| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2004 01:46:09 PM · #1 |
Not quite sure how to express this, but lets see how it goes.
I'm looking for ways to learn how to pre-visualise better black and whites from colour scenes. Now, in this I don't mean finding scenes that will make good black and whites. Nor do I really mean how to fiddle & twiddle the knobs in Photoshop to get a good black and white. I'm meaning the hard part, which is working out what you want to do with the colour capture that has the potential to be a good black and white. How to put together the creative knowledge to manipulate my images in to strong black and white end results. I know the approaches to do it, I'm just not sure where I want to go with them.
As an example, if you can find a straight print and a final dodged/burned print of Ansel Adams' Moonrise over Hernandez picture - in the original the sky is almost white - in the final, burned to almost black.
Any suggestions on how to better conceive B&W results and how to cultivate the creativity required to work out where you want to get to from 'here' ? So far I can think of : doing a lot of B&W pictures and looking at a lot of B&W pictures. The problem I have missing is the before/after context to a lot of those images.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 01:59:16 PM · #2 |
When I started with black and white film, there was a red filter I would look through to help previsualize what the image would look like in B&W. I'll try to find the actual filter and post here if you are interested?
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:05:25 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
When I started with black and white film, there was a red filter I would look through to help previsualize what the image would look like in B&W. I'll try to find the actual filter and post here if you are interested? |
Thanks - that would be interesting. I don't think it really fundamentally addresses what I'm trying to get at though - I'm trying to learn what I might want to make the image in to, not how it will look straight from the camera/ channel mixer.
Most of the significantly good B&W images I see are I suspect, quite dramatically modified from what a straight print would look like.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:12:51 PM · #4 |
Here's something that might help you. Back in the old days, photographers carried a lot of filters with them to get the results they wanted or applied them in the darkroom. The final result will depend on how the picture is filtered. With digital, that doesn't work to good unless you have a camera that can take b/w pictures in-camera. If you have one that does, get some cheap gels and use them when you find a scene that you think will look good in b/w. Take a picture with each one. Pretty soon you will be able to see what color will bring out the best in the picture.
If you can't go that way. Get virtual photographer. It has a section that uses color filters. Take a color picture into it. Choose the basic b/w selection, and only change the color of the filter. It will give you a good feel for what will be enhanced with each color. Plus, it allows you to choose a color from a color wheel, so you can choose greenish yellow(for example) or any other color you think will help. The program is excellent if you use it as a learning tool. Don't just spin the dial, but look at what causes each result. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:15:03 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm looking for ways to learn how to pre-visualise better black and whites from colour scenes.
|
I use a trick that a good friend of mine showed me a few years ago to help me 'see' a scene in black and white. I carry my red (25A) filter in my camera bag. I don't use it on the camera for obvious reasons, but I do use it to preview a particular scene in black and white. What I see is not black and white... it's red, but it is monochromatic in this view. My mind can convert a red monochromatic scene to black and white much easier than it can from color. This could also be better accomplished by carrying a blue, green, and yellow filter as well, but I don't have any of those. The red filter tends to show me what level of contrast I 'can' achieve in post processing with the image. So, in a nutshell, I can use this method to 'cheat'. I do have a difficult time visualizing certain scenes in black and white. Some individual colors and color combinations do not convert to b/w very well at all. As you know, they will blend together or in the case of brilliant reds, they fall out to a yucky mid gray.
Originally posted by Gordon:
How to put together the creative knowledge to manipulate my images in to strong black and white end results. I know the approaches to do it, I'm just not sure where I want to go with them.
|
Experimentation is about the only way to do this. You will learn what appeals to your own eye just by playing around with the images. I don't think I can really offer much more...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:18:07 PM · #6 |
I think I understand better now...
I'll go ahead and provide a link, here, to the filter I mentioned. I used to walk through Chicago use one of these filters to practice visualizing a scene in black and white.
Lately I have been reading a magazine called Black & White Photography that is published in the UK. They always have some excellent print examples that explain not just how, but why, they used a specific approach to printing. After reading this I actually changed my approach to burning and dodging so it is more like the traditional printing process.
Not much, but I hope it helps.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:20:10 PM · #7 |
One of the ways I try to condition myself into "thinking in B+W" is to always have the Photoshop Info window showing the grayscale value. Having one of the Red-Green forms of color-blindness I am used to adjusting photos based on tonal values rather than specific colors. I know one person who always used to adjust color photos with the monitor in grayscale mode.
