why are photographers so fixated on shadow detail

[RobC]

why are photographers so fixated on shadow detail when midtone and highlights are so much more important.

 

[cliveh]

I for one am not, as loss of shadow detail is far more acceptable than loss of highlight detail.

 

[Ian Grant]

why are photographers so fixated on shadow detail when midtone and highlights are so much more important.

That's subjective, also depends on the images, the photographer and what is wanting to be said. In my case shadow detail is often critical but then so are mid tones and highlights.

In many of my images all the details are in the shadows, look at Thomas Joshua Cooper's work and he's more extreme.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because we can get the shadow detail if we want to. As the latitude of film has expanded it has become a quest for some.

 

[michr]

Speaking for myself, details in the shadows add richness to the subject. If the detail isn't present in the negative, it's just empty space. You can always burn in the shadows on a print, but you can't add in details which aren't on the negative. So it's also about keeping my options open.

 

[MattKing]

If you shoot negative film, and you make choices at time of exposure to miss out on the shadow detail, you cannot change your mind later at the printing stage.

If you make that choice at the printing stage, it is an artistic decision.

It is the converse of the situation with highlight detail and transparency film.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It's about balance and aesthetics. I do strive in all my work to balance highlight and shadows, maintaining detail in both or weighting one against the other, depending on context. One reason for detail in shadows is if an image has very large areas of featureless black it does not necessarily make an effective photograph (there are exceptions: have a look at the work of Trent Parke/Magnum). That is especially true when an image is committed to very contrasty film e.g. Velvia, which will give neither detail in shadows nor nightlights if it is not exposed according to its baseline ideals (diffuse light, rather than point light). In my very early days of using Velvia and printing to Ilfochrome Classic, my printer frequently berated me for shooting scenes "on the margin", where monstrous swathes of black nothingness engulfed and overpowered otherwise workable compositions. All of my work is shot in soft/diffuse light so I have detail in dark and light areas, but I am not fixated or fanatical about getting everything in the basket all at once. If something must go and I don't have a choice, it will go.

 

[wiltw]

You think the obsession is bad here, just look at the guys who think they need 13EV-15EV of noise free dynamic range, and are willing to sell their Canon dSLR and lenses and accessories, to get Sony or Nikon with the superior Exmor chip!

 

[ic-racer]

why are photographers so fixated on shadow detail when midtone and highlights are so much more important.

Because B&W negative exposure is the fine balance between just enough and not enough. Maybe you are confusing exposure of reversal material with B&W negative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I expose for the shadows and print what I want how I want it. This is not a big deal with negative film. Slides are a different animal.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

When I shoot, I try to place shadows that I think need detail on Zone III. Sometimes when I print, I find shadow detail is distracting and I end up burning in shadows with detail as to make them a solid black. It all depends on the composition.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't like vast areas of black heavy nothingness unless that feature actually adds to the mood of the image.

 

[BetterSense]

Because there is never enough light.

 

[Alan Johnson]

In 1939 Kodak scientist L A Jones proposed that film speed should depend on the minimum exposure giving the first excellent print.He had 200 observers decide what is an excellent print.Perhaps this is the origin of the idea of having a full tonal range.

 

[DREW WILEY]

We aren't necessarily fixated on anything, except for what we are fixated on, that is. Brett Weston often made a point of deliberately blackening shadows out for the sake of graphic effect. But he was a genius at it. I've made prints like that. But there are more times I want
a sense of realism. Out here in the redwoods in open sun there can literally be twelve stops of difference between perceptible shades or
"Zones". It takes quite a bit of experience as well as specific films and developers to handle such situations, at least if you don't want to
resort to turning a lot of values into mud via compensating or "minus" development.

 

[ME Super]

All y'all are fixated on shadow detail. Me, I'm fixated on slide film. Projected. Big.

But in all seriousness, I can see why people expose negative film for the shadows. They get more detail that way, which they can either print or throw away by burning in, depending on which one suits their vision at the time.

I'm off to project some slides now. Have fun!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shot slides for decades and I was concerned out two things: getting the right exposure and cropping in the viewfinder before I took the slide so that I did not have to remount the slide in glass so that I could crop the slide after the fact.

 

[ME Super]

+1. Me too.

 

[removed account4]

why are photographers so fixated on shadow detail when midtone and highlights are so much more important.

i think some people are fixated on shadow detail because they like shadow detail
the same way some people are fixated on sharpness or grain or softness or grit or their latest acquisition or
their latest, step wedge tests, densimetric tests, sensometric tests , film tests lens tests, airforce target tests,
.. because it makes them happy ?

 

[Vaughn]

why are photographers so fixated on shadow detail when midtone and highlights are so much more important.

All values are important. My opinion is that no particular value is any more important than any others. Sometimes they are valuable by their absence.

My exposures tend to be based on my shadow detail needs, so that I am free to place the mid-tones and highlights where I want them. But it starts in the shadows for me, usually -- always exceptions!

 

[Alan Klein]

I've been saying this for years. It's being driven more by digital cameras with greater and greater DV. But many pictures just don't need shadow detail. The eye focuses on the highlights - that's where the interest lies. Plus dark shadows can provide more contrast and therefore more "pop" which also can add more interest.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

why are photographers so fixated on shadow detail when midtone and highlights are so much more important.

I don't know how to put it nicely ... I think, word "photographers" is big credit towards people fixed on technicalities.

 

[calebarchie]

I don't know how to put it nicely ... I think, word "photographers" is big credit towards people fixed on technicalities.

Be grateful a a bit less judgemental towards the printing fellas who founded and evolved this medium. You wouldn't be here to enjoy photography without them.

 

[pdeeh]

I've been saying this for years. It's being driven more by digital cameras with greater and greater DV. .

Surely not. Almost every book written and every bit of lore passed down in the photography community that emphasises the importance of preserving desired shadow detail (including Adams' "The Negative") dates from before the emergence of digital photography.

Do you mean DR btw?

 

[Xmas]

If you shoot negative film, and you make choices at time of exposure to miss out on the shadow detail, you cannot change your mind later at the printing stage.

If you make that choice at the printing stage, it is an artistic decision.

It is the converse of the situation with highlight detail and transparency film.

Yes Kodachrome's and brides white dresses were critical with weddings, there was no recovery with 1/3 of a stop over.
Same true with negative shadows if they are clear film you wont print any detail.