Alexis- Model Portrait

[Designer]

You can exhibit a photograph in sepia mid tones for all I care, as long as the medium is not the issue, but rather the subject.

If the OP in this thread wishes to make his post-capture editing the main point of discussion instead of something else, then so be it.

 

[Forkie]

I'd argue that the post-capture editing is as important as the capture itself. So is a valid area of debate in any photographic discussion.

 

[Ysarex87 81]

as a rule, so should a good photo.

There is literally no rule that says this.

It's a stylistic choice.

You don't like it, that's fine. Others do. But there is no "rule".

Yes there literally is a rule.

There are rules in photography as in most things. For example: the subject in a photo should be in focus. All rules have exceptions and we've all seen out of focus photos that work, but exceptions don't negate the rule or make the rule less important. In the overwhelming majority of cases a photo with an out of focus subject is recognized as a mistake because it breaks the rule.

[Good tonality in a photo requires (among other things) reaching a black point] is a venerable and fundamental rule with the historic weight of well over 100 years of accepted practice. My teachers taught me that rule 40 years ago. Remember learning the Zone System and all those paper DMAX tests we had to run to determine minimum exposure to black? We did that to make sure we were following the rule -- it's a well acknowledged rule and for good reason.

It's easy to find references to this rule:
"What makes a compelling photograph? Well, there are quite a number of things and one of them is 'Black point'.... Photographs look better if they utilize most if not all of the inherent dynamic range of the medium, be that paper, a computer monitor or some other electronic medium. This is to say that the image has deep shadows, brilliant highlights and the full range of tonalities in between."
-- Ralp Nordstrom

"Ansel Adams wrote extensively about the importance of blacks in a print in his classic book, The Print. While there’s only one true black tone in a print, there are usually many spots of black throughout the image, and this is where the term 'blacks' comes from. Without blacks in a print, it will never have the life and depth it needs, and with color images, the color either."
-- Rob Sheppard

"Most images look best when they utilize the full range dark to light which can be displayed on your screen or in a print. This means that it is often best to perform levels such that the histogram extends all the way from black (0) to white (255). Images which do not extend to fill the entire tonal range often look washed out and can lack impact."
-- Sean McHugh

Joe

40 years ago you were shooting in black and white. And in a teaching environment, it makes sense to teach the "rules", especially at a time where photography, in general, was more conservative whereas these days, people are much more accepting of experimental, stylised techniques.

40 years ago we did have color and I also worked in color (Kodachrome was invented in 1935). In the 60s and 70s photography was not more conservative than now. Very arguably it was quite the opposite. It's more conservative now.

I notice that the 3 photographers you quoted are all primarily landscape/nature photographers where again, in general, there is much less experimentation than in portraiture or fashion photography.

Low contrast and muted shadows/highlights in fashion and portraiture (or frankly, any genre) is a legitimate stylisation type. You'd be hard pressed to find a well-known wedding photographer at the moment that doesn't use the technique.

I believe that's what I said. You're almost quoting me now (although I didn't use the term legitimate) I said it is faddish. I agree it is a very popular fad right now to render the photo without any black. Fads come and go. I'm in favor of this one going IMO.

And, contrary to what Mr Sean McHugh (whoever he is) says, it is the very "washed out" appearance that gives the image the impact. The internet is awash with tutorials on how to achieve just that appearance.

Sean McHugh is the author of arguably the best photo tutorial site on the web: Cambridge in Colour - Photography Tutorials Learning Community And again you're repeating what I originally said -- I also provided a link to one of the glut of tutorials out there on how to achieve this faddish look. You noted experimentation above with at least the implication it was positive. To that I would say slavishly jumping on the current rage is the opposite of experimentation.

Joe

 

[photoguy99]

Ugh.

There aren't "rules of composition" there are things you can do that have effects. Whether you want that effect or not is up to you. The presence or absence of an effect may or may not alter how people view your image. Ho hum. The "you have to know the rules to break them" canard isn't even wrong.

As for dark blacks, they're a tool. There are at least two substantial ways the tool is used.

1. To create contrast. Without dark and light tones, you cannot create high contrast. High contrast can be used to manage the eye, to point out what the important things are. This technique is as old as the hills, a splash of light paint next to a splash of dark. More generally, higher contrast can create visual drama.

2. To more closely approximate the world. The straight photography crew, Ansel Adams among them, strove to extract the full range of possible tonality from their prints, to better approximate the (much wider) range of tonality seen by the eye.

