My Rant - Black And White Pictures does not Mean HIGH CONTRAST

MattKing · Jan 7, 2010

I find that a lot of this is a result of the differences between display methods.

If I take a Black and White negative that I like and prepare a photographic print with a lot of subtle tones and contrasts, it looks good to me.

If I then scan the negative and try to reproduce it as an image on my monitor, I can get the tones to be similar on the screen, but it tends to look better on the monitor if the contrast is increased.

I think it results from how the shadows and highlights are shown on a medium like a monitor, as compared to the reflection of light from a paper surface.

Matt

hoffy · Jan 7, 2010

Marco hit the nail on the head. Its not that its contrast, its that its big globs of black and big globs of white.

But I have mellowed out on a nights sleep. The world isn't such a bad place afterall

AmandaTom · Jan 7, 2010

Unfortunately, my skills are such that some of my negatives from night shoots look better on a monitor that out of my darkroom. That may be because they are very high contrast by nature, and printing a negative with such a wide range is a challenge currently beyond me. I am not as attached to snowy whites as I am to deep black--but not at the expense of detail.

Black and white is about nuance. Some people don't include such subtlety in their aesthetic and are unlikely to appreciate something with an infinite number of greys but only one black and one white. You are asking the wrong crowd to critique your work, and not because they shoot digital, but because they don't appreciate what you are trying to acheive.

23mjm · Jan 7, 2010

Didn't Ansel Adams have a saying like "it's not the blackest blacks of the whitest whites it's the subtle shades of gray in between" or something like that!!! Or maybe it was someone else, anyway I like the quote.

Chazzy · Jan 7, 2010

I also think that it's a mistake to try to get some black and some white in every print, on the theory that that is necessary for the print to "sparkle." Some prints just need to be gray. And I really don't like black skies—I would ban red filters, if I could. Infrared is an exception.

hoffy · Jan 7, 2010

Red filters!!! I know I am guilty as well of this one, but the trend is to use Circular Polarisers....makes a red filter look rather normal

Sirius Glass · Jan 7, 2010

hoffy said:
Red filters!!! I know I am guilty as well of this one, but the trend is to use Circular Polarisers....makes a red filter look rather normal

Polarizor darken the sky. The read filters take out the UV through the Orange spectrum. The trend in this case is driven by the uneducated users, not the people who know and understand the physics of light.

Steve

Q.G. · Jan 7, 2010

Polarizers only darken a narrowish band in the sky.
Whether they are circular polarizers or not only matters to some metering and AF systems that may happen to be behind them. The effect of both circular and linear polarizers is the same.
UV is blocked quite effectively by almost all clear glass.
Red filters take out the blue part of the spectrum and (part of the neighbouring spectrum too) because they simply don't transmit the blue part of the spectrum.

2F/2F · Jan 7, 2010

No; they doesn't.

However, I disagree with your analysis entirely. It sounds like you are just looking at high-contrast pictures.

Jeff Searust · Jan 7, 2010

It's the whole digital HDR bs if ya ask me...

Had a friend show me some platinum 12x20 contacts he had just done last eve, and if some of these digital heads ever saw that sort of stuff they would immediately throw away every piece of gear they owned and enter a monastery -- they just aren't worthy...

Chuck_P · Jan 7, 2010

23mjm said:
Didn't Ansel Adams have a saying like "it's not the blackest blacks of the whitest whites it's the subtle shades of gray in between" or something like that!!! Or maybe it was someone else, anyway I like the quote.

It may be this one from AA:

"..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."

Some of my other favorite AA quotes on the subject of printing:

- "the difference between a very good print and a fine print is quite subtle and difficult, if not impossible, to describe in words."

- "...a note of pure white or solid black can serve as a "key" to other values and an image that needs these key values will feel weak without them. But there is no reason why they should be included in all images...."

- "Marvelous effects are possible within a close and subtle range of values.

- "I find it always necessary to stress the fact that we cannot equate brilliance with contrast."
_________________________

I know, I know enough already.

mojoe · Jan 7, 2010

mate there are no rules when it comes to photography, thats why its an artform.
1 rule to remember hi contrast use hi speed film such as 400s and 800s
for a more subtle effect use low speed films 50s and 100s

use your manual settings on your camera to accomadate for the film iso you are using,
the more you use your manual settings the more you will learn on how to control your camera properly.
take notes on shutter speeds and aperture setting and bracket your shot 1 over exposed 1 underexposed and 1 neautral.
then you will see the difference in your BW shots, they can get very moody in the right light.
I love BW photography! It is timeless and they age very gracefully

cheers and have fun

marco.taje · Jan 8, 2010

mojoe said:
1 rule to remember hi contrast use hi speed film such as 400s and 800s

You sure, mate?

Steve Roberts · Jan 8, 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by 23mjm
Didn't Ansel Adams have a saying like "it's not the blackest blacks of the whitest whites it's the subtle shades of gray in between" or something like that!!! Or maybe it was someone else, anyway I like the quote.
It may be this one from AA:

"..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."

