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

[Q.G.]

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

Yes...
Funny how after all those years, people still paint, still go watch paintings hanging on museum and gallery walls.
Get the picture?

 

[M4cr0s]

I can't recall anyone, nor me, having said anything about "leaving the dark ages". Film rocks, so does digital. Some like the mother, some like the daughter. There are more worthwhile things than different kinds of light-sensitive materials to be religious about.

 

[Q.G.]

So why are you being so religious about one of them?

 

[arigram]

I can't recall anyone, nor me, having said anything about "leaving the dark ages". Film rocks, so does digital. Some like the mother, some like the daughter. There are more worthwhile things than different kinds of light-sensitive materials to be religious about.

Yes, we are fanatics here and we need someone with a cool, balanced viewpoint to shed a cold, calculating light to these machines, as we are too weak, inexperienced and uneducated to see the truth for what it is.
I shall stop sacrificing virgins to my film cameras now, open my eyes and my mind and liberate myself from the oppression of those dogmatic ideals that had led me astray for so long, because finally, after all these years, one, single man, has the courage to step in and take my hand and bring me out of the cave!
Finally I can use my digital cameras and computers guilt free because I now know that they are mere tools for a purpose and can use whatever does the job without fear of repercussions.

 

[M4cr0s]

Yes, we are fanatics here and we need someone with a cool, balanced viewpoint to shed a cold, calculating light to these machines, as we are too weak, inexperienced and uneducated to see the truth for what it is.
I shall stop sacrificing virgins to my film cameras now, open my eyes and my mind and liberate myself from the oppression of those dogmatic ideals that had led me astray for so long, because finally, after all these years, one, single man, has the courage to step in and take my hand and bring me out of the cave!
Finally I can use my digital cameras and computers guilt free because I now know that they are mere tools for a purpose and can use whatever does the job without fear of repercussions.

Whatever you're smoking, I want some!

 

[arigram]

Whatever you're smoking, I want some!

You can't, you are not a member of the cult.
Unbelievers don't get to sniff our magic chemicals.

 

[M4cr0s]

So why are you being so religious about one of them?

I fail to see where talking about the technical fundamentals of a technology equals religiousness.

 

[M4cr0s]

You can't, you are not a member of the cult.
Unbelievers don't get to sniff our magic chemicals.

But my fridge is full of film..and my hardrives full of RAWs...damn, I guess I know how it feels like to be bisexual

 

[Q.G.]

I fail to see where talking about the technical fundamentals of a technology equals religiousness.

It started being religious (or better: unreal) when you began putting forward in favour of that technology what it perhaps might become, even though it still not is.
I was not kidding: it will be quite possible to genetically engineer pigs so that they eventually will fly. Doesn't mean that it will happen though.
"Fundamentals" and reality rarely meet eye to eye.

 

[arigram]

But my fridge is full of film..and my hardrives full of RAWs...damn, I guess I know how it feels like to be bisexual

I guess most of us are then.
Does that mean we can make out?
We gets to be on top first?

 

[keithwms]

But of late, when looking at pictures online in various forums (& flickr) that the general perception (which is from 95% digital shooters) is for a Black and White image to be good, it must be black of blacks black and white of white whites with no tones in between.

Bear in mind two things:

(1) your screen rather poorly represents the intermediate tones. Remember that the screen tonality, although quite good in terms of total number of colours, is sh*t in terms of dpi. You really need both, especially for b&w, to get visually appealing tonality (= continuity of tone). So don't expect too much from a computer screen!

(2) In spite of (1), you are correct that the digi trend is to anchor the black and white points with PS curves and just let the other tones go to heck. There are various reasons for this, but as someone who used to frequent some digi discussions, I'd say it is mostly brought about by auto-leveling. When you take a digi file into PS and click auto levels, the algorithm simply doesn't value midtones as much, it tends to expand the curve as much as possible so that shadows clump into blacks and highlights clump into whites. Compounding that, when you then export the file to a jpeg or gif to put it online, the continuity of tone is further reduced...

To get over the frustrations of looking at these kinds of things on a screen, let me suggest doing a print swap and/or spending more time looking at physical, paper prints.

 

[Monophoto]

My goal is to get nice images that have a nice tonal range (which I must admit is harder then it sounds!), but for others it appears that there is "not enough contrast"?

