I received interesting comments about my recent posting on Landscape, LIFE ON MARS.
You raise a question for me though. I prize mood more than anything in a photograph. To me it's more important than sharpness or perfect exposure. And I like dark pictures.
In the digital age though, when stripping bare every pixel is the norm, how does one express mood with the painterly devices of shadow and the unseen?
If you have thoughts on this I'd like to read them.
-Barry Ashenhurst.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 25, 2011 at 6:09 PM
Why would showing mood via shadow and the unseen be any different in digital than in film photography? And why would it be any different than in other mediums (painting and movies in particular comes to mind)?
I don't think there's any difference.
The thing that may be difference is people's predilection to require detail everywhere when it's so easy to bring highlights down, bump up shadows, and do HDR images. But that's more about how they see, than about the mood you create. So some might miss the forest (overall mood) for the trees (worrying about detail in the shadows) in some cases. I don't think that changes what's conveyed in your images though.
It's possible to keep an image dark, while maintaining appealing micro-contrasts (that is, the contrasts between light and dark areas within an overall dark patch). I think what people may mean by the foreground coming across as dark is that the tones are too compressed into the same sort of range. The darkness you're after comes from the gray point, but unless you have a good white and black point as well the tones will come across as dark and muddy. This does not mean that you need to have a pure black or pure white in every image, or tonal patch, but you do need to pull apart the local contrasts so that there is some variation there. It takes some skills with the curves tool, or familiarity with Tony Kuyper's luminosity masks, but it is possible to get that dark yet tonally rich (and thus engaging) look.
Ironically, it is people's obsession with getting every pixel properly exposed, sometimes with the help of HDR tonemapping, that actually removes those critical microcontrasts and leaves you with an image that lives mostly in the 'gray' regions of the histogram.
Only you can convey the mood that you felt during the time when the picture was taken. For those viewing an image they bring their likes and dislikes and technical advice. I find it best to listen to the critique, weigh its value in improving the image and then make the decision on whether to use it or not. In the end it is your image, your interpretation of a moment in time and your decision on what elements are the most important.
Floris, I am intrigued by your answer. Can you point us to a resource that explains using curves to achieve microcontrast, and for that matter, one that discusses microcontrast in more depth?
~ Michele Williams
Posted by Stan Rose on February 26, 2011 at 7:39 AM
Michele-ill answer for Floris--NO, cause he just made that term up
Seriously, all he's saying is that local adjustments can be made if you're familiar with your histogram and how to use a curve. If so, you can isolate a particular tonal range and tweak it for more (or less) contrast, and the range or curve of that contrast. If you just want the darkest darks darker, you just move that one small section of the curve. It's made even easier by the TK mask idea since what you do with luminosity masks is to isolate a particular tonal range--that way you can specifically work on the contrast or curve of that range alone, and make it as wide or narrow as you want--and you can also easily choose which part of the image you work on (by masking out the part you dont want to affect)
I agree with Floris and David. I like dark images too. I just posted two B&Ws in the RMNP forum with intentionally black blacks (and some folks thought they were too black, but overall they got decent reception). I think its perfectly possible with digital to have the best of both worlds--images with mood but with attention to detail and natural appeal as well.
To me, darkness or brightness of an image doesnt bother me one bit--its the natural balance between the tonal parts of the image that interest me.
Posted by Ken Smith on February 26, 2011 at 9:08 AM
I visit galleries and like to engage in conversations with the owners or staff. They tell me the public will buy an (blurry) oil painting done well in far greater quantities than a sharp pixel-clean photograph. All other things (framing, size, composition) being equal. That said, in my opinion the higher tier of digital photographers are those able to selectively apply degrees of blur to portraits, flora, and landscapes. They deliver a product that more closely matches an oil painting with a quality of light control and artful eye..so that people snap them up to decorate their walls. When I grow up, I want to take lessons from a master to learn the technique using various software tools.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM
I have grown a bit tired of razor sharp digital photos all the time. I also shoot at night quite a bit in winter. Often, I put mood over everything else. Here's a couple of shots I've done lately. These were done with my Nikon, but I have also started shooting this sort of thing with my 1937 Voigtlander and Shen Hao 4x5 using an 1872 Petzval lens. I really like the look I'm getting. From the Nikon:
Light is the single most important element in a photo. At night it is easier to control since there is so little of it. Winter is great because the snow reflects the light evenly and at the same time softens it. I love winter!
For me mood is all about light and subject, and how they work together. It can be done with either medium, but even with decades of practice using film, it's easier to achieve what I'm looking for using digital. It's kind of a 4-phase process: Find the subject, find the light, catch it, and process it.
No distinction between film and digital for the first two. If you've got them, you've got them, and if you don't, you don't.
The differences really mount with the last two. For something as subtle as we're talking, my catch rate is higher with digital due to the LCD and histograms. I just nail it more often because the LCD tells me when I haven't so I can shoot again quickly. Ain't no such critter with film. Bracket like crazy and pray.
And finally, consider image processing today versus what was happening before digital. What was the hot new thing in the final days of film? Photoshop 6 or some such? And what about RAW processing? And what about experience shared among photographers? We've come a looooooong ways baby.
The term microcontrast is typically reserved for lens optics, but I think it's just as applicable to post processing, because what matters is the final result. Anyways, Stan did a good job at summarizing the take home message.
Here's a quote from Luminous Landscape:
What we're talking about is the ability of the lens to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. This is also referred to as "microcontrast." (Lens Contrast)
I'm using the word microcontrast to refer to the contrast between similar tones that are found physically near one another in an image. In order to adjust these contrasts you generally cannot rely on a global curves layer, but will need to make use of either Tony Kuyper's masks, or hand painted layer masks to make your adjustments.
Posted by Pat Sampson on February 26, 2011 at 3:15 PM
Barry,
In general I also value mood more than anything else in an image and I also like dark images. I rarely photograph landscapes but last winter while I was in Tulsa I had a chance to spend a day at Gilcrease museum in Tulsa viewing an Ansel Adams show which included many of his iconic images.
I was surprised that some of the images contained blacks that were completely blocked. I suppose there might have been a problem with the prints but I think that's unlikely. I think Ansel did it deliberately to create more drama and mood in the image. I still try to keep my blacks unblocked and detail in my whites but I do what I want to try and convey what I want.
I liked your image by the way.
Pat
Posted by Scott Fricke on February 26, 2011 at 7:13 PM
Barry,
You're post reminded me of a thread posted by Jesse Speer a week or so ago on the RMNP forum. Read through the whole thread, he explains a little bit about what his artistic goal is on a couple posts farther down, but it seems to mirror what you are asking about.
Discussion
11 repliesI received interesting comments about my recent posting on Landscape, LIFE ON MARS.
You raise a question for me though. I prize mood more than anything in a photograph. To me it's more important than sharpness or perfect exposure. And I like dark pictures.
In the digital age though, when stripping bare every pixel is the norm, how does one express mood with the painterly devices of shadow and the unseen?
If you have thoughts on this I'd like to read them.
-Barry Ashenhurst.
I don't think there's any difference.
The thing that may be difference is people's predilection to require detail everywhere when it's so easy to bring highlights down, bump up shadows, and do HDR images. But that's more about how they see, than about the mood you create. So some might miss the forest (overall mood) for the trees (worrying about detail in the shadows) in some cases. I don't think that changes what's conveyed in your images though.
Ironically, it is people's obsession with getting every pixel properly exposed, sometimes with the help of HDR tonemapping, that actually removes those critical microcontrasts and leaves you with an image that lives mostly in the 'gray' regions of the histogram.
~ Michele Williams
Seriously, all he's saying is that local adjustments can be made if you're familiar with your histogram and how to use a curve. If so, you can isolate a particular tonal range and tweak it for more (or less) contrast, and the range or curve of that contrast. If you just want the darkest darks darker, you just move that one small section of the curve. It's made even easier by the TK mask idea since what you do with luminosity masks is to isolate a particular tonal range--that way you can specifically work on the contrast or curve of that range alone, and make it as wide or narrow as you want--and you can also easily choose which part of the image you work on (by masking out the part you dont want to affect)
I agree with Floris and David. I like dark images too. I just posted two B&Ws in the RMNP forum with intentionally black blacks (and some folks thought they were too black, but overall they got decent reception). I think its perfectly possible with digital to have the best of both worlds--images with mood but with attention to detail and natural appeal as well.
To me, darkness or brightness of an image doesnt bother me one bit--its the natural balance between the tonal parts of the image that interest me.
lit by moonlight
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/MoonlightHoppers.jpg
lit by one Nikon SB-28 flash:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/BNSFboydPort.jpg
lit by train headlights:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/BNSFboydLightsS.jpg
Light is the single most important element in a photo. At night it is easier to control since there is so little of it. Winter is great because the snow reflects the light evenly and at the same time softens it. I love winter!
Kent in SD
No distinction between film and digital for the first two. If you've got them, you've got them, and if you don't, you don't.
The differences really mount with the last two. For something as subtle as we're talking, my catch rate is higher with digital due to the LCD and histograms. I just nail it more often because the LCD tells me when I haven't so I can shoot again quickly. Ain't no such critter with film. Bracket like crazy and pray.
And finally, consider image processing today versus what was happening before digital. What was the hot new thing in the final days of film? Photoshop 6 or some such? And what about RAW processing? And what about experience shared among photographers? We've come a looooooong ways baby.
Here's a quote from Luminous Landscape:
I'm using the word microcontrast to refer to the contrast between similar tones that are found physically near one another in an image. In order to adjust these contrasts you generally cannot rely on a global curves layer, but will need to make use of either Tony Kuyper's masks, or hand painted layer masks to make your adjustments.
In general I also value mood more than anything else in an image and I also like dark images. I rarely photograph landscapes but last winter while I was in Tulsa I had a chance to spend a day at Gilcrease museum in Tulsa viewing an Ansel Adams show which included many of his iconic images.
I was surprised that some of the images contained blacks that were completely blocked. I suppose there might have been a problem with the prints but I think that's unlikely. I think Ansel did it deliberately to create more drama and mood in the image. I still try to keep my blacks unblocked and detail in my whites but I do what I want to try and convey what I want.
I liked your image by the way.
Pat
You're post reminded me of a thread posted by Jesse Speer a week or so ago on the RMNP forum. Read through the whole thread, he explains a little bit about what his artistic goal is on a couple posts farther down, but it seems to mirror what you are asking about.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=63470&CGISESSID=5489fe474d799842dd512c2d5f01596b&u=28109