Whats the best advice you were given starting out in black and white photography?

[Jennifer Johnson]

On 10/29/2022 at 8:26 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Sounds like that course should be fully titled "Introduction to Historical Photographic Media With No Relevence To Modern Practices."

And maybe your tutor should teach you the technical basics of exposure before chucking you in at the deep end. 

The advice to get an old-school paper book on the subject is good.

There are quite a few in PDF form online for free, but there's still nothing like being able to flick pages back-and-forth to re-read anything that didn't sink in on first reading. 

BTW, your elephant shot has a lot of tones that are going to look a similar shade of grey in B&W. You might have trouble with printing it unless you throw a bit more frontal light on it. 

I just did a digital emulation that shows a red filter will improve it quite a lot. 

Thanks for your advice! My professor went over things but wanted us to eventually use our light meter. I hoping there were tricks, and someone told me about the sunny16 rule. I was able to take a similar photo and I dont think it turned out horrible to start out.. See photo and thanks again!

[conrad_hoffman]

I understand exposure by way of various examples and analogies I've been taught over the years. First, film is like a pizza. You can cook a pizza in a moderate pizza oven for a long period of time. You can also cook it in a very hot pizza oven for much less time. Film needs a certain amount of energy, so that can be bright light (big aperture) for a short time, or dim light (small aperture) for a longer period of time. Your light meter will have a dial showing a bunch of shutter speeds lined up with a bunch of apertures. Any of those combinations are equivalent.

The meter knows nothing about your subject. It was designed with the assumption it's being pointed at a middle grey object. Point it at a snow scene and it will tell you there's lots of light and you should reduce the exposure. Point it at an open barn door in shadow and it will tell you to increase the exposure because things are so dark. Both are wrong! The meter needs to be pointed at an average or middle set of tones to give you a reasonable answer.

Two exercises, best done with digital these days. We had to do them with 4x5 film. 1) Find a nice full range scene. Make series of exposures from way under to way over, noting the light meter reading for the scene. Print them or examine them on the screen. Note what happens to shadows and highlights as the exposure changes. 2) Get a white egg and a white table and background (Just curve a large piece of white paper up.) Light the scene and photograph it so the resulting print has a complete range of tones from black to white. Works well with a white paper cube too.

This stuff can be as complicated or simple as you want it to be. IMO, the old books are best, but I'm old. The 'net is full of instructions for both film and digital. Remember that 10-year olds developed and printed film back before the 'net and did quite well with little more than a Kodak film data sheet and a few minutes instruction. Today we have about a million times more information at our fingertips. 

[Ricochetrider]

Things like eh Sunny 16 "rule" and "f/8 & be there are pretty much broad generalizations or loose "rules" of thumb- but they didnt come out of nowhere, so there is at least a modicum of validity in them. I used a sunny 16 chart for a minute with some success, but you'll gain a deeper understanding of how film works in your class which you can then apply to digital photography- IF you so desire. There's apocket "film guide" called Black Cat that basically gives you certain lighting scenarios and settings for each. Any ISO settings would come from whatever film you're shooting of course.

People do bend and stretch the ISO factor but I've always felt like it's best to stick with the straight ISO of the film (shooting at "box speed") just to keep things simple. Box speed would be whatever ISO the film is factory rated for, Kodak Portra 800 IOW would be rated for an ISO of 800, Kodak Tri-X 400 ISO 400 etc. Apologies if you already know this, not trying to be condescending.

Here's one of the pix I shot using the sunny 16 chart, back in 2018. For this shot I followed the measure of "bright overcast" lighting on that day. I think this film was TMax, ISO 400 IIRC. Meanwhile I've been using an app called My Light Meter and it's been very reliable- but pulling my phone in & out of my pocket did cause my ISO setting to shift once! SO probably always best to double check whatever meter you're using, especially if you're shooting something that you'll never be avle to get back to.   

