Posted by Brian Schrayer on February 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM
I want to say from the outset that my intent in posting this is not to stir up an argument or debate (ok - maybe a friendly debate ) Instead, it is an honest question that I have been wondering about and the comments on Jon Labass' recent photo "Island Lake Storm" really got me thinking about this as well as things that I have been reading about in regard to the creative side of photography and finally from seeing the work of other photographers.
It seems that the general consensus was that most would like to see more detail and brightness in the deepest shadows along the hillsides of Jon's image. I personally felt that the deep shadows contrasted nicely with the bright highlights in the image such as the reflection in the lake as well as the sky and distant peaks. In my opinion, this added to the impact and mood of the image with the ominous feeling of the impending storm. I also thought that the shadows directed my eyes throughout the scene to the storm clouds and beyond to the distant peaks. Also, I could still see detail and texture in all but the deepest of shadows. Even then I am sure that at a larger size there was detail.
It goes without saying that with the tools available to us today such as HDR and exposure blending that the current trend involves bringing out the last bit of detail in shadow and highlight areas. This is a common critique and one that I know I have mentioned before when commenting on images. But I wonder if we are missing out on some of the creative tools at our disposal when we default to pulling the last bit of detail out of every shadow (or even highlight). Obviously many of these things come down to personal taste.
I recently purchased a compilation of Ansel Adams' photographs called "400 Photographs" which compiles many of the photographs that he took throughout his life. I have to admit that I have been much more drawn to color photography and have never really "studied" his work until now. After viewing the images in this compilation I certainly have a much greater appreciation for his work (as well as B&W photography in general). One of the things that stands out to me though is that he often used deep shadows for creative effect. One could argue that this was a limitation of the media with which he shot. However, I don't think this was the case - at least not always. It is well documented that he liberally used darkroom techniques such as dodging and burning to give more impact to his images. An example of Adams using deep shadows for creative effect is his "Aspens, Northern New Mexico" image. In the book Adams says of this image "the majority of viewers of [this] image think it was a sunlit scene. When I explain that it represented diffused lighting from the sky and also reflected light from distant clouds, some rejoin, 'Then why does it look the way it does?' Such questions remind me that many viewers expect a photograph to be the literal simulation of reality." Based on the lighting that he describes surrounding the capture of this image I would expect that he could have captured the entire dynamic range of the scene in a single exposure even with film (although I am not an expert). But in the final image he rendered the shadows as very deep to the point that they were almost black with very little detail. The result is that the aspen boles and the leaves contrast very nicely with the deep shadows and it has more impact. There are other images in which Adams used deep shadows to add impact to a scene but with this one I know with certainty based on his comments that it was intentional.
I have also seen Morris McClung (I'm thinking specifically of his "Aspen Aria" image in his gallery but he has used it in others as well) and Jimmy Gekas ("Aspen Affection" from his site) use a similar technique on some of their images. To be honest although I didn't originally comment on Morris' image I distinctly remember seeing it and feeling it was too dark for my tastes. This was more because I have generally viewed photography more from a literal perspective. Maybe I'm developing a set of creative eyes after all. It's also interesting to me that Morris used this technique on a color image so it is not limited to B&W. As I look back on what Morris was doing I think I am starting to finally "get" it. It takes me a while sometimes!!
Another more modern example (compared to Ansel Adams) is Jesse Speer's "Illumination" series. He also uses deep shadows - to the point that they are almost pure black with very little detail. At times these shadow areas cover a lot of real-estate in the composition. However, the impact is very dramatic.
Anyway, I am a relatively inexperienced photographer and certainly my images are probably among the least of the great photographers here. I would be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this. I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by introducing this topic. As I mentioned it's just an honest question that I am wondering about as I try to develop a set of those creative eyes.
Posted by Doug Beezley on February 28, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Brian,
An excellent discussion and one that fits how I "experiece" photography. I've been pretty "literal" in my recording of natural events but am increasingly aware of the creative side of image capture that goes beyond the literal. Certainly, Island Lake is one of the most stunning subjects in the San Juans (or anywhere else for that matter) and I marvel at the skill so many exercise in recording the stunning water color, the rainbow of wild flower colors and the lush greens. But, until I saw Jon Labass' black and white rendering, I never really emotionally connected with Island Lake. I think his photo has created a much greater appreciation of both the location and the many color images I have seen. I like the dark, near black side slopes around the lake; they keep re-directing my attention back to the lake. I don't think adding detail to those areas would enhance the experience of Island Lake. The lack of detail actually focuses my thinking about the location and my feeling for it. Thanks for bringing up the subject.
