How is the look achieved in a print?

[Roy Keane]

I was looking at some images by Paul Hart and, as someone relatively new to the darkroom, I'm starting to recognize things I'd like to do but can't quite figure out.

So, here (below) is an image that, for the life of me, I can't figure out. Given the fine nature of the branches and the brightness of the trunks, I can't figure out how the front trees are perfect while the background is black....how did he burn it in without losing the branches or getting weird halos?

Is it negative masking? A very specific kind of light and a specific kind of metering when the original negative was made? A combo of multiple techniques?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The background for the trees was dark. Or much darker than the trees along the side of the road. Photography shows what was in front of the camera. There is heavy burning around the top and sides that further emphasizes the center trees. The secret to taking really good photographs is to move around a lot to find really good subjects; without a really good subject you won't get a really good photograph.

I have shots made in Germany's Black Forest that look like this.

 

[Roy Keane]

The background for the trees was dark. Or much darker than the trees along the side of the road. Photography shows what was in front of the camera. There is heavy burning around the top and sides that further emphasizes the center trees. The secret to taking really good photographs is to move around a lot to find really good subjects; without a really good subject you won't get a really good photograph.

I have shots made in Germany's Black Forest that look like this.

Would you meter a scene like this differently than “normal” to achieve that contrast. Meter the background for near black?

I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen that depth of black with that type of bright subject with my actual eyes

 

[Helge]

He just used flash.
Possibly diffused and multiple.
You could make this photo under any circumstance.
As long as the flash is strong enough and the sync speed high enough.

 

[radiant]

Basically you "underexpose" so much that shadows are completely black / without details -> negative is clear. Then you have playroom to give the paper more exposure without getting any details from shadows.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Using a film with strong reciprocity behavior can help and make the printing easier. I've done this with FP4+. It won't work with Acros unless your exposures are really really long.

 

[MattKing]

It's the light, with some judicious application of printing controls.
A more or less straight scan of a colour slide:

 

[gone]

If you didn't see the actual print, then you really have no idea what it actually looks like. It's not sound to think that what you see on your screen is how the print appears. The online image may or may not have been digitally manipulated. But, just from the appearance of that shot, the trees were probably lit w/ something, maybe the photographer's car headlights. They decided that the trees in front would be the center of interest, and metered for them.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I was looking at some images by Paul Hart and, as someone relatively new to the darkroom, I'm starting to recognize things I'd like to do but can't quite figure out.

So, here (below) is an image that, for the life of me, I can't figure out. Given the fine nature of the branches and the brightness of the trunks, I can't figure out how the front trees are perfect while the background is black....how did he burn it in without losing the branches or getting weird halos?

Is it negative masking? A very specific kind of light and a specific kind of metering when the original negative was made? A combo of multiple techniques?

View attachment 287036

Have you actually looked at prints, or only reproductions on a computer monitor? The blacks always appear blacker (and richer) on a monitor.
The dark background is placed low on the exposure scale, then appropriate development given to make the lighter tones pop out more. Slight burning along the print edges, on appropriate paper grade/contrast.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Step 1) Create a negative with adequate texture/detail to explore various interpretations.

Step 2) Create multiple printing variations until it cannot be improved...in the eye of the photographer.

It looks like the paper grade and developer were chosen for local contrast in the tree bark. This dropped the trees further in the forest into near black, which suited the photographer because it draws attention to the first tree.

Prodigious edge burning pushed the first tree further forward and darkened the tees deeper in the forest even more.

 

[Pieter12]

I doubt it's lit. The light is very vertical and would have to be done with bar doors or a strip box, a lot of work in the field. I think it is a combination of natural light hitting the foreground trees and darkroom manipulation--dodging and burning, probably through split-grade printing.

 

[removed account4]

if you have ever seen the David Lynch movie/ twin peaks where the headlights are into the trees and there is wind and white noise its sort of like that but without the white noise, wind and David Lynch .

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Despite all the posts so far, I don't think there's anything at all mysterious about this photograph (still really effective, though!).

It's a typical low-contrast scene with the contrast increased by development, paper grade, post, etc. Lighting was flat and soft, shadows were dark. The shadows get placed low or printed through to keep them dark. Maybe a little dodging and/or bleaching of the bright tree trunks. I don't think there was burning at the top; it looks like light fall-off from the lens to me or maybe just didn't get dodged/bleached. Really, anyone who learned the basics of the Zone System knows how to do this.

