less shadow detail mght be 'more'...

Chuck_P · Nov 27, 2012

This is such a matter of personal taste and intent. For me, I make distinctions between important shadows and not so important shadows as not all shadows are created equal, the term "shadows" is thrown around as if they are all the same. Plainly put, areas of full black are important to my prints, they provide depth, but slightly textured and fully textured shadows are just as important to my aesthetic.

markbarendt · Nov 27, 2012

CPorter said:
This is such a matter of personal taste and intent. For me, I make distinctions between important shadows and not so important shadows as not all shadows are created equal, the term "shadows" is thrown around as if they are all the same. Plainly put, areas of full black are important to my prints, they provide depth, but slightly textured and fully textured shadows are just as important to my aesthetic.

I do agree, that personal taste and intent are the deciding factors.

But I believe that David expresses a feeling that many of us feel. Guilt.

David Lyga said:
Yes, thank you all for liberating me and refusing to allow me to suffer guilt in the process.

It's true that you can have shadow detail in the negative but find that leaving it out of the print (because of the need for more contrast, perhaps) can make for a better print with far more impact. Viscerally, it SEEMS to be 'wasting' information but, with much print viewing, I agree that sometimes 'less is more'. Yes, to reiterate, the highlight contrast sometimes 'tells' the story better than anything else can, through its 'boldness' and (really) beauty. Much learned and confirmed here. - David Lyga

Helinophoto · Nov 28, 2012

Honestly, the John Blakemore print, to me, looks like a solarized or a weird HDR attempt (if you were to use a ....hmm... non analog camera).

To each their own, I don't care for it, I'm more in the line with CPorter.

A. Adams did a lot of good things, but he sure messed up the thinking about shadow detail around the world

Many people wrongly thinks zone system means you always need to have detail in the shadows. This is false, off course, but a lot of people seem to adhere to this thinking.

David Allen · Nov 28, 2012

Many of Adams' prints have solid black shadows and he did not advocate that prints need to always have detail in the shadows. What he did advocate was that photographers need to learn is the craft part of photography so that they can achieve prints that match THEIR vision. If you want deep solid blacks in your image that is fine - after all they are your photographs.

My personal preference is images that look contrasty but retain some detail in any largish area of deep shadow. Nevertheless, I also like the work of Daido Moriyama, Brett Weston, Ralph Gibson, Bill Brandt, Ray Metzker, etc all of whom have employed jet black shadows in their work. I have also seen a lot of John Blakemore's work as both prints and reproduction. Whilst I respect his work and know that he takes great care over the way he crafts his prints, the majority (for my personal taste) of his prints I find flat and lifeless.

David
www.dsallen.de

batwister · Nov 28, 2012

Helinophoto said:
A. Adams did a lot of good things, but he sure messed up the thinking about shadow detail around the world

Blakemore is a zone system advocate. He made creative, practical sense of it with his teaching. Most people are too rigid about contrast, as if it's an absolute truth. Which is fair enough - if you make strong pictures this way to back it up. But those who are in a mental straitjacket tend to be in a creative one too.

The HDR comment. I didn't know whether to leave that alone. Bad experience? Tip of the day: stop looking at HDR pix and you'll stop seeing it in everything you look at.

It's like those 9/11 obsessives that scream controversy when they see anything in a pair. Tip: stop watching 9/11 videos.

David Lyga · Nov 28, 2012

You know, no matter how much you want to refute this, it is true: Ansel Adams was primarily an academic, primarily theorizing about photography. In this respect, using his mindset, shadow detail becomes mandatory and not to be excluded. 'Aesthetics' becomes either outwardly subordinate or 'absorbed' into the academics.

It is true, David Allen, that some of his photographs do not have shadow detail but that is decidedly rare with his work. Helinophoto, you do have a point when you say that he 'messed up the thinking about shadow detail' but I think that that is going a bit too far. You do, however, make a valid point about his 'having to have' that detail in order for the picture to be 'complete and whole' as a photograph can be, sometimes, a downright misinformed aesthetic assessment.

What this thread forces us to do is bifurcate the two realms: theory and aesthetics, rather than simply and conveniently combining the two. Sometimes there is a conflict with the two realms and, thus, that combination becomes futile. That separation of the two is not easy to even WANT to do. I have had an ongoing conflict with this for many, many years. On one hand I like the look of a thinner but somewhat more contrasty negative (and the delightful speed increase that goes along with it). But too often when I make the print, no matter which contrast grade I use, it looks incomplete. Other times a negative with a full rasher of detail provides all the necessary panoply of tones but something is missing in the print. For example, on a cloudy day the 'accurate' print shows a dull scene. But if underexposed and overdeveloped the scene suddenly becomes slightly surreal and better.

What I just said makes a heroic point in favor of the segregated development that is an attribute of sheet film! - David Lyga

Arvee · Nov 28, 2012

David, my all time favorite photograph (The Walk in Paradise Garden by W. Eugene Smith), hanging on my office wall, is a classic example of letting the shadows go inky black and creating a very dramatic moment/result. It doesn't get any better than this!

Minamata, by Smith, is also a classic example of using deep shadows to tell a very moving and dramatic story. In fact, people were so affected by his Minamata photo essay that he was severely beaten by goons.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 28, 2012

Tonality can be used as a compositional element. Deep blacks and bright whites can support a composition, direct the eye, or even be an important ingredient in creating mystique. To print everything to reveal a maximum amount of tones is a flavor that's personal, and is no more valid as an approach than any other flavor. Variety is good. Use it to your advantage!

David Lyga · Nov 28, 2012

Fred, you would have to search the world for a more poignant photograph than Minamata.

Smith paid a brutal, physical price for that photo and died younger than he had a right to.

And, Thomas, Yousuf Karsh said it correctly, with both words and photographs, when he said: "the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - David Lyga

Rafal Lukawiecki · Nov 28, 2012

David, like you, I am still conflicted. Personally, I am drawn to photographs that show a gradual change from some shadow detail into a jet-black of the paper. Here is my attempt at that: Dead Link Removed

I love the moment when the eye no longer sees the detail, while it scans a printor, the other way round, how it suddenly discovers detail in what was nothing, but where previously, at a casual glance, nothing was expected. It creates a moment when an expectation of the viewer is exceeded, a little surprise, and it is satisfying. I could wax lyrically about that feeling; I suppose I ought to blog. Bear in mind, this gradation looks way juicier on the real, Se toned print, and the web repro is a only a 2nd relative.

This picture, however, is the one that I hear the most contrasting comments about. Some people love it the most of all of my photographs, some people feel the "black" area is too overpowering. Have I had my way, many of my prints would have large black pools, but over the years I have learned to print with more shadow detail, mainly due to an occassional comment by another photographer that I was making a basic printing mistake in printing so dark. I cannot deny that a statistically average eye seem to be drawn to a highlight, while deep shadows are to be only examined by the more dedicated viewer. So there I am, still conflicted, to appeal to more, or to risk it more. I'd say my newer work (sorry, not on the web site yet) is an attempt to have the best of both, time will show if people like it.

Sorry for blatantly directing you to my own photo, as I do not wish to hijack the thread. It is just that I have been thinking a lot about what David asked, lately. I agree very much with the comments here, in particular with Thomas's and Michael's observations.

Shawn Dougherty · Nov 28, 2012

David Lyga said:
You know, no matter how much you want to refute this, it is true: Ansel Adams was primarily an academic, primarily theorizing about photography.

While I appreciate this conversation, find it very thought provoking and enjoyable I must say that statement is simply false. Ansel made FAR too many photographs to be referred to as "primarily an acedemic".

He was an academic AND a prolific photographer. I'd say undeniably.

-------------------

Edit: Perhaps I've missed the intent of that statement... none the less I have a hard time, in spite of context, referring to someone as prolific as Ansel as primarily an academic.

batwister · Nov 28, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
If they are looked at without the clutter of all the similar photography done since, to me they are astonishing in their artistry and creativity.

Looking at his work without thinking about all the copycats will only become more difficult, and this is the biggest problem with photography as lasting original art. The value of great original photography is forgotten much quicker than original paintings. In twenty years, I think William Eggleston will be the new Ansel Adams and the biggest insults when presenting work will be "he's trying to be Eggleston", "nostalgic trash - reminds me of Eggleston", "seeing democratically? You're living in the past maaan".