The best black and white printer I have ever known (personally), and the person who eventually taught me how to make a good print, is Bill Abranowicz. Bill's starting point is to make a work print that reveal as much information as can be retrieved from the negative - and that generally means a fairly low contrast print.

After that, it is a matter of carefully looking at the work print to decide what the final print should look like. Making additional work prints helps - gradually adding contrast, burning, dodging, etc.

In my experience, it is often the case that 'sneaking up' on contrast results in a final image that is lower in overall contrast. Too much contrast looks acceptable, but never looks as good as just enough contrast.

Ultimately, higher contrast reduces the image to a few major elements, while lower contrast allows there to be differentiation between multiple elements within the image. That is, an image with higher contrast forces the viewer to see only the key elements emphasized by the contrast between black and white, giving the overall print a singular sense of dynamism. Lower contrast allows there to be visual contrast between adjacent shades of gray - leading to multiple centers of interest within the image.

An important thing to keep in mind is the notion of visual impact - visual impact is what causes the view to snap to attention when first seeing an image, and contrast tends to trigger visual impact. But images with too much contrast tend to tire the viewer rather quickly - an image that has lower contrast, meaning that there is more going on within the borders of the print, presents a never-ending opportunity for the viewer to dwell on the elements (and mysteries) of the image. Saying it more bluntly, an image with lasting value may have less visual impact because it has lower contrast.

This distinction is important to the purpose of the image. You may want an image that you intend to hang on the wall of your home or office to have less visual impact, but more internal dynamism, because you anticipate living with that image for months to years. On the other hand, an image that will be hung in a show, or submitted to a contest, may need more visual impact so that it captures the viewer's attention immediately, but with the knowlege that the viewer isn't going to be looking at the image repeatedly over a long period of time.

 

[Chuck_P]

In my experience, it is often the case that 'sneaking up' on contrast results in a final image that is lower in overall contrast. Too much contrast looks acceptable, but never looks as good as just enough contrast.

I agree.

I always follow the good advice of a lot of fine art b&w printers and prefer reaching the best print I can make while using the lowest contrast filtration setting.

Starting a work print at a setting of zero to see as much raw negative detail as possible will still allow me to print the paper's Dmax----as long as I have a portion of negative density meant for Dmax, then Dmax is possible (assuming the developer you're using will allow Dmax to develop, some don't). The major difference is the number of shades of gray between Dmax and Dmin are greater at a low paper grade or contrast setting than at a high paper grade or enlarger setting. So, I think "sneaking up" on the desired final contrast is a great way of putting it.

I'm a fan of the full scale print and, "on average", a heavy handed approach to the global contrast is "generally" not attractive to me. Quite often I settle on a contrast filtration setting on the LPL of 1.5 to 2.5 for my final print with Dmax and Dmin faithfully represented where I want it to be and with freedom to print the mid-tones as desired.

 

[phenix]

Some already mentioned several variables on choosing or judging the contrast: the theme or the kind of scene or subject pictured, the personal taste, the fashion, the fact light comes through the picture (slide or monitor) vs. the light being reflected by the paper (prints – but here there also are a lot of papers with different tones and finishes, so this becomes another sub-variable), etc.

And I would add here another one: do you use the same contrast for a 4x6 or 5x7 B&W print vs. an 11x14 or 12x16 (or even larger) one? Don’t you need to increase the contrast for smaller prints and lower it for larger ones? I do, and I not only change the filtration, but also use different lenses (I mean with different contrasts, or MTF curves), and also different toned and finished papers.

 

[hoffy]

Jeez, thought I needed a bucket of cold water on page 6.......at least buy each other a drink first would you.....

Monophoto, I have never thought of it that way. Yes, you are right. How would you know what you want to print if you cannot see all the elements in the first place. That is something I think I should adopt. Cheers

 

[23mjm]

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

Well thank you Steve--but I still think it's an AA paraphrase, we just haven't found it yet. I just ain't that smart to come up with it on my own--I had to rip it off from someone

 

[removed account4]

i don't see what the problem is ...

the point of photography, or art, or life isn't to do what everyone else is doing, but to do what you want to do.

