Thinking in Black and White (landscapes)

[mooseontheloose]

So I've mostly been a colour slide kind of girl since I started shooting seriously, but I've been flirting with black and white off and on for a few years. It's only in the last year however, that I've started really considering a long-term relationship with the medium and I've realized that I have to overcome a lot my shortcomings in order to make the most of it has to offer.

One of my problems that I've come to be aware of is that, while I'm pretty good at thinking in black and white for most of my photographic subjects, when it comes to nature/landscape my images just suck. They're flat, they're grey, they just don't have the same 'pop' that my colour work does in the same subject matter. Not that my photos are great by any means...I mostly shoot in small formats...but I'm usually happy with what I wanted to achieve.

So my question is...and I'm not sure it's the right question, but here goes... other than great light and a larger format camera (which is not an option for me at the moment, although I'm always fantasizing about it), what do you need/what does it take to see in black and white to really capture landscapes at their best? Is it really all about the technique in the field (spot metering for zones) coupled with N (+/-) development coupled with good printing techniques? Does it have to be that precise? Maybe I'm missing something?

I don't have a spot meter, I don't shoot sheet film...I need advice that is relevant to what I'm shooting with (35mm and 120).

What is it that you do that makes you a good black and white landscape photographer? How did you get to the point where you are now?

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't have a spot meter, I don't shoot sheet film...I need advice that is relevant to what I'm shooting with (35mm and 120).

What is it that you do that makes you a good black and white landscape photographer? How did you get to the point where you are now?[/QUOTE]

You can meter with an average meter if you are careful, if your MF and 35mm have TTL meters and if you want to use a system based on the zone, there are a couple of books on the Market for 35mm shooters. I cant recall the authors off the top of my head, the one I have at home is called the The Zone System for 35mm, it was published in the 80s. You may want to test your paper, film and developers to find a combination that works best for you.

I shoot landscapes in 6X9 and 4X5, I use the basics of the Zone, but I have seen a lot of good done by folks who follow Beyond the Zone (BTZ), it took me several years to become consistant and find a look that I like and will sell.

 

[Mark_S]

Disclaimer: I do not consider myself a 'good' landscape photographer, however I think that the least bad work that I have done is all B&W landscape. I shoot mostly in 4x5, but have shot small formats as well. A few of my thoughts:

First thing that I do when looking for an image is to look for strong/interesting lines, those might be in the clouds, hills, water, or whatever. The next thing is to think about how to accentuate what I feel is interesting - for example, if it is an interesting cloud formation, would a red filter help to bump up the contrast to make it more interesting?

I am also a sucker for contrasting textures in an image - what can I do to accentuate the texture of the snow, or the clouds, or the rocks? How about making the water look smoother? - can I do both at the same time?

Although I am not a zone system practicioner, I will set my exposure based on what I feel is the most important part of the image - if it is a neutral colored rock, I might just meter the rock, if it is texture in the snow, then I will meter the snow, and adjust the exposure depending on how light/dark I want the snow to be in my final print. I will often meter the snow, and adjust by 2 stops.

Think B&W contrast. There are few things more dramatic than the red rocks of the southwest US against a deep blue sky at sunrise. Great for colour transparancy film. When you shoot in B&W, you will get grey sky with grey rocks for a flat image - filter to bump up the contrast so that the impression left by the B&W image is the impression that is left by the real image.

Film is cheap, time is expensive. If I can't decide on how to do something, I will do it multiple ways - shoot with different exposures, or filters, or multiple exposures which are the same, with the intention of processing differently.

I am a nut about recording data. I have preprinted 3x5 cards which I use to record every exposure - it has all of the information on what I was thinking at the time the shutter was released. These cards are kept with the negatives and with a copy of the print - augmented with information about how I print the image. Valuable to go back and figure out how I could have done something differently if I have an image that is almost good

and finally - how did I get to where I am now? - by wasting a lot of film. I am always horrified by the number of film boxes that we have hanging around the house!, With all those empty boxes, there must be some good images somewhere........

 

[Ole]

The short version is this: Forget the landscape, concentrate on shooting the light.

The long version seems to take a lifetime to learn, and I'm not there yet.