I look for compositions with strong shapes and (usually) a pretty wide/contrasty tone range. I also look for subject matter which lends itself to mono-/duotone treatment -- old farm equipment/buildings, vintage objects, desaturated landscapes, etc. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:22:12 PM · #8 |
For some more context
From "Ansel Adams: Some Thoughts About Ansel And About Moonrise", by Mary Street Alinder (Copyright 1999 Alinder Gallery):
"Moonrise was made on a typical Ansel trip to the Southwest in the fall of 1941 combining two commercial assignments: one for the U.S. Department of the Interior at Carlsbad Caverns and the other for the U.S. Potash Company. Accompanying Ansel were his son, Michael, and his good friend, Cedric Wright. The trip was a grand, meandering one, tailored to show eight year old Michael the sights of the Southwest. After a few days exploring Death Valley, the Grand Canyon and Canyon de Chelly, they decided to photograph about Santa Fe.
"Driving back to their hotel following an unsuccessful day of picture making in the Chama Valley, Ansel glanced to his left and saw a fantastic event. The sky was illuminated by brightly-lit clouds in the east and the white crosses in the cemetery of the old adobe church seemed to glow from within. He nearly crashed the car as he screeched to a halt in the roadside ditch, dashed out, yelling at Michael and Cedric to find the tripod, the camera, the meter, etc.
"Ansel rushed to assemble and mount the 23.5 inch component of his Cooke Series XV lens on his 8 x 10-inch view camera loaded with Ansco Isopan film and find the Wratten G filter. All was in place, but he could not find his Weston light meter. He remembered that the moon reflects 250 foot candles and he based his exposure upon that fact. He quickly computed a setting of 1/60 at f/8, but with the addition of the filter it became 1/20 at f/8. To achieve the same exposure with greater depth of field he stopped the lens to f/32 and released the shutter for one second. He prepared to make a second exposure for insurance. Dramatically, the light faded forever from the foreground.
"Moonrise, the negative, was far from perfect. It took me two years to convince Ansel to make a 'straight' print of Moonrise. He printed it without his customary darkroom manipulation as a teaching tool to show the basic information contained within the negative. Comparing this print with a fine print, one is struck by the immense work and creativity necessary for Ansel to produce what he believed to be the best interpretation of the negative. His final, expressive print is not how the scene looked in reality, but rather how it felt to him emotionally.
"Moonrise was Ansel's most difficult negative of all to print. Though he kept careful records of darkroom information on Moonrise, each time he set up the negative, he would again establish the procedure for this particular batch of prints because papers and chemicals were always variables not constants. After determining the general exposure for the print, he gave local exposure to specific areas. Using simple pieces of cardboard, Ansel would painstakingly burn in (darken with additional light from the enlarger) the sky, which was really quite pale with streaks of cloud throughout. He was careful to hold back a bit on the moon. The mid-ground was dodged (light withheld), though the crosses have been subtly burned in. This process took Ansel more than two minutes per print of intricate burning and dodging. Ansel created Moonrise with a night sky, a luminous moon and an extraordinary cloud bank that seems to reflect the moon's brilliance. Moonrise is sleight of hand. Moonrise is magic
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:22:18 PM · #9 |
| Note that most/all official Ansel Adams printed material (not photographic prints) are done in a quadtone of four gray inks. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:26:37 PM · #10 |
I appreciate the various comments about using filters to pre-visualise the tonality that actually exists in the scene - but what I'm trying to explore is the changes that are made to what does already exist - the creativity to move something from zone 6 to zone 1, to darken a sky completely, to fix the mistakes God made in setting up the tonal relationships in the scene in front of me, to misquote someone who was quite good at this.
I think the title of this thread maybe is adding to this confusion. I'm not struggling to see existing tonality in a scene, I'm struggling to see what could be there if I wanted to change it. I know how to dodge and burn digitally - I'm just not so sure of the why and when to dodge and burn.
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 14:27:22.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:32:49 PM · #11 |
If anyone could actually answer this question they'd be selling nine million calendars/year instead of lurking about these forums ... : )
Personally, I think I just think "Curves" whenever I'm taking a picture -- if it doesn't look "right" I think I anticpate how I'll adjust it in much the same way as a "real" photographer manually sets the f-stop or chooses a filter.
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 14:33:05. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:39:51 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If anyone could actually answer this question they'd be selling nine million calendars/year instead of lurking about these forums ... : )
Personally, I think I just think "Curves" whenever I'm taking a picture -- if it doesn't look "right" I think I anticpate how I'll adjust it in much the same way as a "real" photographer manually sets the f-stop or chooses a filter. |
Maybe, to be more specific - I'm really not talking about global changes to the whole image. Approaches to seeing the need for more localised contrast adjustments, that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:41:03 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:45:08 PM · #14 |
Yup - it is the motivation behind
'The development of the negative was a painstaking process, being carried out very slowly to give the maximum control of the image. The resulting negative was difficult to print and several years after it was taken the foreground was subjected to a process of chemical "intensification" that altered it in a way whereby "Printing was a bit easier thereafter, although it remains a challenge".
