence " problematical". Standardisation in printing B&W in this sense is now working against you.

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".

I had used a number of such labs before processing my own film and developing B&W prints and quite frankly if I hadn't started doing my own, I'd be strictly a colour photographer now. Such was the quality I experienced

So unless you can find a lab which will taylor-make each print then doing your own printing is necessary.

The cheapest ingredients in fine B&W developing and printing are also the most frustrating to find and apply - time and effort.

You have to enjoy the journey or you'll give up and never get there.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[dslater]

So unless you can find a lab which will taylor-make each print then doing your own printing is necessary.

Agreed - However, if you're going to set up a darkroom for printing, then you might as well develop your own film as well.

Dan

 

[Kekhotep]

Thank you all very much. I have read your replies, will study them tomorrow at work, and truly appreciate them. My photography tutor, a professional, has darkroom and will teach me how to get started. Again, thank you and APUG.

 

[Kekhotep]

Reply to my black and white desires

You don't say whether you intend to develop your own prints either. It depends on whether you are asking how to produce negs which are both developed and then printed commercially to get the effect you have posted and/or the effect that Roger Hicks has posted.

As he has said if you rely on commercial development then XP2 super is the the way to go as it is standardised and a well exposed neg should come out right in the C41 process.

As far as print development is concerned then the problem is that commercial printing, except by custom labs at great expense, is also standardised and as a consequence " problematical". Standardisation in printing B&W in this sense is now working against you.

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".

I had used a number of such labs before processing my own film and developing B&W prints and quite frankly if I hadn't started doing my own, I'd be strictly a colour photographer now. Such was the quality I experienced

So unless you can find a lab which will taylor-make each print then doing your own printing is necessary.

The cheapest ingredients in fine B&W developing and printing are also the most frustrating to find and apply - time and effort.

You have to enjoy the journey or you'll give up and never get there.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

Thank you very much this was very insightful.

 

[noseoil]

If you decide to go down the path which leads to the darkroom, the best advice I can give was given to me by someone a few years back. Use one film and developer until you have managed to work out the vagaries of time, temperature, film contrast and print contrast. There are so many factors which come into play with film and paper that it will become completely confusing at some point (or for that matter, many points) along the journey. Change one variable at a time and ask questions as you go.

I would start with a film like Trix-400 in 35mm and a developer like Pyrocat-hd mixed in glycol (available form Photographers Formulary). These two work well together, have a wealth of information in apug and the web, loyal followers to help with advice and are fairly forgiving of mistakes. There are many fine people on apug who willingly share information. Best of luck, tim

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[JBrunner]

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.

The negative for the 8x10 contact print of the leaves in my earlier post was made using a 1930's era Eastman 2D and a mutant G-Claron with elements from the secret Nevada lens mine, and assembled by Jim Gallis little green men. Total gear investment- $800 or so to shoot 8x10. Of course I wish I had more/newer/better equipment, but that doesn't keep me from my work.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The negative for the 8x10 contact print of the leaves in my earlier post was made using a 1930's era Eastman 2D and a mutant G-Claron with elements from the secret Nevada lens mine, and assembled by Jim Gallis little green men. Total gear investment- $800 or so to shoot 8x10. Of course I wish I had more/newer/better equipment, but that doesn't keep me from my work.

My favorite workhorse camera in my arsenal right now is my Century Master studio camera, which, including the Seneca Whole Plate portrait lens (most likely a Wollensak Vesta rebadged), whole plate AND 5x7 backs, and camera stand, I've got maybe $500 in. I still have fun with my current cheapest camera, an old Graflex 22 TLR I bought for $25. It gives fine results, but the format isn't my favorite anymore (I now see in a 5x7 or 5x12 rectangle, not a 6x6 square). A perfect example of the tool fitting the task.

 

[Chuck_P]

You want to be able to make rich black and white photographs? Then you have to be in total control of your materials and you have to be able to predict their performance i.e., film, developer, paper/developer combinations. Learn the Zone System or Beyond the Zone System techniques of exposure and development, just dive into one of them and don't stop-----the negative is the point of departure toward creating rich black and white photographs so control the quality of the negative first.

JB's example of a rich black and white photograph is an awsome example, whether he used the ZS or BTZS or not. How ever he exposed and developed that negative, I think it clearly shows total control of his materials and processes and that's what you need to strive for.

Chuck

 

[Roger Hicks]

Learn the Zone System or Beyond the Zone System techniques of exposure and development, just dive into one of them and don't stop

Or study basic sensitometry, of which both are subsets.

Not getting at you, Chuck, just pointing out that they are not the only way of doing it. Nor do you need to do either to get rich pics: experience will do instead, Weston being the classic example.

A lot of people imagine that they HAVE to learn the Zone System or BTZS, and it just ain't so. I'll not deny for an instant that for some people, ZS/BTZS is the way to do it. But for those who don't get on with either, they are not the only paths.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Chuck_P]

A lot of people imagine that they HAVE to learn the Zone System or BTZS, and it just ain't so.

No argument there at all. You certainly don't have to know it to make good photographs. But the OP is asking "how can I make richer looking black and whites?". Learning some basic sensitometry has never hurt any photographer.

I would be willing to bet that 6 months after self study in one of those techniques the OP's photographic "experience" will be much more fruitful and organized than any experience gained through trial and error alone. But of coarse, someone like me who is wired for the methodical approach can take such a one-sided point of view.

Roger is right though---there's different ways to the same goal.

good luck

 

[jordanstarr]

My favorite workhorse camera in my arsenal right now is my Century Master studio camera, which, including the Seneca Whole Plate portrait lens (most likely a Wollensak Vesta rebadged), whole plate AND 5x7 backs, and camera stand, I've got maybe $500 in. I still have fun with my current cheapest camera, an old Graflex 22 TLR I bought for $25. It gives fine results, but the format isn't my favorite anymore (I now see in a 5x7 or 5x12 rectangle, not a 6x6 square). A perfect example of the tool fitting the task.

$500 is quite a bit to drop on a first camera (think when you bought your first camera. i bought my first for $299.99 and thought that was expensive!). also considering this individual isn't going to start at a 5x7 format, there's buying the 35mm and medium format gear in between. also, tack on the film developing gear and darkroom stuff and you're looking into the thousands. i agree, you don't need good gear to take good photos, but it's still going to be an expensive experience in the long run. a lot of cheap gear adds up.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

My comment about the cost of my current favorite was in specific relation to the flippant remark someone made about needing to buy the very best (read expensive, modern) gear. For large format, getting going for under $500 is an accomplishment. Having a setup that works really well with your style of working for $500 is a real accomplishment! I really doubt any beginner is going to start out in large format, shooting 5x7. Those days are LONG gone. But for someone looking to move into LF, $500 is a very reasonable starting budget, and a serviceable kit can be had for that or even less with a bit of patience and care.

Also, you completely skipped over the second item I mentioned - I've got a Graflex 22, which is a perfectly serviceable camera that produces excellent images, that I spent $25 for. Nothing at all wrong with it, and if you work with it, and get comfortable with it, and like the TLR style of shooting, you'll be able to produce first-rate work with it. At $25, it has limitations, but you can't complain too much about its limitations at that price.