 

[Timothy]

Are you doing your own printing ?
Negatives are simple to develop and the only real requirement for processing your negatives is consistency. It can not be overstated though. Consistency is vital, especialy to one who is trying to learn how to print. If you have consistent negatives and you make your own prints ... you will discover what you need to make landscapes that you like. Either that, or you will discover why you should stop wasting your time.

 

[Dave Miller]

You don't need large format, any will do. What you need is the ability to get out of bed well before sun-up, so that you get to your pre-planned location and capture the light. That first magical, misty early morning light.

 

[mark]

Go out shoot lots of film.

Here is what I have done, keep in mind that I am not great and probably not even good but I have fun and that is what it is all about.

Depending on your camera (I am assuming you have in camera meters) Put the camera in the shadow and meter. Go out of the shadow and meter. This will give you an approximation of your Subject Brightness Range (SBR) Now people are going to poo poo this but it has worked for me with roll film. Get the average between the two and go with it. Develop normally and adjust contrast in printing. Other wise expose for the shadow reading putting it on zone 4 (Decrease exposure by one stop)then bracket two shots in both directions. Keep notes (which I have always sucked at) so you can make a contact sheet and see the differences. Print what you like.

Since you cannot adjust development for every frame like with sheet film you can get close and have fun in the printing. As you go things will get more consistent and you can play with filters and generally have a good time. I think the most important thing is to be printing your own stuff. This gives you control to play and learn.

 

[Leon]

You don't need large format, any will do. What you need is the ability to get out of bed well before sun-up, so that you get to your pre-planned location and capture the light. That first magical, misty early morning light.

that pretty much sums it up for me ... then use your neg as a sketch that needs work to unlock it's full potential at the printing stage.

My black and white eye became much keener when I stopped taking colour. My advice, for what it's worth, is to concentrate on either colour or mono until you are completely comfortable with it, then try the other.

 

[Muihlinn]

There is only a good advice: don't take advices... said that, here is mine: You don't need any special light - althought it helps -, you don't need to plan locations - but it will help-, neither any special gear, you just need to shoot whatever bothers you, everything starts there

 

[jovo]

Sensitize yourself to form, texture and value. All three are made interesting by revealing light. Even folks like Kenna, Schwab, Horn and others who shoot in near darkness find subjects that are graphically dynamic enough to be pictorially interesting. Some also regard weather as a significant element, i.e. fog, mist, wind etc.

Practice closing one eye and squinting until the details are lost and all you can discern are the juxtaposition of values. Many painters establish where they wish to place values long before they begin to consider color even to the point of doing a separate value study. When Picasso said something to the effect of "if you run out of red, use blue" he was talking about the notion that color can be very subordinate to all the other elements in a good composition. Spend some time with painters, study their work, ask them questions. The good ones will help you enormously. Then go look at as many fine monochrome photographs as you can find. Find the parallels between what painters construct, and what fine photographers frame. It won't be long before you won't bother for a second with the kind of subjects or situations you find don't work for you now.

 

[Robert Hall]

Luis has the right idea. We shoot what we don't understand.

Please, Please, Please, don't confuse poor technical ability--which can be fixed over time and with experience--with poor composition and bad light. That is the key.

You may have great light and have done a poor job capturing the moment, believe me, I speak from experience. Keep in mind that color is generally about... color. There is some quantifiable values that light has that can be captured only with color film, but for the greater part, good light can be a matter of understanding how the light that is present will be "seen" by your black and white film.

I shoot 35mm and up (way up.) At then end of the day, the camera is only a tool. Some tools work better for some thing than others, but as they say, "Shoot what you got".

Stay with a good film, whatever your choice, and master it. Once you have then consider moving on to another. I've not seen many films that really outshine one over another. I suppose if that were the case everyone would be shooting that film. Remember what you are doing is very technical. Work to keep the technical from interfering with aesthetic. Don't think you can master the process quickly and have fun getting there.

Life is a journey not a destination.

 

[jp80874]

Sensitize yourself to form, texture and value. All three are made interesting by revealing light. .

