Digital BW, The Print

Martin -

   Great questions! I wrote several articles for my newsletter (years ago!) on the issue of seeing and final composition. I think that we have all come across a scene that "needed something". My sensitometry and zone system students would often make the mistake of placing a particular part of a scene on a zone and forget the affect that this change in exposure had on the rest of the image. The result was often really crummy prints but with one part of it placed exactly where they wanted it! <G> 

   The beauty of digital imaging in my mind is not only the fact that you can cut, paste and layer yourself into oblivion but also bring out your own interpretation of an image and more specifically - parts of the image. The end result? I am not shooting any differently when it comes to exposing but I do worry less about airplanes in the scene, scratched negs and spot highlights and shadows that before could not be burned or dodged because of the image detail. I'm also a bit less anal about exposure. I can be off by 2/3rds of a stop and still get the information from the neg with my scanner! 

Brian


  Your comments about your two prints leads to my question.

  After someone has been pursuing photography for awhile, they come 
  across shots or compositions that would be really great, but from 
  experience they know that there is no way they can pull it off 
  technically and get it convincingly on a piece of paper, so they 
  don't bother to take the shot.

  Are you finding that since the end result is different than silver 
  you are "seeing" and shooting differently than you did for silver? 
  And if you have changed, was this a conscious change or something 
  that evolved more spontaneously?

  Martin Wesley



  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Brian Mikiten" 
  <bmikiten@s...> wrote:
  > Jerry -
  > 
  >   No problem. I think my point should have been directed more 
  towards the fact that I had problems "warming up" <G> to piezo than 
  anything else because of the issue of print tone. When I hold a piezo 
  print next to one of my Oriental/Selenium toned prints, it is 
  different - not necessarily bad but different. I have a print of a 
  worker's glove stuck in a puddle of tar that in a silver print is 
  stunning. As a Piezo print on several types of paper it has serious 
  problems. On the otherhand, one of my more popular prints of a church 
  here in Texas is actually quite nice on Piezo. Again, I equate much 
  of what I see in Piezo to be more like a platinum print than a 
  straight silver print because of the black/white issue.
  > 
  > Thanks!
  > 
  > Brian
  > 
  (snip)


  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Brian,

Thanks for the feedback. The digital aspect is slowly creeping into 
my thoughts in the field. I almost walked away from a shot a while 
ago and then suddenly thought, "Wait a minute! I can take out those 
power lines in the corner with Photoshop!" Seems so obvious but old 
habits die hard.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Brian Mikiten" 
<bmikiten@s...> wrote:
> Martin -
> 
>    Great questions! I wrote several articles for my newsletter 
(years ago!) on the issue of seeing and final composition. I think 
that we have all come across a scene that "needed something". My 
sensitometry and zone system students would often make the mistake of 
placing a particular part of a scene on a zone and forget the affect 
that this change in exposure had on the rest of the image. The result 
was often really crummy prints but with one part of it placed exactly 
where they wanted it! <G> 
> 
>    The beauty of digital imaging in my mind is not only the fact 
that you can cut, paste and layer yourself into oblivion but also 
bring out your own interpretation of an image and more specifically - 
parts of the image. The end result? I am not shooting any differently 
when it comes to exposing but I do worry less about airplanes in the 
scene, scratched negs and spot highlights and shadows that before 
could not be burned or dodged because of the image detail. I'm also a 
bit less anal about exposure. I can be off by 2/3rds of a stop and 
still get the information from the neg with my scanner! 
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
>   Your comments about your two prints leads to my question.
> 
>   After someone has been pursuing photography for awhile, they come 
>   across shots or compositions that would be really great, but from 
>   experience they know that there is no way they can pull it off 
>   technically and get it convincingly on a piece of paper, so they 
>   don't bother to take the shot.
> 
>   Are you finding that since the end result is different than 
silver 
>   you are "seeing" and shooting differently than you did for 
silver? 
>   And if you have changed, was this a conscious change or something 
>   that evolved more spontaneously?
> 
>   Martin Wesley
> 
> 
> 
>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Brian Mikiten" 
>   <bmikiten@s...> wrote:
>   > Jerry -
>   > 
>   >   No problem. I think my point should have been directed more 
>   towards the fact that I had problems "warming up" <G> to piezo 
than 
>   anything else because of the issue of print tone. When I hold a 
piezo 
>   print next to one of my Oriental/Selenium toned prints, it is 
>   different - not necessarily bad but different. I have a print of 
a 
>   worker's glove stuck in a puddle of tar that in a silver print is 
>   stunning. As a Piezo print on several types of paper it has 
serious 
>   problems. On the otherhand, one of my more popular prints of a 
church 
>   here in Texas is actually quite nice on Piezo. Again, I equate 
much 
>   of what I see in Piezo to be more like a platinum print than a 
>   straight silver print because of the black/white issue.
>   > 
>   > Thanks!
>   > 
>   > Brian
>   > 
>   (snip)
> 
> 
>   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page 
is at:
> 
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
>   Please follow these basic guidelines:
>   - Include your full name with your message.
>   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep them short.
>   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
>   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
or "flames."
>   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 

> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I find your views on this very interesting. Having focused on Black and
White photography "after" gaining experience digitally I do not get hung up
on the "is it digital/manipulated?" pro's and con's. I just shoot what I
like and then if required I edit it in Photoshop. Always having the thought
that I can remove or fix what displeases me later.

As you have a more traditional photographic background I'm curious, did you
first take offense at what editing skills photoshop offered when you were
first introduced to it?  There has been so much debate in the magazines and
on the web over the years about the manipulation of "pure" photography and
whether it renders it unacceptable to some groups of people. Did you feel
that way at one time and change your mind... or were you always open to new
ways to interpret your work?


Carolyn

> 
> Brian,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. The digital aspect is slowly creeping into
> my thoughts in the field. I almost walked away from a shot a while
> ago and then suddenly thought, "Wait a minute! I can take out those
> power lines in the corner with Photoshop!" Seems so obvious but old
> habits die hard.
> 
> Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
Seems so obvious but old 
> habits die hard.
> Martin

I think for me, a more apt title to this thread would be "Shooting 
for Scanning". I notice these big differences more in relation to 
contrast and tonal range, more than anything else. I was 
shooting today in this tiny English church; very very dark wood, 
and no interior lights; only windows. Above where the 
preacher-guy stands was this gorgeous stained glass, backlit 
from the sun, window. My first "old" thought was, "OK, I've got to 
pick one OR the other: the interior wood, or the detail in the 
glass. If I pick the wood, the glass will be fried".

But now, I just shoot two (or three) brackets, with the camera 
basically in the same place. I scan the base image (the interior 
of the church), and the scan the thinner neg of the properly 
exposed stained glass, and then just strip the glass into the 
church layer. 

All of a sudden, now, when you work this way, you can have film 
that renders almost infinite range of zones. Rather than the old 
way, of having to cut a mask by hand and burn in that stained 
glass forever. And even then, it never looks really right; always 
that fogged/burned-in-forever look in the highlights.

I do this all the time now with skies: I shoot a frame for the 
grass/buildings/whatever, and then another frame about a stop 
or two darker of the sky, and then easily pop them together, as 
long as the camera's basically in the same place.

-MTucker

Carolyn,
 
Now there is a hot topic! If you check back on the Piezo list in 
about June of this year the debate on this was hot and heavy for 
quite some time. It hit every position from any manipulation beyond 
what could be done in a darkroom violated the inherent trust a viewer 
has in a photograph to any manipulation or combination is fine. I 
believe we hit at least 256 shades of gray in between!
 
It is a very pertinent topic and one that all photographers need to 
consider in the digital age. The discussion forced me to evaluate my 
own practices both before and after the shot is taken, and to reach a 
decision for myself. Since I take "found" images in outdoor settings 
I decided I would just remove objects I felt were intrusive such as 
the branch that degrades the composition, the string of telephone 
lines in the distance, etc., but that I would not add anything from a 
different image. My personal decision for my own work.

Beyond that, my only opinion is in regard to images presented as 
photojournalism and documentary photography. In these areas I feel 
very that any alternation of the subject is unethical.
 
