- Castro in pictures » »
- « « SoFoBoMo bloggers
Do you live in a high contrast world?
Filed in Art - February 19, 2008I might make different photos if I lived on the Mediterranean, or in California, but I live in cloudy low contrast Britain.
I look at what some people suggest doing to a photo (thankfully not one of mine) with horror – you’ll see what I mean if you scroll to comment number 6 on that link.
We’re human. Social pressures to conform are huge. And one of those pressures seems to be that every photo must have some pure black and some pure white and there needs to be a decently sharp curve between the two. The most common comment that I get about my monochrome pictures is that they are ‘fine, but just need a tweak to levels and maybe a bit of an S curve’. Friends and not friends. It doesn’t seem to matter.
When I’m in a good mood, this amuses me greatly.
I live in a gray old place (one of my defining memories is driving around the streets near Heathrow on a dull February afternoon after spending a week in Northern India. Sheesh. Where did all the colour go?), and I may even have slightly unusual eyesight (one of the reasons that I moved to using rangefinder cameras is that I have difficulties focussing on ground glass – an occupation heavily reliant on contrast for accuracy), but even so. Even so, I don’t understand the preoccupation with zap, punch, kick, bite or pop. I’ve spent a long time learning how to make my pictures look the way that I want them to look, mostly because the guys who write the software also like z, p, k, b & p. And, you know, I’m happy being able to take this gray world and reproduce some of its beauty and interest on paper without giving it a fresh coat of paint.
For an example of the fresh coat of paint approach (in colour), try the front page of the current Lightzone website where a couple of demos show their wonderful relight tool in action. Oh, my, isn’t that awesome?
In case you are wondering, if you do live in a high contrast world then that is fine by me. But if you don’t mind, I’ll stay my side of the curtain.
Some related posts chosen by the software:
- Lens contrast for digital (2) – using 28mm rangefinder lenses
- Contrast & dynamic range
- Lens terms. Good and bad.
This made me chuckle. I think some of the LZ examples are horrid.
I also come from a low contrast, subtly coloured world, the challenge is to do enough to make it look 3 dimensional.
I hate the “sliders to 11″ approach.
Having said that, there are also photographers out there using the full tonal range to great effect.
February 19, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
I couldn’t agree more, it’s fashion! I’ve managed to ween myself away from the Velvia look and I was never a “do it because you can” digital merchant. I’ve realised that RAW files give me the option to produce delicate tones in landscapes, colour or B&W where I would previously have ramped up contrast and saturation. I am reworking some of my older film scans because I now realise that the prints just look OTT.
February 19, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Those Lightzone examples made me think of children’s books. Have you noticed how so many children’s book illustrations have become Disneyfied? My favourite book illustrations as a child were the ones with really complicated pictures – subtle, and with lots and lots of details I could get lost in. When I look at kid’s books now they mostly seem to be blocks of primary colours and cartoon characters. They are pictures to glance at, not to spend time with.
I suppose Disneyfied photographs are the next step. And perhaps people are influenced by the pictures in advertising, and think photos should always be bright and shiny.
February 19, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
I’m also quite aghast at the LZ relight samples. Also very similar to the current HDR cartoony, high localised contrast view of the world. I’m just a bit bemused how that became a popular view. You can make more ‘normal’ appearing HDR images, without such an extreme local contrast, I just think nobody does it because the sliders in photomatix or photoshop don’t default to that.
the original Scottish image just makes me feel homesick. I think I grew up about 20 miles from that spot.
February 19, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
BadAunt – I know what you mean. The loss of subtlety in favour of impact. To me it is all part of the short attention span thing. Gotta get noticed.
February 19, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Ack! The ‘before’ pictures on the Lightzone pages look SO MUCH BETTER than the ‘after’ pictures, which just look horribly fake.
February 19, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Very interesting. If you want to see the affect of light on a photographer, check out Henry Wessel’s book “Henry Wessel.” He was from Pennsylvania and Upstate New York (USA) where the world is gray for much of the year. When he moved to California, it completely changed his photographic vision to high key/low contrast, because that is how he saw his new world out there. And we are the beneficiaries. Unbelievably great book!
February 19, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
Bennett,
I have a book of Wessel’s Californian photos, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen any of his pre-sunshine work (although I’ve heard him talk about it – probably from an online interview or video. I’ll try to track that down again).
From his photos one would say that Wessel is an observer. It would be entirely expected that his style would change to suit his surroundings.
I clearly need to do some Wessel research.
February 20, 2008 @ 9:30 am
I think that Bennett hit on an interesting point. I tend to like photos with more contrast. I grew up in Akron, Ohio, where it’s cloudy and gray most of the time; however, I moved to the southern part of the US, first Dallas, TX and then Charlotte, NC. In these areas, we have probably about 200+ fully sunny days, 100+ partly cloudy days, and the rest are perhaps cloudy.
Most of what I see is very contrast-laden due to the ever-present sunshine. It also makes for a really good mood. So, I’ve been known to crank up the sliders a bit and enjoy the contrast. I see nothing wrong with it. That said, though, if I encounter fog or some other element that makes for muted colors, I stay away from the slider, preferring to keep the natural feel.
February 20, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
I think people are missing the point here. I’ve been “playing” with Lightzone for the past week, and have really enjoyed seeing how I can change the look and feel of a Image. Remember any tool can be used by degree, yes if you determine that volume 11 is what you want, then go for it, however, if you want to turn your grey day slightly colder by a few dgree’s a minute change in Whitebalance may be all you need. ( Remember if the slider is too coarse just put in a number of degrees)
“Examples” are allways going to show the extream, but personal choice is what its about. I don’t agree with the “Disney Statement”, surely all you are seeing is “a fashion” in photography. Just look at the money the Venture Studio franchise is making, and its all because the High Key Portrait is fashionable. These pictures will date, the same way a tatoo will. But in 50 years time, the very best of any fashion will be called “great”
March 12, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Martin R,
Whilst the Disney comment wasn’t mine, I do have a lot of sympathy for it.
Of all the visual arts, photography has the greatest and easiest facility for showing the beauty that there already is in the world. People who distort the source object so grossly are doing something entirely valid, but I do wonder why they choose to use the photographic medium. The examples on the Lightzone page make the land look cartoonish. In my opinion (and it is only that), the land deserves better.
I agree with you that it is a fashion, and that fashions fade. However, just like tremendously high heels damage people’s hips and backs, tremendously jazzed up landscapes damage people’s appreciation of nature. Again, just my opinion.
There is an interesting discussion to be had about how we see differently. There is doubtless a range in our understanding of what ‘normal’ or ‘real’ is. I’d like to know more about what science there is out there on that subject.
March 12, 2008 @ 4:50 pm