Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 end

Have we become allergic to contrast?

highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

I watched a video today that made me think about its implication for stills photography: how low contrast vintage lenses and minimal post processing of RAW files gives the false sense of capturing and displaying the widest possible dynamic range.

Being able to fully see the details in the shadows of our images does not mean our image is high dynamic range. With today’s high DR sensors, we can compress all of a scene’s visible detail (including that which we can’t see with the human eye all at the same time) into a very narrow set of tones between Zones III and VII.

The editing style of this video makes it hard to watch, but the point he makes is interesting, which is log for video is a holdover from the days of low dynamic range sensors and a workaround. I wonder if we stills photographers do the same thing inadvertently, which is to be drawn to using low contrast lenses because they function as a log profile for stills.

Have we become allergic to seeing the blackest blacks and whitest whites? If we look at a low contrast image taken with a low contrast lens, do we start to feel like this is normal, and we apply fewer and fewer adjustments to our images as time goes by?

Jul 31, 2024 at 02:39 PM

ottokbre
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

This is not a problem for Huss.

But I have seen this a lot, so they are on to something, but I think we are already moving out of that trend.

If you want to have a good giggle watch an early season of Gold Rush: Alaska to see how far color grading trends have gone in the last decade.

Jul 31, 2024 at 02:45 PM

highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

ottokbre wrote:
This is not a problem for Huss.

But I have seen this a lot, so they are on to something, but I think we are already moving out of that trend.

If you want to have a good giggle watch an early season of Gold Rush: Alaska to see how far color grading trends have gone in the last decade.

I won’t be satisfied until every image on FM looks like Mad Max Fury Road

Jul 31, 2024 at 02:52 PM

RustyRus
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

I am allergic to N-LOG

I have been having fun shooting more video lately and I hate looking at live video in dull ass format- Its hard to get the exposure correct for me especially in places like forests etc where I like the hard shadows-

Jul 31, 2024 at 03:20 PM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

I'm not sure that was his point at all. He was just correcting the perception held by some directors and DPs that Log video is somehow more true to the source than graded video when everything you capture digitally is just various interpretations of zeros and ones. Everything else is a question of workflow and what you want out of the final product.

I've seen the trend in video and it looks horrible, but it has nothing to do with the dynamic range of the sensors used or the age of the lens.

Jul 31, 2024 at 03:20 PM

highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

freaklikeme wrote:
I'm not sure that was his point at all. He was just correcting the perception held by some directors and DPs that Log video is somehow more true to the source than graded video when everything you capture digitally is just various interpretations of zeros and ones. Everything else is a question of workflow and what you want out of the final product.

I've seen the trend in video and it looks horrible, but it has nothing to do with the dynamic range of the sensors used or the age of the lens.

The connection was mine and proposed merely to spark discussion about contrast trends in stills photography, particularly for black and white. Some photographers insist that low contrast lenses produce RAW files that are more true to the source than modern high contrast lenses, even going so far as to argue that their low contrast lenses yield more dynamic range, which is not true. There is also the trend of always having to have as much detail in the shadows as the midtones. So the connection to the video is not same-for-same, but it just made me think about how I find myself producing lower contrast final images these days, at least for black and white.

Edited on Jul 31, 2024 at 04:33 PM · View previous versions

Jul 31, 2024 at 04:17 PM

bjhurley
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

highdesertmesa wrote:
The editing style of this video makes it hard to watch, but the point he makes is interesting, which is log for video is a holdover from the days of low dynamic range sensors and a workaround.

Huh, that's not how I understand log at all. It's used in cameras with very high dynamic range sensors to capture the maximum possible amount of data (which no monitor on the planet can actually display), and then in post you are effectively reining in the data you want into a smaller colorspace (ultimately Rec709 for output).

Nobody that I know of actually grades log footage: you use a camera LUT or a colorspace transform or color management to bring the log footage into your working colorspace. There are intermediate grading spaces like DaVinci Wide Gamut, which allow you to grab more of the data from the original log footage than if you'd left it out of bounds by immediately converting to Rec709.

I think the people who try to grade log footage or deliver footage that's close to log in terms of being low contrast and saturation simply haven't learned how to do proper color grading; there's nothing "natural" or "true-to-life" about log. It's totally alien. But I also think there's an overemphasis on retaining detail in shadows and not blowing highlights. There's plenty of clipping in cinema.

Jul 31, 2024 at 04:31 PM

highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

bjhurley wrote:
Huh, that's not how I understand log at all. It's used in cameras with very high dynamic range sensors to capture the maximum possible amount of data (which no monitor on the planet can actually display), and then in post you are effectively reining in the data you want into a smaller colorspace (ultimately Rec709 for output).

Nobody that I know of actually grades log footage: you use a camera LUT or a colorspace transform or color management to bring the log footage into your working colorspace. There are intermediate grading spaces like DaVinci Wide Gamut, which allow you to...Show more →

Makes sense to me, though log is probably still a workaround for not wanting to or being able to shoot in RAW.

But I'm more interested in how the "log aesthetic" has found its way into stills photography.

Jul 31, 2024 at 05:07 PM

RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

I think a pretty sufficient answer is, when you're editing low contrast stuff like RAW or NLOG, your eyes will see a relatively small addition of contrast as sufficient in that moment. I would suspect the more used to NLOG editing people become, the less they are seeing contrast accurately while at their editing stations.

It's often helpful to come back the next day and look at your edit with a fresh eye that hasn't been subjected to the NLOG/RAW file that day.

Also, are we pretending that low contrast/raised blacks is a new trend?

Jul 31, 2024 at 05:10 PM

highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

RoamingScott wrote:
I think a pretty sufficient answer is, when you're editing low contrast stuff like RAW or NLOG, your eyes will see a relatively small addition of contrast as sufficient in that moment. I would suspect the more used to NLOG editing people become, the less they are seeing contrast accurately while at their editing stations.

