Evan Baines
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
A few notes on the contrast:
1. The first version was more or less straight from the lab scan. Since I'm not really doing this for a living and don't expect my rather modest ability or old-fashioned stylistic bent to attract much internet notoriety, I've gotten a bit lazy about editing my scans for the screen. Usually, I just use the scans to identify the shots I like, and worry about the finer points in the prints as I consult with Robert. So, the second version I posted does have a darker black point, and I agree the first was a bit too grayed out...
2. I think both Alan and Chuck are right on about the "zone system" and tonal values. In my experience, the desired tonality has shifted in the medium with both technology and shooting style. The pictorialists were fairly loose about acceptable tonal ranges, especially given the proliferation of what we now call alternative processes at the time. The f/64 generation of photographers shot mostly sheet film, and a full tonal range was considered technical perfection. This coincided nicely with the perfectly sharp and detailed negatives being produced with this technology, and also the more stationary and deliberate style and subject-matter. In the latter half of the 20th century, the proliferation of smaller formats and roll-film cameras made a strict adherence to deliberately controlled tonal values impractical, and the lower fidelity of the formats lent themselves to a more graphic and immediate rendition. In the 50's and 60's, coinciding with the rise of 35mm, one sees a dramatic increase in the desired amount of contrast in most images, often at the expense of a "full" tonal range. This was a major subject of dissent between older and younger photographers a few generations ago, now largely forgotten by most current practitioners. I've been spending a lot more time lately looking at photographers in the pre Leica-M era, who mostly shot for a more complete tonal range, and also shooting more 4x5 which also lends itself in that direction. Thus, I'm shooting more shots with modest contrast but richer tones.
3. I'm also shooting this shot and others like it on a 45 year old lens, which is single coated and less contrasty than modern lenses. It gives a more vintage character inherently, and part of the reason I generally even avoid shooting T grain films on my Hasselblad.
4. I've also noticed that especially with the ladies, photographers and their subjects often differ on the desirable contrast and light ratios. For this shot, part of the game was pleasing the subject, so I erred on the side of soft wherever possible. Soft light, soft contrast, softer film (IE Ilford tends to be more red sensitive and creamy IMHO), and a vintage lens that's not unforgivingly sharp at the aperture used.
So to answer your last question, the zone system is really only for sheet film. Compressing the full range of tones into an image (generally achieved by overexposing and under-developing most films) is a style that largely mimics the aesthetic of the larger formats and is often seen as more old-fashioned, while higher contrast imagery is associated with the more spontaneous approaches of the later 20th century where fine detail was less important than mood, gesture, and concept. "Correct" tonality has been a moving target throughout the history of photography, and continues to be so now with the proliferation of HDR techniques and such.
Obviously lots of generalizations and there are a million exceptions, but I'm trying to offer some general historical context.
|