The printing of the image was also in itself a highly skilled task with different areas being "masked" and given more or less exposure than others until the overall balance of tones was one that resulted in a satisfactory image. Even differences in batches of what were supposedly exactly the same type of photographic paper were noticed, a result of all the variables involved led to the comment, "It is safe to say that no two prints are precisely the same".' That I'm trying to learn or at least explore
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:46:34 PM · #15 |
Sorry for more unneeded advise, but I don't think you can really get good results unless you learn how color displays in b/w. And how to use filters or simulations to get where you are going.
These aren't very interesting for anyone but me, but I'm using them as an example. I knew that using a blue filter would give me a white background and the yellow spoon would become dark. So that's why I set up the picture the way it was set up. Once you know what results you want, there shouldn't be a huge need to dodge and burn and you should not have to spend so much time in post.
 
As far as knowing what to do, I guess I can't help you with that but it does help to know what options are available to improve your vision. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:51:24 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Sorry for more unneeded advise, but I don't think you can really get good results unless you learn how color displays in b/w. And how to use filters or simulations to get where you are going.
These aren't very interesting for anyone but me, but I'm using them as an example. I knew that using a blue filter would give me a white background and the yellow spoon would become dark. So that's why I set up the picture the way it was set up. Once you know what results you want, there shouldn't be a huge need to dodge and burn and you should not have to spend so much time in post. |
Don't mis-understand me - I certainly recognise the need to see the tonal ranges within a scene and what the impact of various filters (simulated or real) would be. But I consider those the fundamentals of shooting black and white. I'm trying to work out how to go beyond those basics. Many of the great B&W images appear to me to have significant amount of work done beyond just sticking the right filter(s) on to the lens and exposing. Right now most of the B&W work I do is using varying percentages of channels via the channel mixer - a direct equivalent of using a filter to globally manipulate the image.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:51:38 PM · #17 |
I don't know anything technical other than I overexpose some shots by about a stop to guarantee great black and whites. But of course that doesn't work in all scenarios. I use it mostly for dramatic portraits.
(blowing out the skin by a stop or so gets rid of any blemishes and is pretty flattering - takes out bags under the eyes, too).
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:53:37 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If anyone could actually answer this question they'd be selling nine million calendars/year instead of lurking about these forums ... : )
Personally, I think I just think "Curves" whenever I'm taking a picture -- if it doesn't look "right" I think I anticpate how I'll adjust it in much the same way as a "real" photographer manually sets the f-stop or chooses a filter. |
Maybe, to be more specific - I'm really not talking about global changes to the whole image. Approaches to seeing the need for more localised contrast adjustments, that sort of thing. |
I use Curves somewhat selectively, by either working on only a specific limited part of the tone range or using a mask. It's just my most common adjustment tool, but I feel like I use it in much the same way as one might use the dodge/burn tools. And I think my main point was to try and pre-visualize the tonal adjustments, however they're made. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:19:25 PM · #19 |
Gordon - I actually think I understand what you're asking. The only real approach is to look at an awful lot of photographs - but then, that's the only approach to learning anything about this game, really.
For approaches other than the ubiquitous Ansel's, I would suggest:
Frank Meadow Sutcliffe - The Sutcliffe Gallery sells most of his work, in a few books. If you're genuinely interested in an older approach it will pay off in spades.
The juvenile work of Jacques Henri Lartigue - a small genius with a camera, and with little exaggeration in processing.
Eugene Atget - accidentally famous, after a lifetime of documentary shots of Paris as he saw it. Staggering stuff, all about shade, graduation, light.
Frederick H Evans - most of his masterpieces were shot fractionally over a century ago now, and are really hard to track down anywhere. I've yet to find a book dedicated to his work alone, and have to survive on occasional gems in other collections.
All these guys worked in an approach that the modern world seems rather to have dismissed - though it seems to me that there might be room for a more contemporary exploration of it, and they might provide strong source material for a personal approach.
The other approach altogether, is to keep going to interesting places, finding intersting things, shooting them in interesting ways, and allowing a style to develop for you: trust your own vision, and try to do what is right by your source image, and I think if you are at all committed to it, a style, a feel of your own will begin to show through - though, of course, you may well be the last one to be aare of it.