Doremus

 

[Roy Keane]

Wow. Lots of different responses. I appreciate it.

Of course, now I have no idea which approach to choose, other than to try everything. Which is the fun part anyway

 

[Frank53]

Nons

He just used flash.
Possibly diffused and multiple.
You could make this photo under any circumstance.
As long as the flash is strong enough and the sync speed high enough.

Nonsense! This is exactly what these kind of woods look like at the right time of day in the right weather circumstances.
I see it all the time in the woods just across the border in Germany. But then it still is quite an achievement to get it on film (and print) like this.

 

[Craig75]

i feel like i have a seen a similar picture in a Barry Thornton book where he talks you through how he did it.

(or in another book...)

 

[Helge]

Nons

Nonsense! This is exactly what these kind of woods look like at the right time of day in the right weather circumstances.
I see it all the time in the woods just across the border in Germany. But then it still is quite an achievement to get it on film (and print) like this.

The light falloff matches with flash more or less perfectly. The square law and all that.
Any kind of sun directly on the trunks would reach further into the woods. You also most likely be able to see just a few glints of daylight through the tops even if the wood was very dense.
This looks very much like all ambient light was drowned out with a fast shutter.

 

[Pieter12]

if you have ever seen the David Lynch movie/ twin peaks where the headlights are into the trees and there is wind and white noise its sort of like that but without the white noise, wind and David Lynch .

Headlights would cast a horizontal beam, not vertical.

 

[removed account4]

Headlights would cast a horizontal beam, not vertical.

I guess ?

sort of implies it is not exactly like that but kind of like that. .. light in front and dark in the back ...
the light could be vertical strip lights?
a flash ?
or even natural light.

or who knows ... ( or it could be the dreaded PT (photoshop tweak ) )

I figure Roy could figure out the rest, as long as he's listening to some Angelo Badalamenti.

John

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I agree with Michael. Best thing is to contact the photographer.

At first I thought it was shot at dusk with its soft light, but the background is black, the light falls off quickly, and there is no bleed through of sky. I think it was shot at night and if you copy the image and play with curves in Photoshop, it looks like i was a night scene shot with a flash or some form of artificial light and printed down.

 

[reddesert]

I don't think this is lit with artificial light, as the light is diffuse. It would take a softbox the size of a tree.

Often, we spend a lot of time learning how to expose and control contrast to get an image with a full range, even distribution of tones, retain shadow detail, etc. And then it turns out that a striking image can also be made by letting large parts of the image go much darker or lighter than a strictly balanced distribution of tones would indicate. It seems likely that he let the shadows go dark and probably burned in the sides and top. I'm not saying I could do this, or even that I could visualize it when looking at the scene, but don't think there's any extraordinary tricks involved.

 

[foc]

Nons

Nonsense! This is exactly what these kind of woods look like at the right time of day in the right weather circumstances.
I see it all the time in the woods just across the border in Germany. But then it still is quite an achievement to get it on film (and print) like this.

I have to agree (even though I have never been in Germany).
At first, I thought it may have been fill-in flash (Inverse-square law and all that) but on closer examination, I am of the opinion it was natural light, the kind that just happens and you are lucky to capture it. Right place, right time.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Me-thinks it's a diffuse light (dawn, dusk, heavy overcast) scene of what around here we call "regen" which is short for regenerated forest.

Such stands can be very thick, so you wouldn't see sky through the trees at all, even on a bright day.

The dead branches on the trunks are typical of 'regen', where the young trees grow closely packed together which causes them to have very dense branches. These trees would be the survivors, and haven't dropped their lower branches yet.

Evidence of the prodigious edge burn can be seen primarily in the top corners where the exposure has piled up (tree trunks disappear altogether into inky blackness) and at the top of the first trees trunk.

It doesn't look like a very difficult print to make at all.

 

[Pieter12]

It could also be a night shot that was light-painted.

 

[Loren Sattler]

I think the photo was taken in the midst of a dense forest....not along the edge near a road. The branches are appear dead or at least light starved which supports this theory. This would suggest the light illuminating the scene is probably artificial although the light does not appear to come from a single flash. So I am as confused as anyone. Someone suggested digital manipulation. Perhaps that explains it?? If the photographer shares his technique...please share the answer with us.