are blown highlights more acceptable in b&w?

how is that a mistake?

It's NOT a mistake. I said "IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE" had he blown a patch of the highlights.

 

We misunderstood each other. I thought you were thinking the swath of mist was blown. Sorry for that.

 

unlike you I don't pixel peep

Conversation over. Back to photos.

Like many others have said, if it works. Henri Cartier-Bresson blew out highlights in areas of his many iconic images. Anecdotally it appears to me looking at some of his prints in museums etc., (harder to judge digital reproductions) most of his "blown" highlights were of water (puddles etc.), streets, sidewalks and walls. Not shocking when you consider his camera, film and other limitations in dynamic range and so on.

Great discussion. Norman's post made me go back to my portfolio and look for relevant photos. I thought, a couple of examples could help the discussion. I agree with Fred's general opinion that blown highlights can easily be a distraction if not in tune with the general level of refinement of the photo or the overall mood. Blown highlights are something that more often go against our perception and can be an impediment against perceiving a photo anything more than pixels or blobs of ink (same goes with large patches of complete dark). I think, most of us here are referring to macroscopic patches of white, not 1% or 2% blown highlights that blend into the second brightest shade and not distinguishable to the eye. In that way, what is considered blown depends on the display medium. Printing paper is more prone to blown highlights than a bright computer screen. Experts who print digital photos are aware of this and extra care is taken to translate whats seen on the monitor to paper.

 

That said, I like Norman's idea of portal into another world. As said earlier, I think its a thin edge between perceiving a blown highlight as a portal, and seeing ugly white monitor screen in that place. Also, I think for this to be effective, the viewer should be able to perceive what he wants without any knowledge of Norman's ideas (I think it would have been better to start the thread with a relevant example and asking whether it works, rather than explaining what could or couldn't work). I found one example where I found a 'portal' (not sure if it works). When I first took the picture, I resented the white patch, but this is from a phone, so couldn't help it. Later on, I actually kind of liked it, for it resembles a flash of raw white light, and (may be) transcends above the realm of distraction. (please scroll down for more discussion and examples)

 

 

The other situation where blown highlights could work is blinding bright light scenario where the range of brightness is beyond our eye's capacity and hence in line with our perception. This sometimes work in harsh sunlight to add drama. Again, there's a thin line between ruining the image vs giving it a new vibe. I think the below example works to some extent. To answer Norman's original question, whether blown highlights are more acceptable (aesthetically) in B&W ... here I decided to convert the below photo to B&W because in color, overexposure not only blows highlights, but sometimes distorts the colors in bands around the highlight region. In B&W, it can be easier to blend these discoloring regions and introduce some sort of continuity with the blown region, because many different color shades can be mapped into fewer grey shades and theres a lot of flexibility in that process. So yes, at times, B&W may be useful to make a blown highlight more benign. However, the distorted colors due to overexposure can have their appeal in certain photos, and I will always review the color version first before deciding whether to convert to monochrome.

 

 

Blown highlights to emulate glowing or incandescent profiles:

 

I consider huge contrast extremes (and resulting blown highlights) an opportunity.

 

One of my most treasured photo books is

by Kikuji Kawada. The extreme contrast and blown highlights of many of his photos work well with the subject matter and underlying narrative.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Brad_

I’ve always thought it odd that the only tonal values that people are advised not to use in black & white photography are black and white. If there's a tool available for expressing what I want to say, I use it; and what I want to say often involves high contrast, back-lighting, and white paper. Maybe it's relevant that I also work in pen and ink, where all that intermediate stuff is irrelevant.

Maybe it's relevant that I also work in pen and ink, where all that intermediate stuff is irrelevant.

 

Interesting. In a way, that dovetails with Claude Shannon's views and research regarding information and communications. Shannon, an engineer and mathematician who worked for Bell Labs, and was a professor at MIT, is considered the father of information theory. Many of the advanced technologies we today take for granted in our computers and communications devices, stem from Shannon's research from the mid-1900s.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Brad_

Like the rule of parlay in Pirates of the Caribbean, they are more like "guidelines" than rules. Now we have folks making images by the numbers. For many, it is more important what the histogram shows than what the image says. They think making blue prints and spreadsheets is art. Perhaps my favorite photographer, Stieglitz. was once told by the members of the NY Photography club that his shot of the horse drawn carriage in the snow wasn't sharp. He told them, it isn't supposed to be. When I competed I often tried to include a "rule" violation that was important to the meaning of the image to screw with the judges and would let my companions know in advance what the judges would say. We would chuckle when the judge pounced on it, missing the entire meaning of the shot. I wonder if the surrealists or the impressionists were criticized for breaking such rules? My profile photo has what could be considered blown cheek highlights. A "rule" violation. I don't care if there is no detail in the highlights or if it is 255 if there is a reason for it in the image. The image is an homage to one of my favorite portraitists, Karsh and his image of Hemingway, one of my favorite writers. In that print that hangs over Hem's mantel in Key West, Hem has a white beard. Hence the hot kickers to represent that. If I recall, could have pulled back detail in those areas but actually pushed them the other way in post to emphasize the effect. Broken "rule", yes. And not tack sharp. As Stieglitz said, isn't supposed to be. Why? To screw with the "experts."

As Stieglitz said, isn't supposed to be. Why? To screw with the "experts."

 

I don't think Stieglitz broke rules to screw with the experts. He broke them to get to the truth that he envisioned. Rebelling just for the sake of rebelling only satisfies the rebel, even if monetarily. Rebelling with a vision in mind benefits many others.

Rules -- yeah , well. Make your own / as a friend says "Cut a trail."

In B&W, it can be easier to blend these discoloring regions and introduce some sort of continuity with the blown region, because many different color shades can be mapped into fewer grey shades and theres a lot of flexibility in that process

I think I understand and it was that kind of 'simplication' that was at the back of my mind when I asked the question. Do you think the process works equally well with monochrome images (ie shades of a colour other than black together with white)?

Maybe it's relevant that I also work in pen and ink, where all that intermediate stuff is irrelevant.

Leslie do you work in black ink only?

Leslie do you work in black ink only?

Almost always. I love the color of intense cyan ink, but I've never done anything successful with it. I've also never used multiple ink colors on a drawing. But I have used a combination of an ink under-drawing with watercolor on top.

I love cyan too along with tangerine and violet. thankfully, for everyone else, i can't draw.

 

 

a bit OT but when i was at school we still used ink pens and were allowed to use black, blue and turquoise ink (i'm sure other inks were sold in bottles and cartridges) with blue being the most popular. so, given we were supposed to learn from our textbooks (ie read them, study them), i don't think there is any cultural block to coloured ink drawings, at least to people of my generation and earlier.

My profile photo has what could be considered blown cheek highlights

Bob, it's a great photo. What range of colours do you think, besides black, would work with the highlights?

that dovetails with Claude Shannon's views and research regarding information and communications.

I also work in pen and ink, where all that intermediate stuff is irrelevant.

 

 

No and no. Both of those have to do with line and edges. 'This not that.' Blown highlights are exactly what does not have an edge: blown highlights are formless. A sharp, hard edge is not a blown highlight (the edge/line is figure, the rest is ground).

 

Detail is information (anything capable of being understood). Degeneration of detail = degeneration of information. For example:

 

 

If grainy textures and blurred images are less information, then blown highlights would be either another way of doing the same, or they would be too much information all at once — a visual or cognitive scream or howl. Beyond comprehension. I think Spearhead got it right in an earlier post with pictures.

 

Black and white can only scream in white: color can scream with color (blown or not). An audio example would be Jimi Hendrix doing the Star Spangled Banner at Woodstock. I can see Jimi himself with b&w blown highlights, but his Star Spangled Banner definitely blows highlights in color. Maybe purple, red and even a few yellow blowouts. White just would not do.

 

I'm still thinking about bob-bill's cheekbones ...

Supriyo, I didn't say Steiglitz intent was to screw with people, but, based on several photos my sister just emailed of me that got a question from a number of folks on her facebook page asking who was the little boy looking like he was always ready to engage in mischief, apparently,I have been screwing with people since my youth. One with a snow ball looking at her, another with a knife cutting a cake. Julie, beside my parents, I thank the 20 inch beauty dish I call "a cheekbone modifier." Getting it as high as possible but still getting light in the eye sockets really pulls out the bone structure. I got some fill from the floor bounce off the light colored concrete floor to fill the eye sockets. The shot does very well for me on match.com. Blown highlights can have a distinct, hard, rapid edge transfer, same as shadows. Specular highlights reveal to the brain the texture of an object by the speed of the edge transfer: Shine a light on super smooth black paint, razor sharp edge transfer, velour, textured surface, super gradual specular edge transfer. It is a function of surface efficiency. Hence, application of makeup to soften or oil or wax to do the opposite. My shot started as a test of some new strip lights in a 100 degree garage til I got the inspiration for the Hemingway shot based on what I was seeing. I describe my creative process as I look at something, it speaks to me and as Forest Gump said, sheet happens. Then added what used to be in CA my trademark silk crew neck sweater since Hem was wearing his trademark fisherman's knit sweater (too hot most of the year here in FL) and then a camera. The high heat helped with the high skin surface efficiency. Worked the opposite when doing a 30's style shoot with 3 hot lights and a fog machine. You are absolutely right about the Hendrix shot. Unfortunately, I didn't make Woodstock, the Thruway was closed down before I got there. A few years later, I did handle a lawsuit against Warner Brothers by the nude lady on the movie poster. Our defense was how could she identify herself as the woman with her back to the camera standing on one leg with her other foot behind the other knee out of the thousands of woman in attendance. We sent 3 other women to pose nude in the same pond and had 4 8x10's to show her asking her to pick herself out. I did not get to go to that photo shoot, darn. She immediately picked herself out. Out of the thousands of women at Woodstock, how many do you think had webbed toes. Ca ching, out came the check book. There was no model release or in many cases, folks without even tickets. There is an old adage, never ask a question to which you don't know the answer, Chris Darden should have heed that in the OJ case.