For me, AA's lasting contribution is his plea for technical competence - which has now become child's play in photography and thus, has no value in and of itself. Contrast is an intuitive decision, just like it is when setting up a new television, there's nothing theoretical about it. To go to the AA level with traditional photographic craft today is like driving a steam engine to work in the rush hour - you'll annoy most people and get a few laughs and curious looks from others. But critically, your work won't be remembered.

Rafal Lukawiecki · Nov 28, 2012

That makes me somehow sad, batwister...

Helinophoto · Nov 28, 2012

batwister said:
Blakemore is a zone system advocate. He made creative, practical sense of it with his teaching. Most people are too rigid about contrast, as if it's an absolute truth. Which is fair enough - if you make strong pictures this way to back it up. But those who are in a mental straitjacket tend to be in a creative one too.

The HDR comment. I didn't know whether to leave that alone. Bad experience? Tip of the day: stop looking at HDR pix and you'll stop seeing it in everything you look at.

It's like those 9/11 obsessives that scream controversy when they see anything in a pair. Tip: stop watching 9/11 videos.

I didn't try to slog off the shot (I commented on the tonality, not the subject matter).
The HDR reference was that it looks unnatural (to me).

And, I do create a lot of HDR-images with my d1g1 equipment, so I have no real issue with that per-se, it was just a way of describing how I experience that particular photo.

As for the zone-system, I think it's the most excellent tool we have for control, -control- , over the process, but blown highlights and blocked shadows are all a part of the natural world (even to our own astounding eyes).

batwister · Nov 28, 2012

Rafal Lukawiecki said:
That makes me somehow sad, batwister...

I think it's really sad too. I'll be going to see the Ansel Adams show in London at some point and I'm sure I'll be bowled over. But when I leave the gallery, it's straight back to the ephemeral truth of the world we live in.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 28, 2012

Definitely

Fred Aspen said:
And Salgado!

The empty shadows does give a feeling of uncertainty and bleakness with some of his shots.

markbarendt · Nov 28, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
But I hear what batwister is saying. And in the end even if I hang my prints in a gallery the truth is nobody cares about print quality, shadow detail, highlight detail, sharpness, grain etc., at least on a conscious level. Maybe a few other photographers might notice, or maybe you can impress a few people at a workshop, but aside from that nobody cares.

I agree but I do think people see the whole.

If we have sweated the details it shows.

Recently I printed a shot of my dog at 11x14 for myself, taken on 4x5 HP5, the detail in his face and eyes is incredible and the tones are so smooth; the people I show it to know its different, they may not know why, but they do know its special.

batwister · Nov 28, 2012

Instead of the draw of traditional photography being something rooted in the sensibilities of the past, I just wish, for the life of me, we could win people over for its relevance and timeliness. Wouldn't that be great? Scrapping the word 'traditional' altogether might be a start! There's definitely a place for more traditional modes of practice (aesthetically speaking), some of which I like and own books of, but I feel that some classical full tonal range work comes with a false sense of purity of intent that insists 'this is photography'. Unfortunately, 99% of people disagree or... just don't give a sh!t. There has to be a moment when we accept that it's not everyone else that's crazy, it's us.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 28, 2012

Photography is a language all it's own. Shadow detail is one of the words in it's broad vocabulary. There are no rights nor wrongs here. How you use these words in the vocabulary is up to you. It's my hope that people don't get too caught up in the grammar, and express something that's challenging and new.

Chuck_P · Nov 28, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Tonality can be used as a compositional element. Deep blacks and bright whites can support a composition, direct the eye, or even be an important ingredient in creating mystique. To print everything to reveal a maximum amount of tones is a flavor that's personal, and is no more valid as an approach than any other flavor. Variety is good. Use it to your advantage!

I agree, it's what the individual is striving for that matters.