 

       

Edited November 7, 2022 by Ricochetrider

[Jennifer Johnson]

8 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

Things like eh Sunny 16 "rule" and "f/8 & be there are pretty much broad generalizations or loose "rules" of thumb- but they didnt come out of nowhere, so there is at least a modicum of validity in them. I used a sunny 16 chart for a minute with some success, but you'll gain a deeper understanding of how film works in your class which you can then apply to digital photography- IF you so desire. There's apocket "film guide" called Black Cat that basically gives you certain lighting scenarios and settings for each. Any ISO settings would come from whatever film you're shooting of course.

People do bend and stretch the ISO factor but I've always felt like it's best to stick with the straight ISO of the film (shooting at "box speed") just to keep things simple. Box speed would be whatever ISO the film is factory rated for, Kodak Portra 800 IOW would be rated for an ISO of 800, Kodak Tri-X 400 ISO 400 etc. Apologies if you already know this, not trying to be condescending.

Here's one of the pix I shot using the sunny 16 chart, back in 2018. For this shot I followed the measure of "bright overcast" lighting on that day. I think this film was TMax, ISO 400 IIRC. Meanwhile I've been using an app called My Light Meter and it's been very reliable- but pulling my phone in & out of my pocket did cause my ISO setting to shift once! SO probably always best to double check whatever meter you're using, especially if you're shooting something that you'll never be avle to get back to.   

 

       

In my presentation I will bring up your suggestions. I will search this black cat book next. I love the photo too:-) I intend to mention the sunny 16 rule so it's nice to see an example. Thanks for your time!!

[Bettendorf]

Black Cat Exposure Guide.  Very handy.

https://filmphotographystore.com/products/black-cat-exposure-guide-light-meter

[glen_h]

On 10/27/2022 at 2:47 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

(snip)

The current cost of film also puts a mental block on freely experimenting with camera settings. "Oooh, $10 to find out what every stop on my lens looks like? No way, I'll just skip that step of learning and snap random pictures with the hope that they'll 'come out' alright." 

I suspect she is part of a class, which might be using film, and also supply a darkroom.

When I was young, my favorite place to buy film was Freestyle, with 100 foot rolls for $5.

They are a little more today, but still a good deal:

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?sort=price-asc&max=24&stock=0&attr[]=1-3&attr[]=57-330

(I should find the 50 year inflation index to see how they compare.)

 

In any case, yes, there are plenty of low priced used digital cameras, so you might as well get one.

But learning film is different, and you can do both. 

 

There are statistics showing film use up 50% in the last few years.  It seems that Covid restrictions got more people into it.

In any case, shutter speeds down to about 1/30 are not so hard to hand hold, and are recommended until you get better.

Sometimes I try hand hold down to 1/15 or 1/8.

Then you should have a light meter to find a good aperture choice.

 

 

 

 

 

[James Bryant]

I suggest the old Ansel Adams Books. I don't know if any are in print. Check used book sellers and a public library.  

[glen_h]

On 10/29/2022 at 9:09 AM, q.g._de_bakker said:

And so has handling and smelling film.

Which reminds me of the smell of Kodak backing paper, which I still remember from years ago.

The film itself doesn't have much smell, though.

After using 35mm for some years, I had almost forgot the backing paper smell, until it came out again.

It goes away pretty fast, so you have to smell it while unrolling, or maybe within minutes after.

[Incongruent Phonon]

Buy cheap expired film and try developing it yourself. If you're lucky you can find cold stored expired film for 5 bucks a roll, instead of 10 or 15 for new film. Run through a bunch of those and the chance of you ruining a roll by newbie mistake drastically decreases. 

[rodeo_joe1]

Back then was back then! This is 2023.

The best advice to give a beginner today is "Don't start out with film."

Film teaches you nothing about lighting, exposure, composition, anticipation, empathy with the subject, and all the other stuff that's important to getting a good picture. Stuff that you can learn 10 times faster with a digital camera - at least a digital camera with manual exposure mode. 

