Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,683   Posts: 1,548,536   Online: 921
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50
  1. #11
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    There are those who believe in a religiously fanatical way that a negative has to have detail in the most remote highlights or blacks to be considered a good one.
    It mostly those landscape zoniacs that can't seem to judge a photograph any other way and they usually mix artisans with artists.
    So, let me shout out of angst:
    [size=4]
    Sometimes I do NOT WANT DETAIL IN MY SHADOWS!
    [size=2]
    [/size]
    [size=2]So there![/size][size=2]
    [/size]
    [/size]
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  2. #12
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    From my experience, it seems that there are always people who can't get beyond the proscribed parameters demanded by whatever "school" to which they belong - at both ends of the spectrum. While I'd agree that an image should have detail only in those areas the photographer desires, I also believe that the photographer's desire should be tempered by the demands of the target audience and the intended use of the image (including the requirements of the presentation media).

    Often, I think, it's best to consider the nature of the subject itself, and make decisions based on how you wish to present that subject. In other words, let the "story" behind the subject, and how best to tell that story, dictate the technique.

    Large areas of detail-lacking black can work well if the mood of the image, and the composition and timing are strong enough to focus the viewer's attention on the essence of the subject and its portrayal. If the composition and portrayal aren't strong enough to carry that off, however, people's minds start to wander and look for detail where none was intended.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

  3. #13
    Gim
    Gim is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    399
    Ralph Gibson and Edward Weston both have different techniques. Is either one of them wrong?? They are both making the interpretation they want and I like them both.

  4. #14
    Charles Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Colorfull, Canon City Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,723
    This is a thread that I probably should avoid, but something makes me want to comment on it.

    I am sorry, but like many folks viewing photographs I do not like the chalk and soot effect so many show in their display prints. I have spent my lifetime trying to make full scale negatives and those negatives to represent what I actually saw and felt. I do not always achieve what I am looking for but I keep trying. I want black blacks, and white but not blown out whites.
    I also want as many of those little grays that add detail as I can get. I believe a good negative can achieve this, because I have accomplished it many times. I do not agree that a full scale print will appear "muddy" it can
    if the printer allows it to do so. Done carefully, It will be a pleasure to view!

    I believe that many photographers print their excellent images way to far down, thus creating the too dark or too black effect. I believe this is done in effort to emulate artist's that have gone before or other contemporary works of today.

    I also believe that if you want to print dark, do so, If you really like short scale prints Fine, but what ever you do try to enjoy every minute of what you are doing.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckP
    You can print any way you want. But if a large majority of people you want as an audience are telling you the prints are too dark you need to think about what this is saying. You need to keep an open mind to move forward.
    I think Chuck raises a good point. Sometimes when the viewer makes a comment about the print being dark they may be saying they would like to be able to see more detail. "It's too dark I can't see what's in there (but I'd like to)".

    Some images I really like to print are also quite dark with specular highlights. I used to get similar comments about these images, so I changed my method.
    One I found that works very well is to rate the film one stop slower (or at half the box ASA rating). This has the effect of lifting the overall exposure of the film and giving separation of the details in the darker areas.
    It then becomes easier to 'print the images down' darker if you wish to, whilst retaining the appearance of detail in the shadows. It gives more choice in how to print the image.

  6. #16
    BWGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,050
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by arigram
    ...So, let me shout out of angst:
    [size=4]
    Sometimes I do NOT WANT DETAIL IN MY SHADOWS!
    [size=2]
    [/size]
    [size=2]So there![/size][size=2]
    [/size]
    [/size]
    It's Ok! It's Ok. You do NOT have to have details in your shadows if you do not want it.
    Jeanette
    .................................................. ................
    Isaiah 25:1

  7. #17
    Sjixxxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Zenith City, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    394
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by arigram
    There are those who believe in a religiously fanatical way that a negative has to have detail in the most remote highlights or blacks to be considered a good one.
    It mostly those landscape zoniacs that can't seem to judge a photograph any other way and they usually mix artisans with artists.
    So, let me shout out of angst:
    [size=4]
    Sometimes I do NOT WANT DETAIL IN MY SHADOWS!
    [size=2]
    [/size]
    [size=2]So there![/size][size=2]
    [/size]
    [/size]
    Shhh. The people in this thread may hear you.
    Gear: Camera, Brain, Light.
    Website - FB

  8. #18
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckP
    You can print any way you want. But if a large majority of people you want as an audience are telling you the prints are too dark you need to think about what this is saying. You need to keep an open mind to move forward.
    I agree fully Chuck. I like to say that my photograph must first satisfy me as the maker of the photograph. It's not always imperitive that it must satisfy others. However, one would be naive and stubborn to be resistent to the well placed observations of others, possibly a fatal move to one's own growth in the craft of his or her art.

    It is a matter of tast in as much as anything else I think:

    I often view a photograph that does not appeal to me and my sense of balance among the tones (and I don't necessarily feel that the word "balance" implies full tonal range; rather, it simply means to me that the tones that occupy the both the positve and negative space should compliment the subject matter, that is my sense of "balance" among the prevailing tones)-----and I struggle with it all the time. Personally, I think my better photographs contain only some area of full black and paper white. Too much of those extremes are distracting to me, but I will not force that point of view on others. Others may be able to treat those extremes in an expressive way---I simply have not been able to.

    Regards,

    Chuck

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6
    Print for yourself unless someone is paying. That being said I usually find there are 3 kinds of people, ones who love your print and all it's subtle nuances, ones who will spend far too much time giving you critique you didn't ask for and the third kind that look at pictures as hard documents for events and can't understand why you took a picture with no people in it. I prefer the first kind but there hard to find.
    Rob

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by arigram
    ...[size=4][size=3]Sometimes I do NOT WANT DETAIL IN MY SHADOWS![/size]
    [size=2]
    [/size][size=2]So there![/size][size=2]
    [/size][/size]
    No-one says there has to be detail there if the artist doesn't want it. However, I think it is useful to have a negative that is capable of giving detail that may enhance the image. Then make the final decision about this in the darkroom (though it helps to have some idea about how the image will look at the time the film is exposed).
    But why limit yourself right at the start? Having a good negative generally provides more artistic choice that can be exploited in the darkroom where personal taste can then direct.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin