why are photographers so fixated on shadow detail

[Sirius Glass]

If you really want to get the thread buzzing just bring up shadows and the Zone System and the testinestas will go crazy. :devil:

 

[cliveh]

We look at pictures, not shadow, mid-tone or highlight detail. The inclusion or absence of which will be just some of the factors that determine our response.

 

[MDR]

St Ansel is to blame. Mortensen adviced to meter for Highlights. Neither is right or wrong as it depends on the scene and the final effect you want. But I really honestly believe that St. Adams is the one person who is mostly to blame for that.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I agree that many photographers have been influenced by Adams concerning shadow detail. It doesn't help that Zone System testing only uses two points of density and that Adams' theory isn't the best. People tend to cling to what little information they have and with the Zone System, they don't have much. A more thorough understanding of exposure theory would have practically eliminated all the ZS testing zealotry that has arisen.

That's not to say that shadow detail isn't important in black and white work. Other photographic mediums have their own set of criteria. Psychophysical testing has shown that in general people find photographs with shadow detail to be the most pleasant. What is critical in such a test is the instructions given to the participants. The parameters for how they are to judge and offer their feedback greatly affects the results. In Jones' seminal work, print judges were given instructions to pick the image that produced in the viewer's mind what they best believed the subject looked like in real life. Basically they were asked to identify an approximate representation of the real world in black and white. Instructions such as these are aimed at what the average snapshot photographer would like to see from their vacation photos, which up until recently were the majority of film users. The instructions, as such, essentially excludes artistic interpretation from the judging parameters. In practice; however, I've found having the detail and not using it is better than not having detail in the shadows and wanting it.

BTW, shadow detail isn't about the density of the shadow but the contrast of the shadows, and minimum degree of contrast that most people find as acceptable is based on the overall film contrast. The importance of shadow detail / shadow contrast in the majority of black and white photographic use is why the black and white negative speed point is in the shadow area.

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

That's definitely not true, it's never been driven by digital cameras because they haven't been around long enough. Neither has it come from Ansel Adams simply because there's excellent shadow details in very early work as well, I've seen exquisite work from Aubry, Braun, and Robert from the mid 1850's to 60's and the print's shadow details are amazing, but these were still life images where they had the most control.

It;s improvements in lenses in particular coating, and more accurate exposure meters that give post WWII photographers far more control of how they want to use the tonal range. Before WWII un-coated lenses in general had much lower contrast and the degree was largely dependent on the number of ir/glass surfaces in a lens, and enlarger lenses as well were un-coated, so negatives had to be exposed and processed to give higher densities and contrast. The result is poorer shadows and less delicate highlights and also reduced sharpness and resolution.

So reality is it's only after WWII that we tend to be able to gain far better control of tonality again particularly with smaller formats that need enlarging.

Ian