Doug Beezley
Snellville, GA
Posted by Russ Shugart on February 29, 2012 at 12:05 AM
I'll keep this short as I'm trying to reply by a new smartphone. I too have recently began to appreciate black and white photography. A photographer that really stirs me is Edward steichen. I've never been accused of documentarian style photography and cranky that suits me just fine. I say let your inner artist loose. I might suggest these to consider http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/190036426
For me, personally, it really comes down to the image. Sometimes I want those blacks to be black - like you've said, details don't always matter and sometimes it is mood we're after or we want to actively move someone's eye through the scene.
Other times I want those details because I feel they add something to the scene (not necessarily because that's what it looked like - I'm not a journalist with my landscapes) or suggest something of a larger whole (like Morris' image). I want the viewer to peer into those shadows and notice something and, hopefully, think about what those things might be or mean to the larger image.
I also think it is easy to get too technical in our critiques online. Really good prints are often about the subtle transitions in tone. I've a few images that block-up when formatted for the web because, when printing, I'm trying to skirt that edge of barely visible - the prints look nice but the web image (especially small ones) don't show the fine tonal shifts I'd like them too.
All in all I believe it comes down to what you are after in your image. I'm not harping on online critiques - really I'm not - people are trying to be helpful. However, unless you've told them what you are after, only you know what you were after in an image.
If blocking up the blacks fits your vision of an image then do it - it is your art after all.
Posted by Morris McClung on February 29, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Brian,
I think Aleksei is dead on with his statements. Especially about an artist's freedom to express himself with the tools we have. As well as his comment about online critiques.
If my suspicions are correct, Jon's excellent pano probably isn't this dark on his monitor. Maybe he can attest to that or not if he visits this post. I find most of my work has to be corrected slightly before posting for brightness and contrast from where I have completed my "development" to match when uploaded. I do comparisons between the completed work in PS and my saved for web version on my desktop. It might just be my monitor though and not other's.
I do think that the use of dark negative space and even vignetting has to be about balance. Too much and their is a tipping of the scales of balance. I think that is probably what people were trying to point out in Jon's image. The larger version did not have quite the "imbalance", if you will, for me. I believe Jon's use of the vignette was to the drive the eye through the middle of the image to the distant mountains for depth. He can address that if he visits here. His comp seems to be created for the same reason. It gives an excellent sense of depth.
And also Brian, I agree there is a preponderance of opinion about having detail in shadows. It is reflected quite often in critiques in the galleries. And, I agree it tends to limit the use of dark negative space. A dark background tends to bring the subject forward in the image, and that is why I will use it when it fits the purpose.
I will freely admit my influences from Ansel Adams, which most of us have. I love the rich blacks and pure whites he attained.
And Jesse continues to influence and inspire me today.
Good topic, Brian. I can't wait to see what others say.
You cued up a good discussion here Brian, and I think a lot of good points have been made, most all of which I agree with. I think my interpretation of the art of photography is taking a moment in time and space, putting boundaries on it by which you convey a message about either the time, space or both. So in essence you are narrowing down all that is possible into a two dimensional image and saying "look at this". I think that just as selective focus achieved with narrow DOF is a tool to press the viewers attention toward certain elements of the composition, so too can tonality steer the eye within the frame.
On another point, I think that darkness and obscurity can help pique the viewers interest and imagination. I would like to draw a colorful analogy. The aspens image that you noted by Ansel Adams, or the other images that successfully use darkness to enhance the composition are like a Victoria's Secret Model showing all that is needed to get the full picture in your minds eye. By leaving a little to the imagination and some mystery you have made the visual more interesting. Whereas the poorly executed HDR (you know the one I am talking about) is like a hard-core porn model on an eastern European fetish website. Yeah, you got to see all the details, but in the end were you better for it?
At the same time I agree with Morris, you have to have balance. I was on the receiving end of critiques pointing out lack of detail in the shadows. And upon further review and refinement I did bring more light back into the shadows, with a degree of restraint. In the end I think the image is better for it.
Anyone who started with film appreciates the power of rich blacks and negative space for the potential to make highlights really explode off of the miniature mounted slide. Frankly, I miss some of that in today's photography because so many are trying to squeeze every last drop of detail from an image. For the blacks to make an image truly dynamic, there has to something powerful happening with the highlights, with the blacks complimenting the focal point. There can't be any question about what you want to show the viewer. In an overcast situation, we expect to see more detail throughout the frame. I still like the image for its creative presentation in an excellent comp.