E |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:30:55 PM · #20 |
Great - thanks for the links/pointers. I'll be sure to look in to them.
I think what you say is largely correct - it is just a case of looking more carefully and thinking. I find half the battle is working out what questions to ask so that i can start paying attention them. Before I realise there is something to learn there, I often don't even notice the nuances.
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 15:31:32.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:59:06 PM · #21 |
I struggle with this. I have a taste for the dramatic and often burn the skies in much more than what existed in the scene when I photographed it. Perhaps the most dramatic example I have is this shot here
I burned the sky around the hang glider, to look like the sun was behind him. The key is that I wanted this look, and didn't really care at all if it represented reality. It represents how I experienced looking at that hang glider. Still, it comes down to vision. If you don't know what you want out of the scene, you have to step backwards and first ask why you took the photo. Usually the experience was more dramatic than the final image, so some burning is necessary to make the image represent your experience or your vision.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 04:07:36 PM · #22 |
Maybe I'll jump into this one more time. I think I understand what you are asking, but it is so hard to answer. I have read many books on Black & White photography, but few actually get to the level of detail that you are interested in. The magazine I mentioned above and maybe a couple of books start with an initial image, do a print, and then discuss what else is needed. This isn't a cookbook approach to the twenty steps that are required to make a perfect image, it's a step by step guide to seeing what is in the image. I think what has surprised me is the number of prints required to work through the process. I have always assumed you should be able to look at the inital image, visionalize the final result, and then apply the necessary steps. I think the reality is much more iterative and experimental.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 04:16:55 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Maybe I'll jump into this one more time. I think I understand what you are asking, but it is so hard to answer. I have read many books on Black & White photography, but few actually get to the level of detail that you are interested in. The magazine I mentioned above and maybe a couple of books start with an initial image, do a print, and then discuss what else is needed. This isn't a cookbook approach to the twenty steps that are required to make a perfect image, it's a step by step guide to seeing what is in the image. I think what has surprised me is the number of prints required to work through the process. I have always assumed you should be able to look at the inital image, visionalize the final result, and then apply the necessary steps. I think the reality is much more iterative and experimental. |
Thanks for commenting again - I think I'm starting at least explain what I'm trying to learn - which is good :) What you describe is what I'm trying to improve at.
One suggestion that I'm starting to find very helpful is the idea of work prints. I think like you suggest, living with the image really helps you to notice what you want to change - to this end, printing it out and sticking it somewhere where you see it a lot really focuses attention on what you'd like to change the next time.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 04:20:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I struggle with this. I have a taste for the dramatic and often burn the skies in much more than what existed in the scene when I photographed it. Perhaps the most dramatic example I have is this shot here
I burned the sky around the hang glider, to look like the sun was behind him. The key is that I wanted this look, and didn't really care at all if it represented reality. It represents how I experienced looking at that hang glider. Still, it comes down to vision. If you don't know what you want out of the scene, you have to step backwards and first ask why you took the photo. Usually the experience was more dramatic than the final image, so some burning is necessary to make the image represent your experience or your vision. |
I think that's a great example - and a lovely image - that is possibly quite 'bland' in the actual camera exposure, but not bland in your visualisation. Good advice too - thank you.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 05:21:42 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
... I think the reality is much more iterative and experimental. |
I can't count the number of times I envisioned a reasonably precise outcome. I can't count the number of times the image came out of the box very different from anything I had in mind for it. While this used to frustrate me to no end, the option to discover what's been captured -as opposed to what's there, either in outer or in inner reality- is not a bad patch, and, occasionally, a serendipity.
In other words, the difficulty (for me, at least) starts with the capture itself. I don't know how it is for other people, but I quickly recognize aspects worth exploitation (points of interest). On the other hand I'm having the hardest time integrating that aspect into a whole.
When the subject is a landscape full of variegate tones, with plenty gradation(s), I would really like to render as much of this as accurately as possible and then post-process for creative emphasis, i.e. sacrifice objective accuracy (where it is not critical to the whole) in favour of a creative emphasis on one or several element(s) demanding an altered exposure.
Since I often get my sense from the subject itself, I'm thinking it would the also be reasonable to ground any vision I might develop or have with or in some sort of a context I can connect to it. If I cannot render it somehat accurately (true to an obective reality), all I can do, in the end, is to very deliberately create something entirely made or be content with a sense of the mediocre, especially in regards to my ability and efforts.
I'm speculating that if I can accomplish one (rendering a complext landscape in b & w without eliminating most tonalities by photographing it), the second step (to make the landscape extraordinary) should come easier, because of what I gained/learned from rendering what I was able to see in the first place...
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 17:23:05.
|
|
