|
|
|
-
My Rant - Black And White Pictures does not Mean HIGH CONTRAST
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......
-
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.
Last edited by Andy K; 01-07-2010 at 03:53 AM.
----------- My Flickr-----------
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
✯
-
Just ignore the trends, whatever they are.
Search for meaning inside your own work and do what you find truly artistically meaningful.
aristotelis grammatikakis
www.arigram.gr
Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit
-
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.
-
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
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
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
-
 Originally Posted by 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......
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
-
OT: No-one says 'potah-toes'!
----------- My Flickr-----------
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
✯
-
Originally Posted by Andy K
OT: No-one says 'potah-toes'!
Actually, we say 'spuds' at our house-- But you get the point
Rick
-
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.........
|
|
Adv Reply