Posted by George Hager on February 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM
I have always abhorred technique for technique sake. When a technique is employed it should be for a reason and that reason should be because it helps the photographer better communicate with the viewer (or himself). It does not matter if it is a filter or a technique like HDR or shallow depth of field. Each image should be evaluated and then techniques applied that help to make that image more successful. Sometimes that means the image should lack shadow detail (or highlight detail) and other times not. Whenever a new technique comes into being there is a tendency for folks to go crazy using it on everything whether it is appropriate or not. HDR is just another one of these. Give it awhile and photographers will settle down to using it when it improves the image and dropping it when it doesn’t.
Posted by John Mumaw on February 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM
" In my opinion, this added to the impact and mood of the image with the ominous feeling of the impending storm.
The key words here are 'in my opinion'. I don't mean to sound flip, but that's what all of these words boil down to. Subjective interpretations and opinions. With some images I like dark shadows, and in others not so much. I suspect the same holds true for most. And really, that's all there is to it.
Posted by Brian Schrayer on February 29, 2012 at 8:29 PM
I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses. This has really given me a lot to think about and I hope that it is beneficial for others as well.
Posted by Jack Garrett on March 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM
Brian, thanks for this post! I've been watching it for the past few days and it's interesting to see the responses. I agree with what a lot of the others have said...it boils down to how you want to portray the image. We all see things differently and when someone posts an image, that is their interpretation of how they felt about the scene at the time they took the picture. Some of us may say bring out more shadow or highlight detail but that's our interpretation, not yours. Someone else (Aleksei) suggested that when you...or any of us posts an image, it is YOUR interpretation of YOUR image. There are some folks on here that tell you why they processed their image in a particular way and still leave it up to suggestions and that's healthy. You can then choose to make adjustments or not.
I have a friend that owns a gallery and he has told me that it is so surprising to him that some of his photos that are his best sellers were not his best work...but the buyers were drawn by something in the image that spoke to them. So, I say let your images speak to you.
What a great topic of discussion! Photography is an art and all forms of art draws out different reactions and emotions. Even if you were trying to bring out a certain emotion and succeeded at it, some may like the emotion and some not. Photography does not always have to be a literal representation and we can't expect everybody to like our work. I also don't think there's right and wrong methods to processing photos as long as you achieve what you are going after (ie dynamic range).
When I originally processed my image of Island Lake, I had a few of thoughts in mind: 1. I wanted to draw the viewer into the scene, 2. I wanted the image to portray the afternoon thunderstorms to create an ominous feel, 3. I wanted the lake and distant mountains to be the focus, and 4. I thought black and white would be best to accomplish this (plus I've never come across a b/w version before).
I did intentionally process the hillsides to be dark and lose some of the details (though not all) because those specific details weren't adding to what I wanted to convey. But, as I continued to look at and work on the image, I needed some fresh eyes as I wasn't convinced I've accomplished my goal. Hence the reason for posting it on this forum. The majority of the responses said the darks were too dark and some wanted color so I posted a couple of reworked images trying seeing what they saw. Though I'm not yet convinced the suggestions are in line with what I want to convey, I am considering them (I wouldn't have asked for comments if I didn't want to listen to y'all).
Posted by Jeff Hackett on March 1, 2012 at 5:38 PM
As I look back on what Morris was doing I think I am starting to finally "get" it. It takes me a while sometimes!!
Interesting discussion. This comment of yours struck home for me. When I was living back east a local photog had a book in Borders and I was not impressed. I saw the same book a couple of years later in the same Borders and it was like my eyes were finally opened, and I did a 180 and thought it was very good. It takes me a while sometimes too. Thanks for the topic.
Sorry, Stan. In reading back through my post my question may not have been obvious. My question is that with the recent trend of pulling out every last bit of detail from shadows and highlights are we missing out on some of the creative tools at our disposal, specifically using contrast to direct the viewer's attention to certain elements in the composition?
Jon, thanks for giving your input as well. I appreciate hearing more of your perspective on your image.
Interesting that you would reference Ansel Adams' work regarding his technique of using contrast and deep shadows for effect. Frankly, I would believe he felt, like all photographers, that he wanted his work to stand out compared to his contemporaries. Thus, he spent countless hours in the darkroom creating "his" art. Photography is generally about portraying a scene to convey one's own vision. For some, it is interesting and unique enough to appeal to the masses.It is difficult to hear criticism sometimes, especially when folks misinterpret the photographer's vision of an image. But, no matter how un-biased we try to be, our critiques are based on what are preferences are.