It's often helpful to come back the next day and look at your edit with a fresh eye that hasn't been subjected to the NLOG/RAW file that day.

Also, are we pretending that low contrast/raised blacks is a new trend?

Loved printing to cream-colored, low contrast, textured b&w fiber-based photo paper back in the day. Zone 0 and Zone X tones were not on the menu when using that paper!

Jul 31, 2024 at 05:38 PM

Desmolicious
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

ottokbre wrote:
This is not a problem for Huss. ..

I view contrast in binary terms.

Here we have a blood hound sniffing out a contrasty image

And the reward

Jul 31, 2024 at 06:13 PM

ftllens
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

I've always wondered about the provenance of each trend. I knew for youtube docus and stuff, they like forgot to swap to 709/2020 maybe out of laziness, then that became a thing since the younger gens like lo-fi and low contrast type stuff. But I see everyone moving away from that and most imaging I see is balanced now. Furiosa looked incredible along with Oppenheimer, so I don't really see it in well produced cine either. Not sure about indie films.

Jul 31, 2024 at 11:03 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

I feel like this is a similar discussion/criticism on the "film look" that so many non(or newer)-photographers are going after.

They don't know what look film actually had, they just know what they've seen- which is mostly bad scanning, expired film, and bad editing.

Log files are ugly, and anybody that presents a finished product in log or close to it is blowing it.
I do agree that with most modern sensors, there is not much reason to bother with Log formats simply to maximize DR, just like how there's not as much justification anymore to shoot RAW in stills... if you have the time and the capability to nail the exposure, a compressed format will work for most people in most situations.

Aug 01, 2024 at 12:24 AM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

Contrast may change to others, but my views are largely consistent on how much I want. That’s probably why much of the discussion about DR left me cold. I dislike HDR-like images and think the use of black, esp. in B&W, is key to powerful images.

Aug 01, 2024 at 01:31 AM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

I am following a couple B&W image threads on IG, and the majority of posted photos has high contrast - often too high for my taste. I didn't see that the trend has changed to low contrast with more details shown in shadows.

Personally, I have never been a big fan of high contrast images and also avoided high contrast films. Ferrania P30 is a nice B&W film but much too contrasty for my taste. I am more on the opposite side of the spectrum with Ilford PanF+ 50 film which is lower in contrast but comes with lots of greyscale and details. Same I fall in with digital - I prefer higher DR provided by the sensor if possible.

There is no right or wrong - just a subjective matter of preference.

Aug 01, 2024 at 07:37 AM

Sonnar-7
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

As I said in another thread, film look is vague and the era it is referred to as an end result should be included in the used term, I think I’m a 90s film look lover, high contrast, saturation and low dynamic range cause I like my big monovalue zones with a lot of grain.
Can’t wait for the comeback of low tech sensors in cameras.

Aug 01, 2024 at 07:48 AM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

Sonnar-7 wrote:
Can’t wait for the comeback of low tech sensors in cameras.

This has already started quite a while ago - the generated hype to go with older CCD-sensor based P&S cameras for example. True that CCD sensors provide more contrasty images right out of the camera - but with a bit PP the same can be achieved with modern sensors, too.

Aug 01, 2024 at 07:59 AM

Sonnar-7
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

retrofocus wrote:
This has already started quite a while ago - the generated hype to go with older CCD-sensor based P&S cameras for example. True that CCD sensors provide more contrasty images right out of the camera - but with a bit PP the same can be achieved with modern sensors, too.

I wonder sometimes if there is not more to it, I believe CCD sensors are still used in high end movie cameras. I saw an article that tried to debunk or not the CCD myth and the tech in those sensors is quite different than of CMOS, the article made an analogy between CCD and film by the fact that these sensors react in a non linear way to light exposition as film does and contrary to the CMOS tech.
It’s a stretch but it is interesting as a notion.
I’m still a believer that not everything can be done in post and the myth might not exist without a spark of truth, be it right or not, it would be interesting to see some other tech being developed, because there is still that annoying fact that film gives some beautiful results without the need of much editing if ever and digital cameras no matter how expensive they are need their photos to be edited to the point where it is profitable business.

Aug 01, 2024 at 08:24 AM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

Sonnar-7 wrote:
I wonder sometimes if there is not more to it, I believe CCD sensors are still used in high end movie cameras. I saw an article that tried to debunk or not the CCD myth and the tech in those sensors is quite different than of CMOS, the article made an analogy between CCD and film by the fact that these sensors react in a non linear way to light exposition as film does and contrary to the CMOS tech.

To my knowledge all sensors react in a linear way to light no matter if CCD or CMOS - if this is not correct, I would love to learn more. I was always under the assumption that only film registers light in a double-S curve way different than the linear slope with digital sensors. Do you have a link where this is stated with light reception in CCD sensors?

I’m still a believer that not everything can be done in post and the myth might not exist without a spark of truth, be it right or not, it would be interesting to see some other tech being developed, because there is still that annoying fact that film gives some beautiful results without the need of much editing if ever and digital cameras no matter how expensive they are need their photos to be edited to the point where it is profitable business.

The debunk of the CCD myth I got my info from is here:
https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/

Aug 01, 2024 at 09:08 AM

ftllens
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Have we become allergic to contrast?

Alexa Mini, Venice 2, REDs all use CMOS tho. I don't know of any modern widely used high end cine cams that use CCD sensors. If you wanted the CCD look in any camera today, it's quite easy to match frequency, grain, color balance of it. Heck, you don't even need diffusion filters anymore with plug-ins like Scatter to get the "organic halation" look.

Aug 01, 2024 at 01:52 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.