I am pretty sure that technicians like Adams also simply felt it was wrong to not use all the available tonal range, out of some sort of sense of fitness.

That said, the weak blacks thing is definitely a fad. It appears to my eye to be a lame effort to create a "soft, dreamlike" appearance, invented by people who don't know enough photoshop to create this effect in less jarring ways. It is a trope, and it immediately marks the photographer as (probably) of a type.

 

[Forkie]

as a rule, so should a good photo.

There is literally no rule that says this.

It's a stylistic choice.

You don't like it, that's fine. Others do. But there is no "rule".

Yes there literally is a rule.

There are rules in photography as in most things. For example: the subject in a photo should be in focus. All rules have exceptions and we've all seen out of focus photos that work, but exceptions don't negate the rule or make the rule less important. In the overwhelming majority of cases a photo with an out of focus subject is recognized as a mistake because it breaks the rule.

[Good tonality in a photo requires (among other things) reaching a black point] is a venerable and fundamental rule with the historic weight of well over 100 years of accepted practice. My teachers taught me that rule 40 years ago. Remember learning the Zone System and all those paper DMAX tests we had to run to determine minimum exposure to black? We did that to make sure we were following the rule -- it's a well acknowledged rule and for good reason.

It's easy to find references to this rule:
"What makes a compelling photograph? Well, there are quite a number of things and one of them is 'Black point'.... Photographs look better if they utilize most if not all of the inherent dynamic range of the medium, be that paper, a computer monitor or some other electronic medium. This is to say that the image has deep shadows, brilliant highlights and the full range of tonalities in between."
-- Ralp Nordstrom

"Ansel Adams wrote extensively about the importance of blacks in a print in his classic book, The Print. While there’s only one true black tone in a print, there are usually many spots of black throughout the image, and this is where the term 'blacks' comes from. Without blacks in a print, it will never have the life and depth it needs, and with color images, the color either."
-- Rob Sheppard

"Most images look best when they utilize the full range dark to light which can be displayed on your screen or in a print. This means that it is often best to perform levels such that the histogram extends all the way from black (0) to white (255). Images which do not extend to fill the entire tonal range often look washed out and can lack impact."
-- Sean McHugh

Joe

40 years ago you were shooting in black and white. And in a teaching environment, it makes sense to teach the "rules", especially at a time where photography, in general, was more conservative whereas these days, people are much more accepting of experimental, stylised techniques.

40 years ago we did have color and I also worked in color (Kodachrome was invented in 1935). In the 60s and 70s photography was not more conservative than now. Very arguably it was quite the opposite. It's more conservative now.

I notice that the 3 photographers you quoted are all primarily landscape/nature photographers where again, in general, there is much less experimentation than in portraiture or fashion photography.

Low contrast and muted shadows/highlights in fashion and portraiture (or frankly, any genre) is a legitimate stylisation type. You'd be hard pressed to find a well-known wedding photographer at the moment that doesn't use the technique.

I believe that's what I said. You're almost quoting me now (although I didn't use the term legitimate) I said it is faddish. I agree it is a very popular fad right now to render the photo without any black. Fads come and go. I'm in favor of this one going IMO.

And, contrary to what Mr Sean McHugh (whoever he is) says, it is the very "washed out" appearance that gives the image the impact. The internet is awash with tutorials on how to achieve just that appearance.

Sean McHugh is the author of arguably the best photo tutorial site on the web: Cambridge in Colour - Photography Tutorials Learning Community And again you're repeating what I originally said -- I also provided a link to one of the glut of tutorials out there on how to achieve this faddish look. You noted experimentation above with at least the implication it was positive. To that I would say slavishly jumping on the current rage is the opposite of experimentation.

Joe

If I have misread the entire post that I replied to, that's my bad and I would be obliged if you would correct me, but I read your post (and the others you posted) as an argument entirely against the use of the matted black style because you viewed it as an un-productive fad, then used quotes from a few photographers (whose styles and particular genres, in general, probably merit that view in most cases) to back up that claim up and show that it was a "rule" that must be followed to make a good photo.

My post was arguing that it is, in fact, a productive style due to it's overwhelming current popularity.