Although I have no basis for this comment, I truly believe if Ansel Adams was alive today he would be relishing hours of computer work creating fascinating high dynamic images
Discussion
15 repliesIt seems that the general consensus was that most would like to see more detail and brightness in the deepest shadows along the hillsides of Jon's image. I personally felt that the deep shadows contrasted nicely with the bright highlights in the image such as the reflection in the lake as well as the sky and distant peaks. In my opinion, this added to the impact and mood of the image with the ominous feeling of the impending storm. I also thought that the shadows directed my eyes throughout the scene to the storm clouds and beyond to the distant peaks. Also, I could still see detail and texture in all but the deepest of shadows. Even then I am sure that at a larger size there was detail.
It goes without saying that with the tools available to us today such as HDR and exposure blending that the current trend involves bringing out the last bit of detail in shadow and highlight areas. This is a common critique and one that I know I have mentioned before when commenting on images. But I wonder if we are missing out on some of the creative tools at our disposal when we default to pulling the last bit of detail out of every shadow (or even highlight). Obviously many of these things come down to personal taste.
I recently purchased a compilation of Ansel Adams' photographs called "400 Photographs" which compiles many of the photographs that he took throughout his life. I have to admit that I have been much more drawn to color photography and have never really "studied" his work until now. After viewing the images in this compilation I certainly have a much greater appreciation for his work (as well as B&W photography in general). One of the things that stands out to me though is that he often used deep shadows for creative effect. One could argue that this was a limitation of the media with which he shot. However, I don't think this was the case - at least not always. It is well documented that he liberally used darkroom techniques such as dodging and burning to give more impact to his images. An example of Adams using deep shadows for creative effect is his "Aspens, Northern New Mexico" image. In the book Adams says of this image "the majority of viewers of [this] image think it was a sunlit scene. When I explain that it represented diffused lighting from the sky and also reflected light from distant clouds, some rejoin, 'Then why does it look the way it does?' Such questions remind me that many viewers expect a photograph to be the literal simulation of reality." Based on the lighting that he describes surrounding the capture of this image I would expect that he could have captured the entire dynamic range of the scene in a single exposure even with film (although I am not an expert). But in the final image he rendered the shadows as very deep to the point that they were almost black with very little detail. The result is that the aspen boles and the leaves contrast very nicely with the deep shadows and it has more impact. There are other images in which Adams used deep shadows to add impact to a scene but with this one I know with certainty based on his comments that it was intentional.
I have also seen Morris McClung (I'm thinking specifically of his "Aspen Aria" image in his gallery but he has used it in others as well) and Jimmy Gekas ("Aspen Affection" from his site) use a similar technique on some of their images. To be honest although I didn't originally comment on Morris' image I distinctly remember seeing it and feeling it was too dark for my tastes. This was more because I have generally viewed photography more from a literal perspective. Maybe I'm developing a set of creative eyes after all.
Another more modern example (compared to Ansel Adams) is Jesse Speer's "Illumination" series. He also uses deep shadows - to the point that they are almost pure black with very little detail. At times these shadow areas cover a lot of real-estate in the composition. However, the impact is very dramatic.
Anyway, I am a relatively inexperienced photographer and certainly my images are probably among the least of the great photographers here. I would be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this. I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by introducing this topic. As I mentioned it's just an honest question that I am wondering about as I try to develop a set of those creative eyes.
An excellent discussion and one that fits how I "experiece" photography. I've been pretty "literal" in my recording of natural events but am increasingly aware of the creative side of image capture that goes beyond the literal. Certainly, Island Lake is one of the most stunning subjects in the San Juans (or anywhere else for that matter) and I marvel at the skill so many exercise in recording the stunning water color, the rainbow of wild flower colors and the lush greens. But, until I saw Jon Labass' black and white rendering, I never really emotionally connected with Island Lake. I think his photo has created a much greater appreciation of both the location and the many color images I have seen. I like the dark, near black side slopes around the lake; they keep re-directing my attention back to the lake. I don't think adding detail to those areas would enhance the experience of Island Lake. The lack of detail actually focuses my thinking about the location and my feeling for it. Thanks for bringing up the subject.