Sorry Ansel Adams, but I prefer 23mjm's version!
Steve

Moose38 · Jan 8, 2010

A good B/W should contain a wide value of tones. But when your shooting B/W of a lady in a black dress. Then that dress in the print should be black. I think back to the old high school protography class when i first started. Every print was grey even where there should have been a wider vast of tonal value. It takes time. It really is a media that your still mastering well after you've learned every thing else.

patrickjames · Jan 8, 2010

Whenever new technology comes out people will naturally try to use it to make something that wasn't possible before. We saw it in fashion images when they first started getting photoshopped (plastic skin), HDR images are done because it wasn't possible to make them before (yuck). The computer allows images to be made in a way that is new. As with the previously two examples, new is not always better of course. I would respectfully suggest that there is a lack of taste with most of this, and in the end it comes back to the same principles that have been informing art for millennia. When the shock of the new wears off, what do you have left?

naugastyle · Jan 8, 2010

Although I do see a lot of the super-high-contrast shots you're talking about (OP):

A) Often I see them from film shooters who've jacked up their own shots in Photoshop and
B) Some of the times I more quickly pinpoint a digitally converted b/w shot (whether it's converted from digital or film color) is because it's actually overly FLAT.

I guess my point is I didn't realize this was as black/white (har) as "digital people loooove high contrast b/w and film shooters don't."

M4cr0s · Jan 9, 2010

patrickjames said:
Whenever new technology comes out people will naturally try to use it to make something that wasn't possible before. We saw it in fashion images when they first started getting photoshopped (plastic skin), HDR images are done because it wasn't possible to make them before (yuck). The computer allows images to be made in a way that is new. As with the previously two examples, new is not always better of course. I would respectfully suggest that there is a lack of taste with most of this, and in the end it comes back to the same principles that have been informing art for millennia. When the shock of the new wears off, what do you have left?

HDR is an amazing technology which we will see a lot more of in the future, it's a photographic revolution that is very misunderstood. Basically, since HDR files and technology are based on floating point numbers they contain more data and more nuances than any screen today are able to show since monitors are by nature low dynamic range (LDR). In order to compress the enormous range into a more or less pleasing screen-viewable image, various "hacks" have to take place, namely tone mapping.

The fact that some overdo or do not master the tone mapping process does not mean that the technology sucks. In a time perspective of a decade or three, HDR technology will give us images with greater dynamic range, wider tonality, smoother graduations, better detail and so forth than we've ever seen before in any photographic medium. This will also benefit digital B/W photography, it is likely that not even large format film and a master printer will be able to produce similar results (we need better printer technology and screens first, obviously).

Now it's not popular to say anything remotely positive about digital technology in these fine forums, there's however a difference between disliking something you just do not understand and disliking something you understand the ins and outs of. HDR technology is still in it's infancy and there's no doubt it will be the future of digital photography. Of course in a much refined version of todays crude technology.

/Mac

2F/2F · Jan 9, 2010

M4cr0s said:
HDR is an amazing technology which we will see a lot more of in the future, it's a photographic revolution that is very misunderstood. Basically, since HDR files and technology are based on floating point numbers they contain more data and more nuances than any screen today are able to show since monitors are by nature low dynamic range (LDR). In order to compress the enormous range into a more or less pleasing screen-viewable image, various "hacks" have to take place, namely tone mapping.

The fact that some overdo or do not master the tone mapping process does not mean that the technology sucks. In a time perspective of a decade or three, HDR technology will give us images with greater dynamic range, wider tonality, smoother graduations, better detail and so forth than we've ever seen before in any photographic medium. This will also benefit digital B/W photography, it is likely that not even large format film and a master printer will be able to produce similar results (we need better printer technology and screens first, obviously).

Now it's not popular to say anything remotely positive about digital technology in these fine forums, there's however a difference between disliking something you just do not understand and disliking something you understand the ins and outs of. HDR technology is still in it's infancy and there's no doubt it will be the future of digital photography. Of course in a much refined version of todays crude technology.

/Mac

That is all fine and dandy.

...but what about pix in which HDR methods are not possible......i.e. 95% of the pictures I take??????? Seriously.....the method is only good on a tripod, with a scene in which NOTHING is moving ONE BIT. How useful is this, really? For anyone working this way, medium and large film formats trump every sort of digital method in existence when it comes to "quality"...and will for a loooooong time to come....so what is the point anyhow?

Shaggysk8 · Jan 9, 2010

I am glad someone said that!

M4cr0s · Jan 9, 2010

2F/2F said:
That is all fine and dandy.

...but what about pix in which HDR methods are not possible......i.e. 95% of the pictures I take??????? Seriously.....the method is only good on a tripod, with a scene in which NOTHING is moving ONE BIT. How useful is this, really? For anyone working this way, medium and large film formats trump every sort of digital method in existence when it comes to "quality"...and will for a loooooong time to come....so what is the point anyhow?

You are forgetting the fact that in the future we will likely get HDR shots (or HDR-like) in one exposure due to vastly increased sensors and in camera processing, or perhaps cameras with multiple sensors. Still need better screens, printing and processing means for the files to be truly useful. Todays method of merging several exposures is likely just an interim solution.

/Mac

Q.G. · Jan 9, 2010

We will be able to genetically engineer pigs so they can fly too.

bdial · Jan 9, 2010

Good or bad, HDR and the Photoshop plastic look is going to be what appears "normal" for most people as we forge ahead into the future.

M4cr0s · Jan 9, 2010

170 years ago daguerrotypes was the new kid on the block, lacking the texture, feel, the brushstrokes and focus of paintings. Funny how these things go

arigram · Jan 9, 2010

M4cr0s said:
170 years ago daguerrotypes was the new kid on the block, lacking the texture, feel, the brushstrokes and focus of paintings. Funny how these things go

Oh my God, yes! How could we be so blind?!?!? Thank you for showing us the light oh great wise one! Time to leave the dark ages kids and get on with the program! Digital, HDR, chop, chop!

My Rant - Black And White Pictures does not Mean HIGH CONTRAST

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency