Your Criteria For High-Definition Monochrome Photography.

<p>Just for fun as well as curiosity, I am asking how you would set about producing a fine High-Definition black and white photograph? This must only be for enlarging or contact printing on light sensitive papers (no ink jet papers).<br>

Any film format from 35mm to ULF are eligible for this topic, as each has it`s merits. A book that you might find related to this topic, is `THE EDGE OF DARKNESS`, subtitled as `THE ART, CRAFT AND POWER OF THE HIGH-DEFINITION MONOCHROME PHOTOGRAPH` by Barry Thornton (ISBN 1-902538-09-9).<br>

You can discuss your choice of Cameras and lenses, the use of a tripod, subject matter, lighting, optimum f-stops, lens filters, choice of films, light metering, perspective control movements if available, optimum exposure indices, choice of film developers and dilutions, right through to the choice of photographic papers and print finishing. (Too much to mention) but you get the idea for this discussion. State anything else you think is relevant. It does not matter if it is objective facts or subjective opinions, fire away. ;-)</p>

 

<p>Kevin, is there a reason that you are making posts about this book? This seems a lot like Spam to me.</p>

<p>No, not at all Jason. AFAIK, the book is out of print. I mentioned it, because I think that there is some relevance of the book to this topic. The book discusses high-definition monochrome photography, but I don`t insist upon it.<br>

As I said in the first sentence, for <strong>FUN</strong> as well as curiosity.</p>

<p>Kevin:<br>

What exactly do you mean by fine, high-definition monochrome? You question seemed to focus on equipment and technique, and the first thing that came to mind was achieving the greatest resolution of the finest detail, without regard for other merits of the photograph. The kind of photography that might be done for intelligence gathering or photogrammetric applications, and meant to be examined with a magnifying glass. Is that what you had in mind, or are artistic purposes included?</p>

<p>LOL, let's all attack the new guy! </p>

<p>Folks, check out the late Barry Thornton's book, where he described his methods of obtaining technically excellent photographs. Nobody said that precludes any 'artistic purposes', and Kevin never said it does.</p>

<p>Thornton illustrated the book with some nice B & W landscape work. Good book to browse, if you can find a copy.</p>

<p>All:<br>

Well, my apologies to Kevin. No "attack" was intended. I haven't read Barry's book. I meant it as an open question since I have in the past been professionally involved in the kind of high-res surveillance photography I referred to. In those applications, all sorts of specialized materials, equipment and techniques are used to let you "read license plates from outer space" to use the common (and comical) analogy.They don't result in very desirable photographs if you look at them from more that a few inches away.<br>

Sorry Kevin. But I think my question still stands. Hi-def photography can mean different things to different people.</p>

 

<p>No attack, just an honest question. A new member who mentions the same book in 3 out of 5 of his posts does make me think of forum spam.<br>

If I was attacking, I would have used more colorful language! Forum spam is just as bad as talking at the theater.<br>

By all means, please continue the discussion.....</p>

<p>Folks, photo.net forums are very carefully moderated. Chances are good the moderators will catch any spam or troll posts before anyone else notices. When in doubt, it's usually best to report suspicions via e-mail to the forum moderators or the <a href="../site-help-forum">site help forum</a> , rather than risk alienating other members with unfounded public accusations. These forums work best when they welcome and encourage new members.</p>

<p>Kevin appears to be interested in a legitimate, open ended discussion about techniques. While most posts on the b&w forums are about solving specific problems, we have occasionally seen similar discussion threads. I've started a few myself over the years in the interest of engaging members in discussions. These discussions can produce some interesting comments.</p>

<p>Just shoot 8x10 film and make gelatin-silver photographs by contact in a regular darkroom. And use reasonable quality lenses at moderate apertures. The result is infinite resolution photographs.</p>

<p>By infinite resolution I mean detail finer than the eye can see. Oh, and no special film, developer, or paper is needed either. The resolution comes with the territory. Plus the whole process costs about $6 a go and consumes about 30 minutes of actual darkroom time. Easy!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... how you would set about producing a fine High-Definition black and white photograph?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Work backwards. Only enough resolution needs to be recorded to reproduce on print at the limit of unaided human vision - about 6 cycles/mm. </p>

<p>Practically, this means limiting enlargement to below 4X for film around 100ISO. This also provides very good tonal gradations and nearly invisible grain noise.</p>

<p>Why limit yourself to wet darkroom processes though? Getting consistently higher quality, reproducible results is very much the easier with digital post.</p>

<p>I don't do that kind of photo, but I would imagine one of the most important aspects would be to have a thorough understanding of the the tones and values within the frame before making the camera adjustments.</p>

<p>Driving idea would be that the world presents us with millions of colors, and a comparable range of tones. Our final image will not have millions of everything. It'll have, at most, about a hundred. Of that hundred, our mind will probably sort it all out into about half a dozen tonal groups.</p>

<p>If those groups are recorded so that they appear disorganized, the whole picture will end up being a busy mess.</p>

<p>I disagree with the ideas that format size, resolution or digital sensing is important. I think organization of the image, part by part, will be far more influential. If the image is composed and prepared to be recorded in a way that's disorganized, then the final image will appear disorganized to the viewer. They'll instinctively identify this.</p>

<p>The key to making something "high definition" will lie with the photographer's ability to understand how to simplify the image so that the viewer can readily receive the image in a way that helps them to perceive detail. This places importance on organizing the image so that area edges have an order to the grouping of the tonal areas in the photo. In order to maintain that order, as the image is processed, the photographer will need to understand how each stage affects exposure and contrast. If the image was in color, that would add to the problem.</p>

<p>In order to visualize how the subject will look later, it pays to understand the tonal values of the subject before us. Then, how those values will be affected by each stage of processing. We can't completely escape equipment, but it's composing and organizing the image which made the masters who they are or were.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams' images, for example, did not radically change as he moved from one view camera model to the next. What unified his work was his understanding of area tonal control throughout the process. Organizing areas by tone, mentioned above, is a common task for painters. I suspect that Adams was influenced by his wife, Virginia, in this regard, but I have never seen any proof. Virginia was a painter.</p>

<p>So, to begin to make the image, you will want to know your subject; and, quite possibly, meter it to death. And then record and process it in a way that you can reasonably predict how those tonal areas will stay organized later. <br /> Equipment: immaterial; photographer's process: essential.</p>

<p>It's not going to be about <em>how</em> they are using what they're using. It'll be about <em>how well they understand</em> what they're using, all the way through the process, from visualization to final image. </p>

<p>That point struck me as kind of ironic as I was reading a web page on Thornton. He mentioned that other people were sending their stuff to his lab. Yet, he noticed they were not getting high definition images. Well, if the photographer only controls what happens at the camera, then he has immediate control over about 15 to 20% of the process. How many times would someone have to lab images before they understood what that lab will do? It would take a long relationship. Then, the photographer would have to recycle their visualization to counteract what a lab would do, later. They'd be caught in the crunch between what they saw before them, and what would come after. No wonder so many have failed. </p>

<p>If I had to point you in the direction for this high definition monochrome photography, I would try to get you to look at how well you know what you're doing, before, during and after each stage of the image making process. </p>

<p>You can use the Zone System all day long; but, if you are not composing and processing in the language, even a Zone System photographer will just get whatever out the other side.</p>