 

[Ysarex87 81]

If I have misread the entire post that I replied to, that's my bad and I would be obliged if you would correct me, but I read your post (and the others you posted) as an argument entirely against the use of the matted black style because you viewed it as an un-productive fad, then used quotes from a few photographers (whose styles and particular genres, in general, probably merit that view in most cases) to back up that claim up and show that it was a "rule" that must be followed to make a good photo.

My post was arguing that it is, in fact, a productive style due to it's overwhelming current popularity.

My original post in the thread noted that I liked the lighting and the photo but did not care for the processing. The matte black look is faddish and I find it most often degrades a photo. It is a very popular fad right now which I noted. You are correct -- I don't care for it. Neither do I care for the markedly blue skin tones which is likewise a fad often seen hanging out with the matte black fad.

You then noted that the model was dressed as a goth and suggested that was justification for the matte black look. I said goths like black and, as a rule, so does a good photo.

e.rose then commented that there is no such rule. The post then that you saw and just replied to this morning was in response to e.rose's comment that there is no such rule. That rule is fundamental and long standing.

In the arts "rules" are guides. Exceptions exist and artistic vision is always encouraged, but the rules remain. When artistic vision deviates from the rules/guides it is evaluated relative to those rules/guides because they have been deemed important by the artistic community at large. No rules/guides are cast in concrete and unalterable for all time. They can evolve and change, but that fact does not negate them in the same way that exceptions do not negate them. In the case of a new fad only time will tell and it will take some time. Historically most fads fade away and become embarrassments, but some few become successful and accepted. In the case of this matte black fad the jury will be out for some time. I'm voting guilty.

Joe

 

[Ysarex87 81]

My post was arguing that it is, in fact, a productive style due to it's overwhelming current popularity.

Reality TV is overwhelmingly popular. That's what a fad is -- everybody is raving about it. Remember harem pants? Should I continue with a list?

Joe

 

[FITBMX]

I really like it!
I don't like her makeup, it's to thick looking like you said. But that is a personal preference, and has nothing to do with this great photo and lovely girl!

 

[DanOstergren28 3]

Does not the rule of artistic vision and freedom trump all other so called rules?

Clearly to me, the artist has made conscious decisions in his post processing.

So if I don't like, understand, or agree with it....."I don't like it, not my style" Next!

This sort of thing does not work here in TPF. In this forum the terms "Artist" and "Artistic vision" are villainized and if you don't follow the "rules" then you are told that your photos are crap.

I disagree that a photograph must meet certain requirements in order to be good, but unfortunately here there are a certain handful of members here who will express their opinions as facts and are compelled to find the tiniest nitpicks so they don't have to say anything positive, and then pass it off as "critique". If you try to tell them differently they tell you that you don't know better than they do and then they list a bunch of old photographer's quotes as if they are hard facts that prove that your photos fail as being anything good. It's absurd, and booooooooring. All I hear when that particular group get's going (and it's always the same group) is .

 

[DanOstergren28 3]

I would prefer the blacks to be more defined. For me, it has a somewhat washed-out look, which perhaps aims at recapturing the look of a film like Portra but doesn't quite deliver.

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate it, really, and also appreciate that you aren't delivering it in a way that tries to make me look like a fool, such as the way a few others here are doing.

 

[DanOstergren28 3]

Does not the rule of artistic vision and freedom trump all other so called rules?

It is axiomatic that one must learn the rules in order to eventually break those rules, and he must know HOW and WHEN to break the rules to make his art exemplary.

Just ignoring rules of composition means nothing, and conveys a sense that the artist is not familiar with the rules.

You keep insinuating in more than one of my topics that I don't know what I'm doing. In one topic you outright said it. Perhaps you're right, but honestly I don't care if I'm right or wrong about it or if you think I don't know what I'm doing when it comes to making pictures. You can keep going on and on about it in every one of my topics, but all I hear when you say I don't know what I'm doing is .

TL;DR: I like my photos and don't care if you think I don't know what I'm doing . Have a nice day.

 

[DanOstergren28 3]

I really like it!
I don't like her makeup, it's to thick looking like you said. But that is a personal preference, and has nothing to do with this great photo and lovely girl!

Thank you.

 

[DanOstergren28 3]

This obsession with rules is so boring... I can't wait to hear "you young whipper-snappers need to start following the rules!" and "You need to know the rules before you break them!!!" again when I post my next image!

 

[photoguy99]

What does this mean?

 

[DanOstergren28 3]

What does this mean?

I'm sure you can figure it out. Have a nice day.