1/3rd of all males are color blind to some extent. I am 85% color blind. My wife is a water colorist. It may sound bizarre, but explore the people you know. You may find a color blind male who likes the same views that you do. Talk about what you see. If he is like me he is very interested in what you as a color sighted person see. My wife tells me that for a new painter it is very difficult to see values. In discussing it I was surprised to learn that I see those very well and was not aware that it was difficult for others. You don't have to marry the guy, but you may find you have a lot to talk about.

John Powers

 

[waynecrider]

Are you using any filters for b&w and are you aware of the majority of tones in your pictures. What films are you using and do you develop yourself?

Most of the time one needs to learn to separate the tones in the picture. Since you are shooting rollfilm and not separate sheets you can alter exposure and development for, if your exposures are pretty good try some filters. Forget how good the picture is, just think about separating the tones for now. Also since 35mm b&w film is pretty cheap bracket some shots 1 over and under.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I sometimes take my orange filter (don't have a Wratten corrective filter) and flash it before my eyes. It tends to nuetralize the scene before me as long as I don't hold it there too long else my eyes get used to it and perceive the colors again. Another way might be to take you cell phone with a camera (yes, I have done this) and take a pic in black and white and compare it to your subject. It is cheating for a purist such as myself but if you want it right you must oft times be willing to tolerate necessary evils.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the comments and advice. Just to clarify, I am doing my own developing and printing, although I've only really begun to truly understand it in the last 6 months or so, since I have been given full access to a darkroom in my community. I do shoot with filters, I often keep a yellow filter on my lens to boost contrast a little and to remind me which camera has the black and white film in it.;-) I am aware of the technical aspects of photography, although I have to admit that I usually 'zone out' when people start talking about the zone system.

Leon -- I agree with you about shooting one or the other. I know that if I'm carrying cameras with slide film in one and black and white in the other, I tend to use the one I'm 'thinking' with, and ignore the other. Since black and white is a newer medium for me, it often gets left behind in pursuit of colour. I've become much better at thinking in tones, but when I see the work of others, either in books or on this site, I know I have a lot to learn. Which leads to something Robert said about not confusing poor technical ability and poor compositions. I know I probably have problems with both, but as I become more proficient in the darkroom, it will probably help me at the picture taking stage.

I know I have to get out there and shoot, unfortunately I live in a city surrounded by nothing, really, and I don't have a car. So getting out early and wasting film is not something I can do on a regular basis in order to really learn how to take better landscape photos. Therefore I often end up taking landscape photos when I travel, which is not bad, but I'm often doing my 'practicing' when it really counts, rather than before. And as for taking notes...I do really need to develop a better work ethic for my photography if I'm serious about truly improving it.

Mark - I think I'll try your method and see how it works. That way if my photos suck I can blame you. ;-) Seriously, it looks like a good place to start, so I'll see how that goes.

As I've mentioned before, I'm happy enough with all of my other work (in colour and in black and white), it's just the bw landscapes that are proving to be the most difficult to do reasonably well, which is quite frustrating. I guess it's just a matter of practice, practice, practice....

 

[herb]

Thinking in Black and white

What Ole and Dave Miller said, plus a wratten dark green filter. St Ansel used a cutout with the filter to help in visualization.

If you are into clouds, filters are a must. Develop and print your own stuff.
Labs are mediocre usually(exceptions are costly).

Remember that you are shooting the light, so if the differences are not there, bland is forthcoming. get to know SBR's and how to shoot them. Slides have nowhere near the SBR range capability of b/w.


good luck

 

[vickersdc]

You might also want to test the black and white film that you plan to use - some provide better results by overexposing one stop (then under-developing), others by under-exposing (then over-developing). Filters also make a big difference with B&W too - red gives a dramatic contrast (probably too much for many people), orange is a slightly less obvious than the red and yellow even less contrasty, greens obviously make green things lighter, polarisers can also help. Stick a roll of 35mm film in the camera and just try different exposures / filters.

And pick one film and stick with it until you get used to it - constantly changing your film (unless you really don't like the one you're using) doesn't help. For some reason I've never really been happy with HP5, but others produce fabulous images with it so it's obviously me!