Film diverts attention (and enthusiasm) away from aesthetics and what's really important in making pictures, and down a pointless rabbit hole of loading cameras, groping around in the dark, slopping chemicals about, reading thermometers, etc., etc. All obsolete cr*p that nobody needs to know any longer. Stuff that does not make anyone a better photographer for knowing. 

A hard truth to take if, like me, you spent years going through that tedious apprenticeship when film was all that was available. And I'm pretty sure the Dagguerrotypists and wet-plate workers felt the same when ready-made dry plates and film came along. It's called progress. Suck it up!

Edited March 18, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[hjoseph7]

" The best advice to give a beginner today is "Don't start out with film.""

That is not the opinion of most colleges and universities. Actually Digital is just an extension of film so why shouldn't he learn about it and derive something positive from it ? When I went back to school, some of the kids were so excited about film that they ditched their digital cameras. This is what brought about film's resurgence if it wasn't for the hight price of film these days, the resurgence would have been dramatic. 

[rodeo_joe1]

5 hours ago, hjoseph7 said:

" The best advice to give a beginner today is "Don't start out with film.""

That is not the opinion of most colleges and universities.

Then they are run by idiots. 

Film has nothing to do with picture-making. It just gets in the way of it. 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[rodeo_joe1]

5 hours ago, hjoseph7 said:

Actually Digital is just an extension of film

Complete nonsense. 

[James G. Dainis]

Note from Moderator.  Let us stick to the topic and avoid back and forth bombardments

[rodeo_joe1]

OK. But when someone makes bald statements with no logical argument to back them up, it's not easy to counter that lack of evidence in a meaningful way. 

My argument is based on researched educational theory relating to experiential learning (Kolb, et al). Which requires feedback and a reflective stage between practical iterations of the task being learned. If that cycle of 'doing', reviewing outcomes, and reflecting on what could be improved, is broken - say by piddling about with chemicals or waiting on a lab to process film - then the learning cycle is broken, or severely delayed. With consequent detriment to learning. 

[hjoseph7]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Then they are run by idiots. 

Film has nothing to do with picture-making. It just gets in the way of it. 

 

You must mean unbridled technology has nothing to do with picture making 

[rodeo_joe1]

Well, I think we agree that the medium is simply a conveyor of the message, but some media actually enable, and others hinder. 

A simple example. I am trying to show a student the effect of using different shutter speeds: I can give them a digital camera, show them which control affects the shutter speed and let them - with guidance - run through a number of exposure times. They look at the result on the back of the camera and immediately see the difference between a slow and fast speed. They then most likely get excited at the possibilities and can't wait to do their own experimentation with varying shutter speeds. 

Same situation, but using a film camera: The only immediate feedback the student gets is to hear a difference in the noise the camera makes. If the student is sensible they'll make careful notes of which frame used which shutter speed. They are told the numbers on the dial are the reciprocal of seconds exposure (huh?). After the exercise, they then have to go away and process the film - which is an entirely other learning journey and fraught with its own issues and setbacks. Sometime later they look at a collection of prints and try to relate them to their notes. Their remembrance of pressing the shutter being somewhat hazy by this time. Also, at this distance from using the camera, the excitement and enthusiasm may have somewhat waned. Yawwwwn. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[AlanKlein]

Use fresh film and chemicals so you can consistently gage your progress and results.  Changes in results due to other factors like old expired film are just confusing to learning.  Save experimenting for later.   Pick one film and stick with it.  Switching off constantly is confusing as well.  

 

If you're shooting digital camera, shoot JPEG + Raw and leave display on B/W so you can view the scene in B/W and get a B/W jpeg.  You'll also have the RAW file in color for converting better to BW in Photoshop or your favorite editing program. .  

[paddler4]

I think this thread is mixing up two entirely different topics. One is your question, which is advice about B&W photography. The second is about exposure guidelines, which apply to color as well. (In the film days, different films had different exposure ranges, but that's irrelevant in digital photography.)

With respect to exposure guidelines, you wrote:

"It's just sometimes I will have darker faces in a picture that my light meter tells me the correct setting."

