[pavpen]

Did anybody notice the paradox that we talk about reaching as wide as possible dynamic range in pics. But looking at B&W posts I see 99% of the pp high contrast images (with narrow DR scale.) Is this reflection of dissociation of our "lazy eyes" that like high contrast (uncomplicated shades) objects and our attempt to obtain the wide DR images. Is this only B&W tendency?

Any thoughts?

[Jonathan Mac]

Perhaps you should provide a link to examples?

I do find that digital images converted to B&W need a contrast boost in order to look good, but it's easy to go over the top. A couple of days ago I was reading an online article from a large-format film photographer, bemoaning high contrast images. However, his own examples of "how things should be" looked dull and horrible with almost no contrast at all, demonstrating that it's easy to go too far the other way too.

[Lowell Goudge]

I think there are two different issues addssed he. Highest dynamic range possible at time of capture is of interest with respect to the ability in post processing, or the dark room, to have the best possible separation of detail of what ever you want to print. How you print things after that is somewhat a matter of artistic taste.

Many proponents of RAW as the format to shoot, argue that one benefit is you can go back and reuse shots, process them differently etc, because they carry much more detail than JPEG. Wile that may be true, in some ways it also implies they are willing to reprocess trash (perhaps a little strong but...) as opposed to going out and taking a shot for a specific purpose. For me, I would prefer to shoot with an end image in mind, dynamic range is nice, but it should not be the only criteria. Also note that high contrast shots,or images are generally really art not photographs. Some even approach being abstract

[Macario]

I think it has more to do with gear than with photo's. All the tech talk of DR low noise, sharpness etc is many times overshadowing the main goal of photography, which is producing and looking at photo's.
I mainly do B&W photography, and many times I do also have high contrast photo's. Other times I have a low contrast photo, with a wide dynamic range. it just depends on the picture.
But same thing goes for color photo's. They do not need to have a super wide dynamic range, they have to pleasing to look at. And a wide DR can ruin that.

Many times I have heard the arguement for wide DR is that that is how they saw it when they took the photo (apart from when you get home and look at the pic and post it, you do not know anymore how it excatly looked like). I really don't care, I do not know the situation. I just know the photo that I am looking at, and if it looks bad because it has a wide DR, it just looks bad. That it has a wide DR because that is what someone saw doesn't matter, it matters how the photo looks like.

[Na Horuk]

There is a difference between the maximum contrast that the sensor can capture, and the contrast that we want to see in the post processed photo

[post_eos]

For my style of photography I like the high contrast look. Back in the day, since I didn't have a darkroom, I'd shoot Kodak Technical Pan and have it developed normally to get the high contrast I wanted. Now I shoot mostly HDR to get a wide range to start with and then reduce it in post. Now that I have the control I want all the raw material possible to work with.

[tuco]

Crushed blacks and lack of tonal scale in BW is a style (esp street photography) that people copy. The small format, pushed film look. But with real BW film, you can get very high DR with special metering and developing that few, if any, people shooting small format film ever leaned to do.

[pavpen]

I think there are two different issues addssed he. Highest dynamic range possible at time of capture is of interest with respect to the ability in post processing, or the dark room, to have the best possible separation of detail of what ever you want to print. How you print things after that is somewhat a matter of artistic taste.

Many proponents of RAW as the format to shoot, argue that one benefit is you can go back and reuse shots, process them differently etc, because they carry much more detail than JPEG. Wile that may be true, in some ways it also implies they are willing to reprocess trash (perhaps a little strong but...) as opposed to going out and taking a shot for a specific purpose. For me, I would prefer to shoot with an end image in mind, dynamic range is nice, but it should not be the only criteria. Also note that high contrast shots,or images are generally really art not photographs. Some even approach being abstract

I agree with you point of view. Also, I personally consider B&W photography as more artistic than color one. For street photography one of the possible reasons of short DR pp could be the limited light condition of scene.
Perhaps, attempt to shrink DR in B&W photography is the way to direct the viewer’s attention from image to its meaning ( e.g. W Kandinsky “The Black Square”.)

Cheers.

[Rondec]

Black and White photography includes so many different styles that it is hard to make generalizations. And it just depends on the person as to what they like. I personally don't like really high contrast, harsh appearing black and white photos, but it does seem that this is more the style, particularly for street photography.

[Lowell Goudge]

For my style of photography I like the high contrast look. Back in the day, since I didn't have a darkroom, I'd shoot Kodak Technical Pan and have it developed normally to get the high contrast I wanted. Now I shoot mostly HDR to get a wide range to start with and then reduce it in post. Now that I have the control I want all the raw material possible to work with.

If you are doing this, have you looked at highlight and shadow protection on the K7/5 bodies. It works pretty well.

Regardless once you are this way, you are into JPEG (unless the HDR) is done in post and you are somewhat risking over compression of detail, but any way.....

[Lowell Goudge]

I agree with you point of view. Also, I personally consider B&W photography as more artistic than color one. For street photography one of the possible reasons of short DR pp could be the limited light condition of scene.
Perhaps, attempt to shrink DR in B&W photography is the way to direct the viewer’s attention from image to its meaning ( e.g. W Kandinsky “The Black Square”.)

Cheers.

It may be an art form, but it is a whole lot of fun to put 400iso film in my PZ1 and push exposure to ISO 3200 and see what comes out. There is a quality about high grain film shots that cannot be easily duplicated digitally

[carrrlangas]

It may be an art form, but it is a whole lot of fun to put 400iso film in my PZ1 and push exposure to ISO 3200 and see what comes out. There is a quality about high grain film shots that cannot be easily duplicated digitally

True. Even with color film.. Pushing 2 or 3 stops produces surprising results

[Winder]

Did anybody notice the paradox that we talk about reaching as wide as possible dynamic range in pics. But looking at B&W posts I see 99% of the pp high contrast images (with narrow DR scale.) Is this reflection of dissociation of our "lazy eyes" that like high contrast (uncomplicated shades) objects and our attempt to obtain the wide DR images. Is this only B&W tendency?

Any thoughts?

When looking at "B&W posts" what monitor are you using? Is it calibrated? What is the dynamic range of your monitor?

[tlong423]

But with real BW film, you can get very high DR with special metering and developing that few, if any, people shooting small format film ever leaned to do.

You medium format snob. Just kidding, of course.

[demp10]

But looking at B&W posts I see 99% of the pp high contrast images (with narrow DR scale.)

Unless it is done intentionally to make a certain artist point, most likely is from lack of understanding of post processing techniques where you can change the gray level in a non linear form to essentially "equalize" the histogram and reveal details as needed.

Most street photography adheres to the notion that the image must preserve what the photographer's eye (and camera) sees, so post processing manipulation should be as little (if any) as possible. So it is understandable (and almost expected) for street photographs to have that harsh high contrast look. After all you have very little (if any) control of the light there.