Chuck_P · Nov 28, 2012

AA advocated the use of full black in prints, no doubt. But in regard to his own aesthetic, what he did not prefer, from what is in the literature that I can tell, was a large percentage of the image containing empty black space. For me, it depends on the image wether or not I find that appealing. But it is also no doubt, that he did not ignore the extreme ends of the gray scale at all:

"...the subtleties of the lightest and darkest tones involve the entire range of the paper's sensitivity, and often the qualities characterizing a truly fine print may be found in the delicate variations of the extremely light and dark values."
AA - The Print

That simply says it all right there when it comes to AA and his intent. And it all points back, IMO, to his use of the ZS and the command of craft to be able to make a negative to achieve such a level of self imposed perfection. One of the greatest things about AA, IMO, is that there were not any magic tricks in his brand of photography that enabled him to achieve that level for himself. Today, we have available to us: chemicals, film, paper, camera, and light meter, the same as in his day................like I said, no magic tricks. I personally strive for that same useage of the entire gray scale in what I do, I find that I am drawn to pictures that have it as opposed to those that don't.

Bill Burk · Nov 28, 2012

CPorter said:
I personally strive for that same useage of the entire gray scale in what I do, I find that I am drawn to pictures that have it...

I like the full scale too, and I like shadows where the details can be seen. I wish I wasn't so fond of uneven black borders, because I'd be interested in experimenting with flashing (Lootens' flashing with 7 watt bulb to blacken corners and edges to remove distractions, not the more common use of the word flashing which is a very slight overall exposure). I also am interested in experimenting with extreme Zone System placement and processing (maybe putting something Zone VI on III, plunging everything else to black and developing N+3 to bring Zone VIII back to VIII to give the illusion of a full scale print with very distorted values).

Think about that when you are out and about. If you can't find a straight landscape that's worth committing to film, there might be an abstraction.

markbarendt · Nov 28, 2012

I think part of this discussion relates to the f64 camp vs Pictorialists and soft focusers.

Adams liked his strong blacks, sharp with detail.

Pictorialists and soft focusers aren't married to sharp with detail across the whole print.

In many cases we Pictorialists and soft focusers simply aren't even trying to convey detail where the f64 camp does. In fact when shooting the same scene we even obliterate the detail purposefully with selective focus or movements to emphasize the subject.

When the shadows are just fuzzy tones any way, they have a different roll than if they were shot sharp.

Chuck_P · Nov 29, 2012

Edward Weston called them, the "fuzzy wuzzies".

Rafal Lukawiecki · Nov 29, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I also am interested in experimenting with extreme Zone System placement and processing (maybe putting something Zone VI on III, plunging everything else to black and developing N+3 to bring Zone VIII back to VIII to give the illusion of a full scale print with very distorted values).

Think about that when you are out and about. If you can't find a straight landscape that's worth committing to film, there might be an abstraction.

Bill, it seems that we share an interest in less common zone placements. In my experience, it helps achieve an abstract, and, I hope, an interesting result. I have a short sequence of about six images taken in Canyon X, on my web site, where, while working in very low-light conditions, I had a lot of freedom in selecting zonal placements. I tried unusual options, and I think it has worked well, helping express the Dead Link Removed in the abstract patterns on the rock face, while retaining the overall feel of a Dead Link Removed. I placed high on low, and have given N+2 in some of those photographs. I feel that I have helped the viewer see what the eye doesn't easily grasp, while looking at those famous sandstones.

On the other hand, I have found that an unusual placement in more recognisable, natural looking landscape is trickier, and does not work as easily as it does in an abstract. I hope to learn more about it, from reading your comments, and by experimenting further.

CPorter said:
AA advocated the use of full black in prints, no doubt. But in regard to his own aesthetic, what he did not prefer, from what is in the literature that I can tell, was a large percentage of the image containing empty black space.

Chuck, thanks for your observation. It makes me wonder, however, if in the later prints he may have deviated from that preference. When I saw Adams's exhibit in 2002, mainly of his most recent printings, I was struck by how pitch-black the skies were, for example in Moonrise, Hernandez, where the black space occupies almost 40% of the print. Nonetheless, I felt that that space had been used very effectively and expressively.

PS. I hope I have not offended anyone by linking to my two abstract pictures. Apologies if otherwise, the only aim was to illustrate my point, as this discussion is very relevant to me at the moment.

less shadow detail mght be 'more'...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency