When to use sepia in portraits?

I would value your opinions about when it is advantageous to use a

sepia colour cast in portrait photography?

 

Up until now, I have steared clear of the sepia issue all together,

sticking quite faithfully to pure B&W for my portraits. Although,

recently, I posted a portrait for critique:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00CD3j&photo_id=3363506&photo_sel_index=0

 

I got a lot of helpful advice, one of which was that the image may

look better in sepia. I complied as I was interested in the

comparison, and I really liked the results. The sepia tone seemed to

"warm-up" the image, and change the mood for the better.

 

Intrigued, I then opened up some files of other B&W portraits from my

portfolio, and applied the same digital sepia treatment, but the

results were much more hit and miss.

 

I would like to know if there are any rules, or collective wisdom

about which images will look better in sepia, or whether or not this

is very much a "suck it and see"/trial and error process?

 

Kind regards, Nick.

The only time I've had a print sepia toned was when I was going to paint it (for "hand-colored" print). I've got the stuff for sepia toning but since I've never done it, it still intimidates me. Is that silly? I've only had sepia when I was having someone else do my printing.

 

I'll be interested to see the responses you get.

 

Janet

Thanks Janet. I know how you feel about sepia being a little intimidating.

 

Nick.

Suggestion: forget Black and White, and in particular forget being 'faithful' to something that has never been 'pure'.

<p>

Think <b>Monochrome</b>, instead. There's an almost endless range of toners available to the darkroom printer, including blues, browns, and golds, as well as sepia. Silver-based printing is not the only way either, as palladium and platinum prints have their own range of tones.

<p>

However, like me, you may be restricted to digital post-processing which means PhotoShop, Grayscale and the Duotone palette. Easy to use and wide open for experiment. But your question also asks "when it is advantageous" and that's a personal one between you and your client ... I don't like sepia as it reminds me too much of Victorian foggery, but if a client wanted it I'd happily oblige.

<p>

A lot of the reaction to a particular toning is bound to be by association; reds are warm, blues are cool, etc. These are hardly fixed rules, but they are among the more common reactions to a colour. Because of that, it's possible to move the viewer just a little further if you incoporate an element of 'surprise' in your choices. Lith printing (for example) produces a very harsh contrast that is often used to give an archaic or abstract look to landscapes or artefacts, but it can be highly appropriate for a portrait sometimes - the tone will amplify one mood or another. It's an area to explore.

Hi Nick

 

I recently uploaded entitled MOODY a London pic with a sepia toned theme and I feel it works in that photo as it worked well emphasysing the water , so I would think that one would consider what you would want to hi-lite to materialise the mood?<div></div>

please ignore previous attachment..TO LARGE! apologies!<div></div>

or are u only referring to portraits?

Thanks Sandeha, it is good to hear how others think about the many possibilities. I will try

out some of the suggestions that you have made, and I think that you are right to suggest

that one should not think as B&W as "pure". I like the notion of "monochrome" instead.

Ultimately, you may be right, and it may all come down to a matter of personal taste, and

experimentation to see what the change in tone does to the mood and flavour of the

photograph.

 

Thanks Michael, that is a wonderfully moody example that you posted, and the sepia

toning does work very well to add mood. My question was essentially about portraits, but

perhaps it should have been a much wider question, and I am glad that you have opened

up the debate in this way.

 

Regards, Nick.

>>>being 'faithful' to something that has never been 'pure<<<

 

Sandeha, I am curious what you mean by that?

To my taste, this example appears to work very well as a tinted image,<div></div>

However, this example appears not to work so well, if at all.<div></div>

Subject: Response to When to use sepia in portraits?

 

Looking at the above examples, my question to this forum is really about why one image

appears to work as a sepia image, and the other does not?

Is it because of the subject being either male or female?

 

Is it because one image has higher contrast than the other?

 

Is it because one image already has an "old fashioned" feel to it?

 

Or is it a result of all these factors, or more?

 

Nick.

Looking at the above examples, my question to this forum is really about why one image

appears to work as a sepia image, and the other does not?

 

Is it because of the subject being either male or female?

 

Is it because one image has higher contrast than the other?

 

Is it because one image already has an "old fashioned" feel to it?

 

Or is it a result of all these factors, or more?

 

Nick.

Hi Nick

 

I would think that it would depend on the overall theme , your excellent pic with the lady give a feeling of nostalgia , whereas the one with the man 0 taking into account of his dress and pose would work more as a monochrome with a more people theme.

Hello Nick,

 

I don't think there is going to be any simple answer to your question other than the empirical one. The only sepia portrait I have produced was a self portrait in my mortar board, and only then, because I had a suitable frame and access to the reagents in the laboratory.

 

As for other shots, my rule of thumb is, could this shot have been taken before the first third of the 20thC?

 

My reasons for this are simple, my family photos show a change from sepia to BW around the 1930 mark. So for the appearance of age, go sepia, if appropriate. For effect, experiment.

 

Sorry if this is unhelpful. Pete

No Pete, that is very helpful. If my family photographs go back that far, I don't know who has

them, but yours is a good rule of thumb, thanks.

 

Nick.

Michael, you have the same notion. For portraits, I think that it is essentially a warm nostalgia

that sepia brings to an image.

Well, I use it as an artistic effect when I feel that it fits the aesthetics of the image. That's all. In fact, it works very well for many portraits. I like your second example just as much as the first one in terms of the sepia effect, although I think the first one is a better image to me.

Janet, I don't have any data on the history, but there was a time when deep blacks and clear bleached whites were difficult to produce in print and it was probably more expensive as a printing process than sepia. There may be other reasons why sepia was common in the 19th century, but economics is usually in there somewhere. My point on this was only to suggest that pure black and white printing is relatively modern and that 'black and white photography' has never been purely black and white.

<p>

Nick, time and timelessness may be a factor. If you want to create an association of age or history, or period, then, as you know, sepia can help you do that. In the case of the shot of the woman, that works well enough. With the man there are many clues to the period in the fashion and the surroundings, and that creates a potential conflict of impressions and associations. With the shot of the man one might well ask "Why sepia?" but the question is less likely to arise with the shot of the woman as there is little to date it precisely. Might be different if we could read her Tshirt, of course :-)

There's a lot to be set for the trial and error approach - if you suspect a photography will suit sepia then give it a try and see what you think. Sometimes you'll be proved right, sometimes you'll be proved wrong! Try and determine what it is that makes you like / dislike the effect - this will help you decide in the future which photographs will work well with sepia tone.

 

My view on sepia is that it lends itself to portraits particularly

well, especially when they are 'romantic' photographs of couples. Sepia gives a haunting / romantic / old fashioned slant to a photograph (which is why, IMHO, the London photograph works well as sepia).

 

So much comes down to personal taste, but my view on the reasons why the woman photo works better than the man photo are:

 

- The photo of the man is more of a 'factual' type photograph, looking like he's in an office or something similar.

 

- Composition for the photograph of the woman is more 'romantic', with the longing look up to the camera at a flattering perspective.

 

- The woman is looking AT the camera - more personal which lends itself to the sepia impact.

 

- Shallow depth of field for the woman photograph - gives it a more 'airy' feeling suitable for sepia, compared to the relatively detailed background behind the man.

 

My two cents (even though I'm English!), to add to the discussion...!

Thanks Sandeha, I think you are right about the "period nature" of a photograph lending itself

to sepia toning.

 

Thank you Gary. Your eloquent obserations are most enlightening. You have put into words

my emotions when I look at these two photographs. It is always most helpful to learn new

ways of seeing an image. I agree with all the points you made, and they were most helpful.

 

Kind regards, Nick.