Sun and parachute.

[DriedStrawbery]

Requesting for Comments, am starting to try B&W.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[timor]

I like #2. Not because of something like technical perfection, but because of so called emotional value. If you never before produced something meaningful in b&w, you will soon notice, that without color it is different ball game.

 

[DriedStrawbery]

Found the B&H YouTube video useful in understanding basics of when n how to take B&W. Need to understand more about how to make it impactful without color


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JustJazzie]

I like the second on! I think I would increase the exposure and contrast for the umbrella and leave the sky dark and moody! Contrast is key to most black and whites, and I think this should could really use a bit more in the bright side of the histogram!

 

[timor]

Found the B&H YouTube video useful in understanding basics of when n how to take B&W. Need to understand more about how to make it impactful without color


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Found the B&H YouTube video useful in understanding basics of when n how to take B&W. Need to understand more about how to make it impactful without color


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aha. B&w is very much different than color. Without color it is removed from reality in many ways. Yes, the major tool is a contrast, but contrast understood globally, through the whole spectrum of possibilities, from very low to very high. It is a tool of your expression and your sens of aesthetics. Study masters of b&w, different approaches, Adams, Weston, Cartier, E. Smith, Kertesh, Lange. Train yourself to see in black and white, shoot "dry". Study their pictures " in revers", understand "visualization", don't get bogged down with " rules" so often voiced by many. B&w photography doesn't impose any moral limitations, there is only good and bad taste. Digital camera actually make it harder as it is geared for color so before you press the trigger, see in your mind the image you want, than get there in conversion. I shoot only b&w film, so it is easier for me as I omit color all together.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Snip - Yes, the major tool is a contrast, but contrast understood globally, through the whole spectrum of possibilities, from very low to very high. It is a tool of your expression and your sens of aesthetics. - Snip

I always shudddddder uncontrollably when someone uses the words contrast and globally so close to one another.
Yes timor you are correct, but I must add that contrast is not a global thing and so many digital B&W's are ruined because they're tone-mapped and contrast boosted globally for "punch".
It is in fact variations in local contrast within the image that produce the different textures say between sand and skin.

 

[timor]

This is a little problem with digital representation of any image. Mostly we see those on digital screen, when really any conclusion should be drawn only from print, which is the final product of photography. There is a serious difference in impact of picture displayed on even large digital screen and large print hanging on the wall. Paper will never be as luminous as led screen for one thing, ( look at Peter Lik installations ), paper is impervious to software shortcuts of display. But I think the problem as you Tim noticed with overblown contrast and subsequent destruction of microcontrast comes from a human thing, high contrast translates in human brain as sharper image and somehow people will sacrifice the richness of tones for that false feeling.

 

[DriedStrawbery]

@timor

Thanks for the tips, will study their work.

Regarding shooting with film, what aspects keeps u from moving/staying digital ? It's hard work to work in darkroom compared to editing on a computer.

Also, how can u get local contrast variations in darkroom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tim Tucker]

Also, how can u get local contrast variations in darkroom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The variations in contrast exist in the subject, it's what makes a wet pavement look different from a rose petal.
It's odd that you seem to suggest images are created in post and that the textures are something you add, that they didn't exist before. Whereas in film you know that you are only recording the light reflected from a subject, and within that pattern of light is the texture that you see with your naked eye. The trick is in understanding and preserving it.

 

[DriedStrawbery]

Also, how can u get local contrast variations in darkroom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The variations in contrast exist in the subject, it's what makes a wet pavement look different from a rose petal.
It's odd that you seem to suggest images are created in post and that the textures are something you add, that they didn't exist before. Whereas in film you know that you are only recording the light reflected from a subject, and within that pattern of light is the texture that you see with your naked eye. The trick is in understanding and preserving it.

No, i did not meant that.

Earlier in the post, someone suggested changing the contrast of the umbrella but keep the sky as is. And later on someone suggested not to make any global contrast changes. So my question to a film developer is how is this done in darkroom? Is it possible? Its so easy with digital pics to achieve this.

 

[Tim Tucker]

No, i did not meant that.

Earlier in the post, someone suggested changing the contrast of the umbrella but keep the sky as is. And later on someone suggested not to make any global contrast changes. So my question to a film developer is how is this done in darkroom? Is it possible? Its so easy with digital pics to achieve this.

It's not done in the darkroom, (it can be to an extent), it's an inherent property of the light you capture, it's done before you press the shutter. Textures and contrast change with the quality and direction of the light, you understand and observe this. You wait for the right light, the one that gives you the contrasts and textures you want, then you press the shutter.

Nowadays there seems to be a growing expectation that you just press the shutter and add these effects back in during processing. A good example was a question on another forum about how you get good fluffy clouds in a photo. The answers? Every single one (except mine) was about how you processed them in, no one else even mentioned how they looked or the direction of the light before you pressed the shutter.

It's easy to change things in digital and right that we should explore this. But things like clouds are created in nature, and the way they look is entirely down to the nature of the light reflected off them. It's something you understand absolutely with film and sometimes seems to be secondary to processing with digital.

 

[timor]

Maybe this might be helpful
10 Tips on How to Create Better Black & White Images

When comes to shooting film and printing images in the darkroom, there is a certain "thing" about that. Same as with sport fishing, why people do that, when one can buy this fish in the store. In the hobby very often the road to accomplishment is more important, than the accomplishment itself. In addition I think, film photography is much, much more personal than digital photography. Here everything depends on photographer, no shortcuts, no excuses.

 

[gsgary]

@timor

Thanks for the tips, will study their work.

Regarding shooting with film, what aspects keeps u from moving/staying digital ? It's hard work to work in darkroom compared to editing on a computer.

Also, how can u get local contrast variations in darkroom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I shoot 95% film but don't find working in the darkroom hard, digital gets very boring sitting at a computer for hours, some at the club I go to shoot 5000 images at a weekend which tells me no thought what so ever has been put into the shot then they spend days trying to make 20 shots look good

 

[gsgary]

Also, how can u get local contrast variations in darkroom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The variations in contrast exist in the subject, it's what makes a wet pavement look different from a rose petal.
It's odd that you seem to suggest images are created in post and that the textures are something you add, that they didn't exist before. Whereas in film you know that you are only recording the light reflected from a subject, and within that pattern of light is the texture that you see with your naked eye. The trick is in understanding and preserving it.

No, i did not meant that.

Earlier in the post, someone suggested changing the contrast of the umbrella but keep the sky as is. And later on someone suggested not to make any global contrast changes. So my question to a film developer is how is this done in darkroom? Is it possible? Its so easy with digital pics to achieve this.

I will make a split grade print