That suggests you need to study metering techniques. Most images have a wide range of tones, from light to dark. Some reflective (in camera) metering modes take an average, or a weighted average, over a large area. An alternative is to take a meter reading off the area that is of interest. Another option, if you are using an incident meter, is to hold the meter so that it is getting the same light as the area of interest.

Another issue is that you, as the photographer, have to decide what areas in the image should be a neutral gray. How faces relate to this depends on complexion. For example, a typical Caucasian palm is about one stop brighter than neutral gray, so spot metering off a palm and opening by one stop is sometimes a good starting point.

The the digression about whether it is better to start with film: this isn't helpful for you, since you are in a class that is using film. However, as someone who shot only film for many years, I think starting with film in this day and age is counterproductive. You can learn about the basics, e.g., exposure, metering, depth of field, etc., with either format, and digital allows you do experiment much more freely without additional cost and frees you from having to fuss with toxic chemicals. I enjoyed darkroom work, but nothing I did there was better than learning the same thing with digital.

 

 

[samstevens]

On 11/2/2022 at 1:58 PM, Ricochetrider said:

I suppose that meant imagining how things would look in a B&W photo as opposed to real world, full color? Now of course one may easily switch any photo from color to monochrome to check out how it may appear. 

Two things I remember from my early learning about making photos.

One, there is no "best" advice. There's advice that works for me and advice that doesn't. That same advice might work for someone else or it might not. I learned to take advice as suggestion, and then I experiment to see whether and how much it suits me. Very little advice applies to all photographers equally, which allows for personal and differing approaches.

Two, try to visualize a black and white photo in advance. True, it's relatively easy to take a color photo and quickly see what it will look like in b/w. But that's once the photo's already been taken. I'm still learning how to look at a color scene and foresee (dare I say, previsualize) the black and white photo I might want. The more I practice this, the more it benefits my seeing . To be honest, being able to foresee black and white has even added some dimension to my seeing in color. Foreseeing the b/w photo, to the extent I can, allows me to adjust my perspective, my composition and what elements I include in the shot, my exposure, etc. to get what I'm after. That may not be possible once the picture is taken and I do the conversion. I guess I'd say the b/w photo, to the extent I've honed this approach, is about the translation of the original scene as opposed to it simply being a different version than the color image already taken.

[samstevens]

^^^ Tom, to clarify, only point two above was in response to your post. Point one was a more generic response to the OP and some of the discussion.

[inoneeye]

I agree with Sam that advice is best customized.
For me one very useful suggestion was “learn to draw”. It taught me to see better. It taught me to engage and exercise my brain in ways that enhanced my photography… it opened and expanded my creative vocabulary. I also learned to not underestimate tactile learning for myself.

Edited March 20, 2023 by inoneeye

[polka]

On 10/28/2022 at 6:11 PM, James G. Dainis said:

Here is a photo of me on my front porch:

The camera meter exposed well for the background. In real life you would recognize my facial features easily enough but the camera just does not have more than 10 stops of latitude compared to the human eye/brain range. You would have to take a meter reading of my face and then open up one stop to get a good exposure of my face, but then the background would be greatly overexposed appearing almost white. You would have to learn how to use fill flash in a situation like this or else delve into The Zone system of development i.e.  expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. Ask you instructor about that.

 

 

Yes, the answer : Fill-in flash !

 

[glen_h]

On 3/18/2023 at 3:42 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Back then was back then! This is 2023.

The best advice to give a beginner today is "Don't start out with film."

 (snip)

The question asks about black and white photography.

If you want to start with digital black and white photography, then the Leica Monochrom is the choice.

But actually, the question only asks about how we started, likely many years ago.

That doesn't necessarily mean any will be useful to anyone today.

[za33photo]

Strange as it may seem , there was a time when colour photography for the masses was a complete novelty and MOST photo's were Black & White from necessity , (hard to believe ehhh) , and not so very long ago either.

Black and White (Colour and in-between as well) digital photo's are not a problem today Photoshop and all.

Don't worry about the basics , today the "Camera" does all 😁😁😁.