Doug Beezley
Snellville, GA
And
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/33.43.39
For me, personally, it really comes down to the image. Sometimes I want those blacks to be black - like you've said, details don't always matter and sometimes it is mood we're after or we want to actively move someone's eye through the scene.
Other times I want those details because I feel they add something to the scene (not necessarily because that's what it looked like - I'm not a journalist
I also think it is easy to get too technical in our critiques online. Really good prints are often about the subtle transitions in tone. I've a few images that block-up when formatted for the web because, when printing, I'm trying to skirt that edge of barely visible - the prints look nice but the web image (especially small ones) don't show the fine tonal shifts I'd like them too.
All in all I believe it comes down to what you are after in your image. I'm not harping on online critiques - really I'm not - people are trying to be helpful. However, unless you've told them what you are after, only you know what you were after in an image.
If blocking up the blacks fits your vision of an image then do it - it is your art after all.
I think Aleksei is dead on with his statements. Especially about an artist's freedom to express himself with the tools we have. As well as his comment about online critiques.
If my suspicions are correct, Jon's excellent pano probably isn't this dark on his monitor. Maybe he can attest to that or not if he visits this post. I find most of my work has to be corrected slightly before posting for brightness and contrast from where I have completed my "development" to match when uploaded. I do comparisons between the completed work in PS and my saved for web version on my desktop. It might just be my monitor though and not other's.
I do think that the use of dark negative space and even vignetting has to be about balance. Too much and their is a tipping of the scales of balance. I think that is probably what people were trying to point out in Jon's image. The larger version did not have quite the "imbalance", if you will, for me. I believe Jon's use of the vignette was to the drive the eye through the middle of the image to the distant mountains for depth. He can address that if he visits here. His comp seems to be created for the same reason. It gives an excellent sense of depth.
And also Brian, I agree there is a preponderance of opinion about having detail in shadows. It is reflected quite often in critiques in the galleries. And, I agree it tends to limit the use of dark negative space. A dark background tends to bring the subject forward in the image, and that is why I will use it when it fits the purpose.
I will freely admit my influences from Ansel Adams, which most of us have. I love the rich blacks and pure whites he attained.
And Jesse continues to influence and inspire me today.
Good topic, Brian. I can't wait to see what others say.
On another point, I think that darkness and obscurity can help pique the viewers interest and imagination. I would like to draw a colorful analogy. The aspens image that you noted by Ansel Adams, or the other images that successfully use darkness to enhance the composition are like a Victoria's Secret Model showing all that is needed to get the full picture in your minds eye. By leaving a little to the imagination and some mystery you have made the visual more interesting. Whereas the poorly executed HDR (you know the one I am talking about) is like a hard-core porn model on an eastern European fetish website. Yeah, you got to see all the details, but in the end were you better for it?
At the same time I agree with Morris, you have to have balance. I was on the receiving end of critiques pointing out lack of detail in the shadows. And upon further review and refinement I did bring more light back into the shadows, with a degree of restraint. In the end I think the image is better for it.
I have a friend that owns a gallery and he has told me that it is so surprising to him that some of his photos that are his best sellers were not his best work...but the buyers were drawn by something in the image that spoke to them. So, I say let your images speak to you.
When I originally processed my image of Island Lake, I had a few of thoughts in mind: 1. I wanted to draw the viewer into the scene, 2. I wanted the image to portray the afternoon thunderstorms to create an ominous feel, 3. I wanted the lake and distant mountains to be the focus, and 4. I thought black and white would be best to accomplish this (plus I've never come across a b/w version before).
I did intentionally process the hillsides to be dark and lose some of the details (though not all) because those specific details weren't adding to what I wanted to convey. But, as I continued to look at and work on the image, I needed some fresh eyes as I wasn't convinced I've accomplished my goal. Hence the reason for posting it on this forum. The majority of the responses said the darks were too dark and some wanted color so I posted a couple of reworked images trying seeing what they saw. Though I'm not yet convinced the suggestions are in line with what I want to convey, I am considering them (I wouldn't have asked for comments if I didn't want to listen to y'all).
Interesting discussion. This comment of yours struck home for me. When I was living back east a local photog had a book in Borders and I was not impressed. I saw the same book a couple of years later in the same Borders and it was like my eyes were finally opened, and I did a 180 and thought it was very good. It takes me a while sometimes too. Thanks for the topic.
Jon, thanks for giving your input as well. I appreciate hearing more of your perspective on your image.
Although I have no basis for this comment, I truly believe if Ansel Adams was alive today he would be relishing hours of computer work creating fascinating high dynamic images