Contrast, help me to understand...

[young]

http://www.photo.net/photo/6849844

 

The above link is to a photo by John Crosley (on this site).

 

As best I can tell, that light was super bright. I may be wrong but I would

expose that same shot at 1/30-1/60 f4 on some Delta 100 or even PanF50. Most

likely a 6x6 neg,

 

I would like to have a better plan to know how to achieve that sort of shadow

detail. This sort of almost blown out whites and very rich dark blacks is the

look I want to get out of most of my Monochrome prints.

 

That image is digital, but I really would like to do that on a print. Anyone

have any starter ideas?

 

I assume "just experiment" will be the standard answer, and I am ok with that. I

just need somewhere to start. Surly after 140 years of "experimentation",

someone has some sort of answer.

 

 

JRY

[leon_f]

Tri-X @ 200, 11 min. in Rodinal 1:25 at 68 degr. no agitation for the first 90 sec., 10 sec. agitation every 90 sec. thereafter. Agitately gently! Result: dense overdeveloped negatives with considerable grain and no creamy midtones. I like it but it's personal. Check out Ralph Gibson!

[lex_jenkins]

Many films will give similar results. The combination and technique Leon described will work as well as any.

 

(About the only film I can think of offhand that will defy attempts at satisfactory high contrast and fine grain is Delta 3200. It's a great fine for its intended purpose, but not for the type of photo you'd like to try.)

 

Also, start out with the best possible exposure. That includes a good sharp lens and avoiding flare. Flare doesn't also show up as ghosting or iris shapes. Sometimes it's veiling flare and internal flare, which rob our photos of contrast.

 

Finally, print hard. With variable contrast paper, usually Grade 3 or more magenta.

[russ_kerlin]

If you are working with the Zone system, use it to achieve the tone separation you want and develop accordingly. In this photo, the shadow areas might be Zone I, for example, and the highlighted skin might be Zone V or VI. The highlighted beard would then be about Zone VII or even VIII. This would result in 6 or 7 zones of separation. If the light was strong enough that you got this separation naturally, you'd use N development, but otherwise you might go with N+1 or even N+2.

 

If you do not use the Zone system, expose normally (I'd probably use a spotmeter and meter on the highlighted side of face and then open up the aperture a stop or stop and a half), develop normally (though if you wanted you could increase the time by, say, 10% to enhance the separation), and then achieve the final contrast you want during enlargement using variable contrast paper.

 

If you shoot these kinds of photos routinely, you might explore different films that produce the effect you want as well, but generally most of it happens in the darkroom.

[skygzr]

Also understand that the "look" of this photo has a great deal to do with the lighting. No amount of tinkering with film and development will affect that.

[young]

Thanks for the great replies! I found this site about 2 weeks ago and have been reading ever since.

 

I shoot Delta 3200 at night when walking down the street. I think it gives excellent results and the grain plus never knowing what will happen on the street is fantastic!

 

Russ, I totally agree with the zone system. I was trying to learn how Ansel Adams acheaved the contrast he did in some of his harder landscapes and discovered this system. I have since (about a month ago) read all the books I could find. The system as I see it, is simple to understand, and very, very complex to master.

 

"Result: dense overdeveloped negatives with considerable grain and no creamy midtones. "

 

This sounds like sort of a "push tri-x pretty far" development. Ill have to try it out.

 

thanks!

[leon_f]

You may want to check my blog:

 

http://thegoodlight.blogspot.com/

 

I recently uploaded a picure from a negative developed according to the earlier mentioned technique. Since this is a scan you can't really see the effect but what you can see is that it is overdeveloped, overexposed and quite harsh. I'm sure that if I was to print this in the darkroom it would still come out nicely though. Most "special effects" are created in the darkroom anyway......read some Ansel Adams books if you want to find out more./

[antonio_a.1]

That shot is all about lighting and nothing about development or film.

[leon_f]

I describe how I developed the film.... .

[leon_f]

And I'm sure the same could be achieved with other combinations of film and developer so I'm not trying to prove anything.

[antonio_a.1]

I meant the original shot you linked to above. Dont worry about film/developer.

Concentrate on lighting.

[russ_kerlin]

"That shot is all about lighting and nothing about development or film."

 

While lighting is obviously very important, this statement ignores the capability and creative importance of film, development AND final printing in producing a final image. For example, it would be entirely possible to reproduce this shot with side lighting that wasn't as strong and displayed substantial shadow detail.

 

The creative photographic process is about understanding ALL of the elements available at your disposal and controlling these to the extent feasible (and desired). So, don't just "concentrate on lighting", concentrate on everything.

