OK, let's just discuss High Contrast, not entries

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/12/2005 11:39:11 AM · #1

I hate to start yet another thread here, but my attempt is to change the tone (no pun intended) from dark and angry to light and educational.

I seem to be in the camp that had a different (more extreme) interpretation of high contrast. Instead of thinking that I'm still just bitching about winners and losers, I wanted to at least share why I thought what I do.

I searched google (before submitting my entry...105th BTW) to try to understand what high contrast was about. I found some of the following comments...

From: About.com
High contrast lighting uses little or no fill in light and has a lighting ratio of around 3 stops or more or black and white film. this is often used to emphasize texture and surface imperfections.

High contrast lighting can be use to produce powerful effects in portraiture - as, for example, in the work of Bill Brandt. His portraits often use a strong single light source from one side - leaving the other side of the face in deep shadow.

From:
Rodsmith.org.uk

High contrast
A wide range of density in a print or negative.

From: ephotozine.com
Lith film: High contrast film that produces negatives with intense black & whites and very minimal mid tones.

I'm not trying to win converts to my side, but I wanted people who thought we were either just party poopers or bitter rules lawyers where we (I) were (was) coming from. Graphicfunk had a great educational post on the other thread actually trying to say why he thought things were high contrast. I learned from that post (although I encourage him to speak about the comments above from other sites).

In college, when I took B&W photography, I was taught that every pic should have some dark blacks and some light whites. That meant you had proper exposure. Low contrast meant using lighter blacks and darker whites, but it was used only in specialized situations. We actually didn't talk (or I didn't remember) about high contrast...apparently to my deficit, but I could guess what my professor would have to say.

Keep this thread to one of understanding and compromise. I would still like to hear from people who had differing understandings of High Contrast, but this isn't a debate and I'm not going to post a 3-minute rebuttal.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

09/12/2005 11:54:22 AM · #2

Here, with your definitions, you are limiting high contrast to either Black and White or extreme lighting conditions. I used neither in my entry and didn't feel that high contrast was or should be so limited. Contrasting elements and/or contrasting colors, for me at least, also met the challenge. Just a different interpretation...

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/12/2005 12:07:25 PM · #3

Yes, well, I took that approach as well...

I didn't think I knew enough how to do a "proper" B&W high contrast, so I went with color. I also wanted to stand out a bit. The pic did ok, but I was quite worried when the first comment was "Where is the high contrast?"

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

09/12/2005 12:10:27 PM · #4

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes, well, I took that approach as well...

I didn't think I knew enough how to do a "proper" B&W high contrast, so I went with color. I also wanted to stand out a bit. The pic did ok, but I was quite worried when the first comment was "Where is the high contrast?"

I also feel there is no contrast in this photo.

Elaine

Canon EOS R5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

09/12/2005 12:16:30 PM · #5

The challenge details said the contrast should have an impact on the picture. I took this to mean that it should be more than just a picture of high contrast. I was looking for contrast that added emotion, feeling, mood, or some kind of enhancement. Those got my 8 to 10 votes. Merely having contrast got a 4 to 7.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

09/12/2005 12:24:58 PM · #6

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

I also feel there is no contrast in this photo.

And I respect your opinion on this and other comments you have made on my entries. I guess I was going for pure color contrast. The luminosity of both the red and the green is high, but they are quite complementary on the wheel.

I had high hopes for this picture and thought the kicker might be the "contrast" between the ladybug and cucumber beetle. One had red dots, black body, the other reversed.

I guess it just went to show that people had differing opinions on what they thought qualified. You weren't the only to wonder why this was high contrast, but others made the comment they thought it showed excellent contrast. Go figure...

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

09/12/2005 12:53:34 PM · #7

To recap:
DrAchoo introduces a thread and instruct participants to not discuss challenge entries.
DrAchoo posts a challenge entry.
Discussion of a topic discussed pre-challenge ends abruptly.
DrAchoo tries to revive the thread.
Kadi tries to throw a pillow on it. :)

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Nikon

09/12/2005 12:59:43 PM · #8

Ha, I'm busted. Nice one KaDi. Yes, I didn't mean for this to be "critique my picture" (I posted my pic because the definition was expanded by dahkota to include color. I was just showing I agreed.)

BUT...you are right. This thread should just die I guess and I will crawl into the shadows for a day or two...

vtruan

Nikon D5100

09/12/2005 01:01:02 PM · #9

I thought the shot fit the challenge well. The green and red contrasts are high IMOP. I voted similarly to DrAchoo. Many nice shots lost points if I didn't see a "high" contrast, either color or B&W/Sepia.

My shot was in color and had contrasts of black & yellow and blues and reds, but was shot down, probably, do to cropping or something else. I think.

Cutter

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

09/12/2005 01:04:21 PM · #10

Originally posted by vtruan:

I thought the shot fit the challenge well. The green and red contrasts are high IMOP.

I agree, the contrasting elements of this photo are not in question. The quality is a little shaky in terms of clarity, but in terms of the challenge, it really should be unquestionable.