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

[hoffy]

For those of you who may have seen me around, you would know that from the questions I ask, I am relatively new to the B&W film photography scene and that I am also a digital refugee(of sorts, as I do still shoot digital, but that's not the point).

I also have to admit, that the first thing I tend to do when playing with a print is set the colour head to give me a grade 3 contrast....again, not the point.

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.

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"?

Am I just in a foul mood because my digi shooter friends don't think much of my prints? Or is this a trend that is starting to be born by the over cooked images that I see on the net all the time......

 

[Andy K]

It depends on the photograph. Take a look at my Flickr and you'll see some photographs I made of an open air battle of the bands. I used high ISO and shot without flash. I printed at grade 6 or more if I recall correctly. The high contrast suits the subject.

However I certainly would not print every frame I shoot that way.

Ps. Why care what your Dfriends think of your prints? If you like them that is all that matters.

 

[arigram]

Just ignore the trends, whatever they are.
Search for meaning inside your own work and do what you find truly artistically meaningful.

 

[hoffy]

Maybe I am just being a bear with a thorn in my paw. While I can see your point Andy about both your comments, I also see from your Flickr pages that you have a good balance on display. Contrast, yes, but overcooked, no.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The answer to your question is in Garden Party by Rick Nelson:

But it's all right now
I learned my lesson well
You see, ya can't please everyone
So ya got to please yourself
​

Steve

 

[Steve Roberts]

When I developed and printed my first b/w shots (about 1970) the pursuit of contrast seemed to be all the rage. There was even a Johnson's of Hendon print developer with the name "Contrast" and when taken to extremes the effect was what was known as "soot and whitewash". I think we'd throw up our hands in horror at such results now, but in those days a decent bit of contrast seemed to be something to aim for. I was young and followed that trend, but in retrospect I can see that perhaps it may have been due to a reaction against the older materials and processes which so often seemed to give only grey tones, with no whites and no blacks. When I delve into old photographic almanacs today I see so many what I can best describe as 'muddy' pictures (in fairness, perhaps in part due to the printing of the book). Perhaps the digital b/w shooters are in a time warp and/or are taking "black and white" rather literally!

Fortunately, today we have a phenomenal range of materials which are truly impressive compared to forty years ago and we can choose exactly what tonal range we wish to achieve and do so with a minimum of fuss. Let the digital shooters dig their own holes whilst we make the most of our superior technology!

Steve

 

[Rick A]

For those of you who may have seen me around, you would know that from the questions I ask, I am relatively new to the B&W film photography scene and that I am also a digital refugee(of sorts, as I do still shoot digital, but that's not the point).

I also have to admit, that the first thing I tend to do when playing with a print is set the colour head to give me a grade 3 contrast....again, not the point.

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.

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"?

Am I just in a foul mood because my digi shooter friends don't think much of my prints? Or is this a trend that is starting to be born by the over cooked images that I see on the net all the time......

That is your 'take' on the subject. Its an art form, and as such, the end product is what the 'artist' decides it is going to be. Potaytoes/potahtos--Aint life grand, that we all have personal choice!

Rick

 

[Andy K]

OT: No-one says 'potah-toes'!

 

[Rick A]

OT: No-one says 'potah-toes'!

Actually, we say 'spuds' at our house-- But you get the point

Rick

 

[hoffy]

I suppose you are correct in saying that art is in the beholder. I suppose that most of this stems from my own personal demons, the ones that have an ego and want to be accepted and appreciated, but want to do things that are not necessarily what everyone else does.

Yes, I am making a mountain out of a molehill.....and maybe, just maybe, I should be doing more clicking then thinking.........

 

[Shaggysk8]

I think you are in a Mood its just fashion, you could set your own trend then you could be admired when you are dead but you will still be in a bad mood all your life

 

[marco.taje]

I'm wholeheartedly with Hoffy here. I agree that each one of us (and THEM!) has its vision, but there's more to it. I believe the "digital onslaught" has subtly but deeply changed (or destroyed) the perception of beauty.
I have prints which DO have max black and max white, I have a long way to go and they are far from perfect, but blacks and whites are there. And still, I get some comments like: "It's too gray" or "You could use more contrast". Well, this is not a matter of vision to me, this has to do with eyesight altogether. In the past the idea of contrast might be the black being very black, the white being shiny. Now the idea of contrast has turned into a print having large, seamless, deep black patches with nothing in it.
I would object nothing and simply say that doesn't meet my taste. I would say that everyone has freedom to do whatever s/he likes... if only people would call things by their correct name. Black pools taking 40% of the frame do not make a contrasty photograph; they're simply black pools. 99,9% of digital, crest of the wave, trendy shooters are just uncapable of perceiving the difference. That's the point. After we talk the same language, then we can say that both trends are valid.

Secondary rant over

 

[craygc]

Dont usually like the high contrast B&W. For me B&W is about getting good overall tonality - My take on B&W...

 

[marco.taje]

Your gallery is astonishing, craygc! See what I mean? Your images are quite high in contrast, you have deep blacks, brilliant whites and still all the range inbetween... But to the individuals we are "targeting" here, who seem to be the increasing trend, your photos would be "muddy" because they lack the "black holes"

Congrats for your creations.

