Rebecca L.
I certainly get where Michael Johnston is coming from. I see a lot of stuff that starts life as a color camera file, gets dragged through post processing and unceremoniously converted to monochrome without any color filtration naunce, and then gets flogged into submission via high contrast, high clarity slider action, followed by gratuitous monkeying around with skin tones making them both too light and too unbelievably smooth. Some of my friends say Luminar 4.0 can fix all this but my rejoinder is, "why mess up the files in the first place?"
The file above is one I did of Rebecca with LED lights bounced into a big umbrella, in a room that was already swimming with diffuse window light. My old Sony A7Rii struggled to hold detail in the highlights in the original color file even though that camera was widely regarded to have a "wide dynamic range."
I don't like to overfill shadows so I left the darker areas exactly as they mapped over from the conversion. I think the flesh tones on her hands are just right and I think I've finally found the right exposure to keep the highlights in check on the right side of Rebecca's face while not letting the shadows submerge too deeply. It's a balancing act, but it was the same in the days of film.
But, it's interesting to remember that film didn't have a baked in contrast setting. It was different depending on how you developed it and in what you developed it. Another layer of interpretation was deciding which grade of paper you would use in printing, and then even how you developed the prints.
We spent a lot of time in the darkroom burning and dodging to get the tones that Michael seems to be referencing but we tend to forget that in the current time of convenient sliders.....
Below are some other black and white expressions; each subjectively processed to meet my idea of what the final images should look like....for me. And yes, original prints did all have their own color...
A Hasselblad homage to a croissant. And an elegant hand...
Lou.
At the Ellsworth Kelly installation.
Blanton Museum grounds.
10 comments:
Film + developer + methods + paper + filters = YIKES!
Sometimes I think I want a darkroom again. Then I read something like this, and realize how lucky we are in the digital age.
Hi, Kirk.
I've been enjoying my little trio of Takumars, the 50 f/1.4, 55 f/1.8 and 135 f/2.0, mounted on my Nikon Z6 and Fuji XT-3s. I have native zooms for both systems but, these serve as my only primes and, using them has certainly expanded my appreciation for the skills needed to compose shots and acquire focus without the aid of AF. These little lenses are a real joy, almost tiny by today's standards, tactile in feel and beautifully crafted, the focus rings silky smooth to operate. It's a real tool requiring skills to operate effectively. I'm enjoying them, and they certainly do make me appreciate the work of those who performed their craft in the days preceding AF and its associated quickness.
What I find most interesting are the differences between the 'Super Taks' and more contemporary lenses. I'm actually surprised at just how sharp the Takumars can be, even near wide open, but really enjoy the differences in contrast when compared to more modern glass. The Takumars have an interesting look, in that the color saturation is actually quite good, and beautiful to my eyes. But it's the contrast fall-off I find intriguing, it seems to be softer in the way it transitions between adjacent colors and shades. This is true of all three lenses. I'm still trying to imagine how this characteristic would suit film better than say a more contemporary lens, one designed for digital imaging. My research continues.
~ Always enjoy your posts, even though you kicked the Fujis to the curb....
The problem I have with that article is he seems to dismiss digital black and white entirely. Digital should be used for colour only. I think he’s very wrong there. Also, the look we prefer for our photographs is quite subjective so while it’s good to reflect on our post processing practices, I think it’s important to follow our own instincts. Our own personal style is always changing and developing anyway.
In principle, I massage my A7rx files converted to B+W no more and no less than I did with the images I used to make from Leica film negatives.
I'm sorry but I want to see croissants in colour. I bet I would enjoy eating one less if real life were in B&W. But I really like looking at urbanscapes in B&W.
I actually spend much more time on my B&W conversions than I do on my colour files. I have been a B&W printer for over 50 years and know how to get what I want in the darkroom. To get a print the way I want, or close to it, in B&W from digital files has been painful up to a few years ago. The new generation of sensors do a much better job of giving me a file I can work with.
I agree with Mike that the excessive use of sliders etc. has been a huge problem with digital output. Both in B&W and colour imho. Especially in colour! Some of the stuff, no a LOT of the stuff, I see on social media is hideous!
My biggest problem now is getting a decent B&W print from digital printers! I have had three high end Epson printers clog up on me so that's a lot of money down the drain. Epson will never cross the threshold of my house again! So far I haven't seen digital prints made on the other major brands that satisfy me. If I were doing a lot of printing I might try Epson again but I don't see that happening in the near future.
I'm first and foremost a B&W photographer. I "see" in B&W and much prefer B&W imagery over colour for most things. I realize this doesn't translate into anything that for the most part can be monetized but I'm retired so I don't care. I do what I want, and I do it for ME. If someone else likes it and wants to buy it, well that's a bonus!
Now your commenters have me thinking I need to get my Super Tak's back from my daughter. I don't think she is using them......
Eric
One of the problems, I believe, is that the sliders are too linear. If there was an option to have them operate, say using the 'natural logarithm', LOGe, that may be better.
Although I've always been primarily a color photographer, necessity ensured that I print a lot of black and white in the 35 years I shot film. So I know what a good print looks like, and your tones look about right to me.
I love my Huawei P20 Pro (like the P10 before it) due to the dedicted B&W sensor. No need for conversion...and 20MP is enough. While I wouldn't want to print larger that 8x10, it's excellent for those purposes...and you skip a layer of intervention from the phone software that you can't control.
What I love about film is that it compresses out of range highlights, rather than clipping them. Even with manipulating development, you can get a smooth rolloff.
Post a Comment