---
in regard to hdr, there are ways to do the same things with film masking and sandwiching negatives
(which is exactly what hdr does )

----
john

 

[patrickjames]

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

Your lame condescension proves my point exactly. Have you taught HDR at a University? No? Guess what, I have. I understand the tools that are available in photography. All of them. The point I made has nothing to do with HDR, it has to do with the application of it. Maybe you should read a little more closely.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

Generally, our printing skills go further with refinement of our vision which at its turn develops after enhanced skills, be they at the moment of shooting, negative development and also printing and others, which I will mention a the end of my post. In few words, they go hand in hand. It's a cycle.

There is a place for high contrast photographs and one for prints with long tonal scale. The learned eye will enjoy a good high contrast image just as much a beautiful print displaying a long tonal range.
And again, since all I wrote so far has to do with the "form" part of the image if there isn't a valid content, then all the skills in the world won't help you to create an interesting photograph.
It is through personal growth that the photographer starts forming his/her own set of criteria of what is needed to create a good photograph, distancing from the popular models.This is the most important process in any creative field. To hang to the widely accepted standards only stiffens the vision of the individual and creates rigidity and lifelessness in the finished result.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All HDR is about is shooting four frames in digital to combine in Photo$hop et al to make up for the deficiencies in digital so that if you had enough to drink you would think it was taken with film.

Steve

 

[ishutteratthethought]

My 2 cents:
Who really gives a rats ass what is supposed to be correct? What is correct? IMO there is NO correct image contrast, focus or anything else most of the time.
As said earlier in the posts, it truly is what you are trying to express.
Take for example jnanian’s images here on APUG (John). They to me are truly works of art, they are totally anything but the norm, yet they are wonderful masterful images with words of a poetry that together make art, beautiful art. So my first thoughts of direction would be... be true to yourself, (mushy bull I know...but it really is what will sustain your passion and results), do what you moves YOU. If you stay true to THAT, it will reward you.....believe me, it has for me in so many ways.

Peace
Steve

 

[23mjm]

All HDR is about is shooting four frames in digital to combine in Photo$hop et al to make up for the deficiencies in digital so that if you had enough to drink you would think it was taken with film.

Steve

Best explanation of HDR yet So you are saying if I had beer goggles on it would look good:confused: 2@10+beer=10@2

 

[Bob Carnie]

Couple of points that I agree with here

A full bodied soft light print is my starting point , I then add contrast but I do not sneak up but rather go further and back off to the balance I like.

I use contrast within the image to draw the eye to significant areas that I want the viewer to see and these areas of contrast are usually surrounded with softer tones.

HDR is a good tool, that like anything has its overuse and bad features. But it strengths is its ability to conquer very tough lighting situations which is good but the papers we use in colour and black and white are already performing at their maximum capabilitys so HDR's potential may not be currently obtainable.

I agree that there are many , many ways of laying tone on paper and how it is done is up to the printer/photographer/artist, and we can like it or not, but to think that there is one correct way is silly.

I am completely immersed in photographic printing 7 days a week and use all digital workflows, all film workflows and a combination of film and digital.
IMO it is painful to read someone take a stance, draw the line and say someone else methods are crap.
We seeing every day great work in all three above methods and also some
barriers are being broken by young workers who have never picked up a film camera in their life and probably never will.

For Example, I just finished a project that is hanging at the ROM in Toronto by Nigel Dickson, a portrait (a lambda fibre print) of John Cretian *Canadian Prime Minster* stands out as overly sharpened, completely over the top contrast, which includes a huge amount of bromide drag . This image would fall into the realm of contrast that the OP may be complaining about.
Nigel is legendary in Canada as one of the great portrait photographers and as well an amazing printer in his own right. When I asked him about the contrast all he said was this.

I LIKE THE WAY THIS PRINT LOOKS.

Now who the hell am I to argue with him, this is how he wants his prints to look like and it is now hanging in an important museum.
This simple example to me at least is the most important issue in printmaking, we all have different takes on the world and its ok to lay down tone , any way you want. You always will have people saying your work is crap and hopefully more will say its great.

 

[Saganich]

I find once mounted and hung those tones which seemed a bit gray magically appear a bit less gray. It would seem we perceive tones within the context of their spacial relationship within the visual field.

 

[WolfTales]

According to Einstein - everything is relative.