This is why I have model releases in my bag at ALL times.There was also a suit by the latrine cleaner. He never told his family that's what he did for a living and each day left home in a business suit. He said they wouldn't take the food he passed them at the dinner table after seeing him in the movie emptying the porta potties. Norman, interesting question. Will have to mess with it in color efex and see. Thanks, I rarely do split toning in color. Like Tim Ludwid did years ago sending me down a new path with subtractive lighting, you and Julie have just done the same. However, to emulate Hem's beard, it needs be white in this shot for the concept of the shot. But for effect... interesting. Can always learn here at pnet.

how many do you think had webbed toes

Awesome post, bob_bill! Every word of it. Love it!

 

Norman, interesting question.

To hell with the question, tell us another story!

Thanks, Julie. I would add the beauty dish was fitted with a diffusion sock under a grid. I find that helps bring out the cheekbones even more but still retains most of the softness. Different than bare bd, bd with sock, bd with grid or bd with sock over grid. To keep the grid in securely, I have a half dozen or so A clamps around the perimeter making it look like sputnik.

the beauty dish was fitted with a diffusion sock under a grid. I find that helps bring out the cheekbones even more but still retains most of the softness. Different than bare bd, bd with sock, bd with grid or bd with sock over grid. To keep the grid in securely, I have a half dozen or so A clamps around the perimeter making it look like sputnik.

This is so out of my league. I often have to fiddle with lighting set-ups when getting parts for my composites, and I hate every minute of it. And I'm terrible at it. It's pretty much the thing I like least about photography. On the other hand, for some reason, I like looking at and thinking about the amazing ways that other photographers get results with artificial lights. As long as I don't have to do it ...

 

What I really want to know, though, is did you have long hair in your Woodstock days? And did you wear leather? With fringes??

Julie, for me, once I have the inspiration for the shot, everything else falls in line flowing from it: composition, lens, aperture, lighting, props, background, pose and expression. Nailing all is rare but really satisfying. Getting all with no thoughts of possible improvement is difficult. I think Ansel said we are lucky if we get 12 significant shots in a year. A fro in the 60-70's with a pick. As My Cousin Vinnie, had to wear a business suit made of cloth, not leather. Beard because managing people twice my age and wanted to look older. Sounds like you are describing the classic Dennis Hopper look from Easy Rider. Or was it the Mommas and the Papas?

Sounds like you are describing the classic Dennis Hopper look from Easy Rider. Or was it the Mommas and the Papas?

All of the above. I was too young to participate in the '60s, but I was old enough to have bell-bottom pants (one pair, I remember, was spotted like a pinto pony). I did have a little cowhide vest with two (small) fringes on the pockets. My allowance wouldn't get me any more fringes than that (thank goodness).

 

Getting all with no thoughts of possible improvement is difficult.

Where's the fun in that? Besides, if you did, we at photo.net would be happy to point out what you missed.

You know the old joke about how many photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb? One to screw in the light bulb and a hundred to tell him how they would do it. But that is the beauty of photography, all the different ideas. So much to shoot, so liittle time.

So much to shoot, so liittle time.

 

When I was working in defense/aerospace years ago at the tail end of the Cold War, it was "Too many commies, too little time."

Brad, Good one. Your aerospace comment reminds me of the airborne motto, death from above. You are in CA. I used to live on the Fair Oaks hill across the river from Aerojet and got to watch the test firing of missile engines in test stands. Now here in FL will have to go to a launch at Kennedy Space Center.

I think I understand and it was that kind of 'simplication' that was at the back of my mind when I asked the question. Do you think the process works equally well with monochrome images (ie shades of a colour other than black together with white)?

 

I cannot presume to answer the question because I haven't tried it myself, but different colors (or tints) have different effects on us. So, a blown highlight in sepia may have a different feeling than say a selenium tint. Another idea would be to try duotone, where the band around the blown part can be of a different color (not shade as in monochrome) than it's surrounding to highlight the brightness of the overexposed part. This may have some loose connection with the Cangiante style of painting where a different color not shade was used to show change in brightness.