Cheers,
David.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Hey, moose. I want to give you a piece of advice that turned my photography around. It worked for me anyway. If you are like I was, you have read everything on the Zone System that you could put your hands on and still it eludes you. One day, I purchased a copy of Ansel Adams' 'The Negative'. Chapter four is entitled 'The Zone System'. I read it once and for the first time in three years or so, I got it. I just couldn't put the pieces in order before but when explained by the man who helped to put it on paper to begin with it just clicked. Again, this may not work for you, but even if not, this book has a lot of vital information on black and white photography. It is my photographic BIBLE.

 

[pentaxuser]

I assume that you have seen enough B&W landscapes to be sure that you like/prefer B&W landscapes and it is only your own that you are dissatisfied with? I ask this because it may be that your mind sees landscapes in colour and B&W will seldom, if ever, match your mind's eye view of what is a good landscape print.

A lot of people feel this way about colour and landscapes and cannot understand why anyone would prefer B&W to colour for landscapes. If in an exhibition of landscapes you decide that for every B&W you like there are 99 colour prints you like then it may that B&W landscapes aren't for you.

Doesn't make you a bad person.

Just a thought.

pentaxuser

 

[mooseontheloose]

Good point pentaxuser

Actually, I do really like black and white landscapes...in fact, the more I use black and white, the more I like it for a variety of subjects. My problem is just finding the best way for ME to produce good landscapes in black and white. It could be that I just don't have as many black and white negs to compare to my colour slides, and it's the relatively small numbers that are skewing the results (to my mind anyway). That being said, in April I will be travelling to Ireland, so it will provide plenty of opportunities to even those numbers out a bit... ;-)

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Moose, I would concentrate on the CONTRAST portion of your landscapes and that is where contrast control filters come into play. There are alot of very pleasing compositions I have made over the years but the ones where I employed contrast control to acheive my own vision in the negatives is where I really nailed it. The same scene looks a whole lot more attractive when a few extra exposure zones are thrown into the mix. Now I know that was a little Zone System speak but it really is worth sitting down and hammering out. And you have all of us to bounce questions off of. (Did I just end that sentence in a prepostion?)

 

[mark]

Hey Moose. You gotta use what you got. Shoot the city. It is not a grand landscape of the traditional trees and mountains variety, but so what. Challenge yourself.

Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that a tripod is a landscape photographer's friend. It allows for good DOF which means longer exposure is needed.

As for the surroundings I seriously doubt there is nothing. I bet there is nothing because you think there is nothing. Here is an example:
On the way to my parents house we drive though what can only be described as a waste land. I have driven it numerous times and always thought about how crappy it looked. One day we left a bit later than normal so got to this section of the trip right before sunset. My wife kindly reminded me that we were not in england and therefore should be driving on the right hand side of the road. I was so busy rubber necking that I had switched lanes. It was beautiful. That place is now on my list of locations for vacation time.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

One thread posted here some weeks ago was about an experiment to get someone who is photo-jammed to just take pictures. Pick a starting place. Take a picture. Walk thirty steps in any direction. Stop look around. Find and make another photograph. Walk thirty steps. Stop, look around. Lather rinse repeat. I want to do this soon just to see what I get but this is just an idea to loose the creative juices. Leave yourself plenty of time to complete your roll. If shooting 120 roll, take an extra roll.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Chris -- you did end with a preposition but I can say in full confidence as an English teacher that it's perfectly alright (forget what your school teachers tried to teach you about grammar) ;-)
I am thinking that contrast filters will help -- I have a few but I rarely pull them out and use them -- I guess I'll go to the local park and just experiment to see if that's (part) of the answer I'm looking for. I also saw that thread about trying to kick-start your photographic creativity -- I've been planning on doing it since I read the post, but I've been putting it off since we've been quite busy here at work recently. If the weather co-operates this weekend I just may try it.

Mark - you have a really good point. Reading your post I realized I have a small-scale landscape right beside me -- there's a pretty big park near where I live and it's as good a place as any to experiment and see what I can do. I'm pretty sure if I got out the city there'd be some interesting scenes to catch my eye, but unfortunately I just don't have the wheels to get out there (two or four wheels) and public transportation here leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[cowanw]

I have found that, if my photos look blah, I need to simplify, to be sure THE subject of interest is the only subject of interest. Much of the various techniques are really to make the viewer look at the one and only subject.
Regards
Bill