 

[JDP]

I'm wholeheartedly with Hoffy here. I agree that each one of us (and THEM!) has its vision, but there's more to it. I believe the "digital onslaught" has subtly but deeply changed (or destroyed) the perception of beauty....
.... they're simply black pools. 99,9% of digital, crest of the wave, trendy shooters are just uncapable of perceiving the difference. That's the point. After we talk the same language, then we can say that both trends are valid.

Secondary rant over

I don't post much on here, but this one got me going! I agree with the above and original post. Just our taste I guess. The recent trend for 'contrast' gives pictures with immediate punch and 'wow' factor (maybe), but look on and what do you see?: pools of detailess black and white. Nothing more. Its an instant 'slam' with nothing to follow. A motif. Nothing wrong with that but there is more to art than that.

I also paint oil paintings and generally put a lot more detail into them than most modern Artists. One comment I often get is: 'Each time I look at your picture I see something different'. Hopefully, there is more there to explore and the art has, I hope, greater meaning and significance to the viewer. I believe it is the same with photographs.

 

[Randy_Va]

Most of the people I talk to about photography in RL shoot only digital, and before that shot only in color. Not that I am putting digital down I still shoot most of my family shots with a DSLR.

A year after returning to film, I still struggle with finding subjects that come to life in Black & White, and more specifically I struggle with separation between my subject and the background (especially when outdoors). If you aren't composing a shot in B&W then the only hope to make something out of the muddled tones is to boost the contrast. BTW it was a great help to read The Print and learn that a lot of what I was missing was done on the print not in the negative

I may be guilty of not giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I have now had three people tell me that the only reason they convert their digital pictures to B&W is that they had a shot they liked but were unable to correct the white balance on.

 

[Mike1234]

Just a thought... have you calibrated your monitor?

 

[Terence]

This is nothing new. Look at Ansel Adam's early prints versus his later prints. You'll see a marked change in contrast for prints of the same photo. The best explanation I've heard for this is that older eyes don't see the midtones as well, so a higher contrast print looks better to aged eyes.

Also, ALL black and white is a distortion of what we see. To say ANY b&w photo is "more" correct is somewhat absurd. Not a single one of them is how our eyes actually saw the scene. In fact, given that everyone's eyes are different, whether due to age or vision problems, you and I will see the exact same scene differently, with differing levels of contrast, etc.

Add to this that everyone has their own tastes in what is "art" or "artistic" or "artistically pleasing", and the argument is just philosophy. It seems higher contrast b&w photos sell better, so either it is a case that you believe the masses are stupid/misguided, or that you are the one that is "wrong".

I think the "truth" is that it doesn't matter. Go for the "Zone System" mentality that you should have a pure black, a pure white and every one of the cherished, arbitrarily divided, midtones in between. Or go for the pure black and pure white approach. Or the anything but pure black and pure white approach. It doesn't really matter what others are doing. There are so many "others" you'll never like them all anyway. Photograph and print in the manner that pleases you, and stop worrying about the herd.

Here endeth the rant.

 

[dpurdy]

I was just about to say what Terence just said. I agree.
Also, a subtle print lying next to a contrasty print will always seem less powerful and that includes looking at them in the fix bath. I print some images in both silver and platinum, lying side by side the silver print is like a brass band while the platinum print is like a quiet cello. And aside from all that, the most difficult thing in B&W photography is working with subtle long scale tones. It is easy to make a loud contrasty print.
Dennis

 

[Terence]

As a disclosure, I tend to print with a moderate contrast, but my favorite photo of mine is very high contrast. And my favorite print by someone else is a later print of Ansel Adam's Clearing Storm that is more contrasty than his earlier ones.

 

[goldenimage]

some images high contast fits, others it does not, for example i think i nice rolling landscape looks better with a solid tonal range, while an image of a tree stump might look better contrasty, when i print, i keep in mind what my dof is in the image, if its shallow i usually will print higher grade.

 

[Moose38]

B/W is a film that all start learn in any good photography class first. But it's also one you'll still be mastering after you've learned C-41 & E6. B/W. It does mean high contrast in the lab. That is if you've got the Exp.. As a beginner with B/W. You won't be an Ansel Adams over night. When your shooting film & doing the lab work. You have to know allot more than any Digital nut will know to get a good image. But once you learn the process. You'll be allot more happier with your work then any computer print

 

[goldenimage]

Well said Moose38.

 

[tkamiya]

I shoot both digital and analog. For reasons not I do not entirely understand to my satisfaction to me, the results do not look anything alike. I *LIKE* the way B&W look on film. That's why I shoot film for B&W. My digital friends actually like what they see. Also, they are mature enough to critique with care IF they don't like something. If someone doesn't like my photos but I do, I take whatever I hear as something to consider but I don't always change or tailor the result to their liking. (I do not shoot commercially)

I have a feeling your digital friend do not really pursue B&W photography as art. I can understand why they start with high contrast Black OR White type image and never got to the point where they'd appreciate nuances of gray tones. That's their loss. Either that or that's their vision. They may change or it may not. Either way, I am not going to change my results to match their vision.

All I can really tell you is to pursue your own vision and try not to waste your time competing or comparing with people who don't share your views. There is no reason why you should become irritated by this either.

 

[Moose38]

Stick with the lab kid. Gain Some Exp. In time you'll see results that know computer can produce. But also when you shoot film & scan it to a digital file. You'll scan a much higher resolution then any digital camera can record. Plus you won't loose the grain look on computer print's either