Martin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Carolyn  Frayn 
<carolyn@u...> wrote:
> 
> I find your views on this very interesting. Having focused on Black 
and
> White photography "after" gaining experience digitally I do not get 
hung up
> on the "is it digital/manipulated?" pro's and con's. I just shoot 
what I
> like and then if required I edit it in Photoshop. Always having the 
thought
> that I can remove or fix what displeases me later.
> 
> As you have a more traditional photographic background I'm curious, 
did you
> first take offense at what editing skills photoshop offered when 
you were
> first introduced to it?  There has been so much debate in the 
magazines and
> on the web over the years about the manipulation of "pure" 
photography and
> whether it renders it unacceptable to some groups of people. Did 
you feel
> that way at one time and change your mind... or were you always 
open to new
> ways to interpret your work?
> 
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> > 
(snip)

Mark,

Point well taken on the topic since shooting straight digital is a 
different matter.

When I shoot 4x5 is it very common for me to bracket but I bracket 
film development rather than exposure. Depending upon the scene I 
might shot a sheet for N and N+1, or N-1 and N, or N, N-1 and N-2. 
When I am shooting medium format I have almost always bracketed 
exposures.

I have yet to carry any of this into the digital side though. I just 
got the SprintScan 120 back from the repair shop and as a test 
scanned a trio of bracketed negatives of a very high contrast scene. 
I will take a shot at cutting the shadows from the +1 exposure and 
pasting them into the -1 exposure.

From your post it sounds like you are doing this without at tripod? 
How far off can you be and still manage to pull the two parts of the 
negatives together?

Thanks,
Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Seems so obvious but old 
> > habits die hard.
> > Martin
> 
> I think for me, a more apt title to this thread would be "Shooting 
> for Scanning". I notice these big differences more in relation to 
> contrast and tonal range, more than anything else. I was 
> shooting today in this tiny English church; very very dark wood, 
> and no interior lights; only windows. Above where the 
> preacher-guy stands was this gorgeous stained glass, backlit 
> from the sun, window. My first "old" thought was, "OK, I've got to 
> pick one OR the other: the interior wood, or the detail in the 
> glass. If I pick the wood, the glass will be fried".
> 
> But now, I just shoot two (or three) brackets, with the camera 
> basically in the same place. I scan the base image (the interior 
> of the church), and the scan the thinner neg of the properly 
> exposed stained glass, and then just strip the glass into the 
> church layer. 
> 
> All of a sudden, now, when you work this way, you can have film 
> that renders almost infinite range of zones. Rather than the old 
> way, of having to cut a mask by hand and burn in that stained 
> glass forever. And even then, it never looks really right; always 
> that fogged/burned-in-forever look in the highlights.
> 
> I do this all the time now with skies: I shoot a frame for the 
> grass/buildings/whatever, and then another frame about a stop 
> or two darker of the sky, and then easily pop them together, as 
> long as the camera's basically in the same place.
> 
> -MTucker

Martin,

I read that thread as it developed... very strong opinions indeed. I agree
with your 256 gray analogy. <g>  Non-scientific/documentary photography IMO
should not need disection... I figure if they don't like it, they don't buy
it, but someone else will.

I was interested in your view, thanks for sharing it...  The difference for
my work I suppose is that the majority of it is manipulated, whether as a
photo-illustration, montage or collage. Those images that I consider "pure"
are still manipulated in Photosphop to a degree.  I do not hesitate to
manipulate... (photos that is)... ;-)

I totally agree that manipulation in photojournalism and documentary work is
unethical... whether it is digitally or non-digitally obtained.

Best,
Carolyn

> Now there is a hot topic! If you check back on the Piezo list in
> about June of this year the debate on this was hot and heavy for
> quite some time. It hit every position from any manipulation beyond
> what could be done in a darkroom violated the inherent trust a viewer
> has in a photograph to any manipulation or combination is fine. I
> believe we hit at least 256 shades of gray in between!
> 
> It is a very pertinent topic and one that all photographers need to
> consider in the digital age. The discussion forced me to evaluate my
> own practices both before and after the shot is taken, and to reach a
> decision for myself. Since I take "found" images in outdoor settings
> I decided I would just remove objects I felt were intrusive such as
> the branch that degrades the composition, the string of telephone
> lines in the distance, etc., but that I would not add anything from a
> different image. My personal decision for my own work.
> 
> Beyond that, my only opinion is in regard to images presented as
> photojournalism and documentary photography. In these areas I feel
> very that any alternation of the subject is unethical.