Judging the amount of contrast

[Grandpa Ron]

My old rule of thumb was black and white photos should be processes with the full tonal range from blackest black to whitest white. I seems to work pretty well but I have found a few issues. I was working with and old Olympus digital 3.2 meg pixel camera.

The first photo is some stone steps, I had to limit the whiteness of the walls or they appeared too bright and washed out.

The second photo, the bell was adjusted for the complete b&w tonal range. It came out as desired.

The third photo, the water fall remains a mystery to me. No matter how I manage the mid tones the blacks are too dark and whites to bright, if I lighten the overall exposure the entire picture seems washed out. Could I have exceeded the latitude capabilities of my old camera?

Finally the fourth photo of the side yard, came out as anticipated, bright highlights and dark shadows. I like this shot; although a like it with a little less contrast also.

So I am curious how others judge the amount of contrast in their b&w photos.

 

[PaulR70]

I look at a scene I want to shoot and look at contrast between light and dark that is in the scene. For the stone steps I would have taken a spot reading of the white wall then opened one full stop. You can also bracket your shots. Remember that the meter reads as a mid-tone. It all depends on the type of metering your camera has, I mainly use the spot meter in my camera (Nikon D3400). Back in the early 70's I began learning the Zone System but then kind of gave up photography until now.

 

[Ysarex]

My old rule of thumb was black and white photos should be processes with the full tonal range from blackest black to whitest white. I seems to work pretty well but I have found a few issues. I was working with and old Olympus digital 3.2 meg pixel camera.

The first photo is some stone steps, I had to limit the whiteness of the walls or they appeared too bright and washed out.

The second photo, the bell was adjusted for the complete b&w tonal range. It came out as desired.

The third photo, the water fall remains a mystery to me. No matter how I manage the mid tones the blacks are too dark and whites to bright, if I lighten the overall exposure the entire picture seems washed out. Could I have exceeded the latitude capabilities of my old camera?

Finally the fourth photo of the side yard, came out as anticipated, bright highlights and dark shadows. I like this shot; although a like it with a little less contrast also.

So I am curious how others judge the amount of contrast in their b&w photos.

The rule: A photo reaches black, diffuse highlights are as light as possible while still holding texture/color/tone, and specular highlights reach white. Of course rules have exceptions but there are rules and this is one of the most fundamental.

Judging these four photos against the rule the photo of the bell and the stairs do not reach black -- there isn't a black pixel in either one and it's substantial. Reaching black would improve both photos. Likewise the same two photos do not reach white. Their diffuse highlights are well below white. In the photo of the steps you have a potential specular highlight in the decorative molding under the window and that should probably be white.

The side yard photo is closest to meeting the rule. It does reach black but the diffuse highlights in the clouds could be a tad brighter. The photo would also benefit from a little tone re-distribution as the midtones would look better brightened up some. In terms of tone response this is the best photo of the four.

The waterfall photo has blown diffuse highlights. The contrast range of the original scene was extreme and any camera metering system is going to screw that one. You're basically shooting a backlit waterfall which is top on the list of (your camera can't do that: metering system will get it wrong and camera processing software will crash and burn).

Joe