[antonio_a.1]

Russ,

 

Get off the high horse will you. I was making a specific statement about a specific image.

 

To my eye the image referred to above has been lit in a parituclar way and then printed

down in the darkroom. All too often folks search for some magic developer/film

combination when really they should be looking at the light. Pure and simple.

[antonio_a.1]

Actually if you look at the technical details for the image it turns out it was not even shot

with film:

 

"Nikon D300, Nikkor 17~55 f 2.8, desaturated in camera using desaturate command, no

sharpening or other image editing - minimal contrast adjustment to match a print a

friend made on his RC machine which I liked (he forgot to burn the file for me so I tried

to match his print). Full frame, not manipulated at all. Essentially direct from camera."

 

Like I said, it is about the light!

[leon_f]

Antonio, the initiator of the thread already mentioned that the shot was digital: " That image is digital, but I really would like to do that on a print. Anyone have any starter ideas? "

 

I totally agree with Russ; one should master everything in photography. Type of film and development actually DO matter a lot and so does the printing, type of paper etc. be it digital with photoshop or done in a traditional darkroom. You can have the best lighting in the world but if you don't know how to properly develop film (to create a certain mood) or how to make a decent wet print, again to evoke emotion, you're creative possibilities will be very limited. Have you ever seen "moonrise over Hernandez" by Ansel Adams? No way the lighting was that dramatic when Ansel took the shot. Even if the lighting had been very dramatic, this picture would have evoked little response if it wasn't for Adams' great skills in the darkroom. I'm sorry but lighting is just one of the many important variables in photography.

[antonio_a.1]

Leon,

 

There is a school of thought that says you dont need to master anything other than

compostion and light.

[antonio_a.1]

People like salgado dont even print their own prints. I think far too may people get stuck in

technique and fail to see what is before them. The above image is very easy to reproduce

and no fimm/darkroom hocus pocus is needed to do so.

[russ_kerlin]

Antonio,

 

It is too bad you have this view. You are obviously missing many opportunities to produce noteworthy images if you are relying solely on composition and lighting. I personally have created some good images from what might have been considered less than "ideal" lighting, as well as images that are substantially different from what I saw in the field.

 

It is all about pre-visualization, which is discussed in many fine books on photography, and in turn using all the tools at your disposal -- much like any other artist would -- to create the final image you "see" in your mind. It is not "hocus pocus", and if you truly believe that, I wonder why you are even bothering to comment in a forum devoted to film and processing. These things are clearly not important to you.

 

I have now respectfully gotten down from my high horse.

[lex_jenkins]

Folks, this forum works best when people show mutual respect for one another's ideas and opinions.

[antonio_a.1]

Russ,

 

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I made no comment about how I produce

images. I did not say I relied soley on composition and lighting. What I said was that the

image above had been lit in a particular way, hence the effect. No need to look for any

darkroom tricks. As it turns out the image details totally vindated my opinion - no

darkroom or other tricks employed.

 

I really get bored of reading "learn the zone system" type answers to every photographic

question. You dont need it most of the time. Just be aware of subject contrast and you

will be fine.

[leon_f]

Lighting is obviously important but I have no idea how somebody can make a good print digitally, without at least adjusting color space and levels and traditionally by printing it rightaway with the right contrast ? May I say that image "optimalization" is always necessary due to technical shortcomings of sensors and film?

[leon_f]

Let me clarify that I understand Antonio's point of view I just don't think it is only about lighting. Remember the words of Cartier Bresson: "I'm only interested in the shot". Well in fact he did not ever print any of his negatives himself he had them printed by a master printer in Paris. However; he did evaluate the prints and the ones that did not correspond to his visualization would not make it to any exhibition. He would instruct his printer to printer harder or softer or to dodge, burn..... any minimal adjustment that would make the picture more interesting. He used the same light we use nowadays and so he probably got some shots which were very interesting from a compositional point of view but shots that would technically not be superb....hence his printer would optimize them. I'm not talking about "manipulation" which has nothing to do with photography. That's the whole point.......no picture out of any camera will be accepted by any editor or museum if they have not been optimized for their intended purpose.

[lex_jenkins]

BTW, since J. Young acknowledged in the original question some of the factors brought up elsewhere here - the lighting, the digital capture - nobody has overlooked the significance of those factors, certainly not the person asking the question in the first place.

[profhlynnjones]

If this is what you want, a spot light or honeychomb grid, under expose 1.5 to 2 stops, develop to a GBar or CI exceeding 1.00.

 

Lynn