Blown highlights suck..

HansDerHase

HansDerHase

Established
Local time
1:17 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
87
...or do they?

For some prove that blown hightlights not necessarily degrade a picture and sometimes shadows just want to be black, check out the 08/02 series at Magnum Photos - Slate (http://todayspictures.slate.com/20060802).

Number 8 rules! It has that certain kind of glow. :D

So next time we fail on exposure / development lets hope the pictures come out accidentially like some of Trent Parke’s so we can call them iconic. :)
 
Last edited:
That's why I love to blow highlights... unfortunately Pan F+ 50 is FORCING me to get correct tonal ranges. I guess you need the variation. Thanks for the link. :)
 
HansDerHase said:
...or do they?
Click to expand...
I think they blow :D

Blown highlights have been used to great effect. A lot of digital B&W pictures I've seen tend to use high-key blown highlights effectively. I'm not, however, so adventurous with the bending of reality.
 
Ash said:
Trent Parke's or mine? :D
Click to expand...

It should have read photographer, meaning Trent Parke and not a specific photo but is style is interesting, but now that you mention it i do like the subtle use of tones in the shot you posted, It is a good reminder that high and low key images and contrast in general do not always have to be over the top...
 
Haha I was messing about, but yea I was trying to show blowing highlights need not be garish ;)
 
I like it. Very nice. I am not quite sure about the glow, though, and why it only affects the upper portion of the man like a halo.
 
blown highlights or lack of shadow detail suck if you want detailed highlights and lots of shadow detail.

just like bad photos suck if you want good photos. it's all about what you want.

I believe that Ansel did actually say that every photos should have a IX in it as well as a II.

allan
 
kaiyen said:
blown highlights or lack of shadow detail suck ......
I believe that Ansel did actually say that every photos should have a IX in it as well as a II.

allan
Click to expand...

Not if there never was any zone IX or II in the picture to begin with. Or sometimes, the photographer may want to force a more contrasty, gritty appearance.

Of course most often highlights are blown that should be blown, like spectral reflections.

Rex
 
rvaubel said:
Not if there never was any zone IX or II in the picture to begin with.
Click to expand...

Or...you previsualized it in order to have a IX or I in it. The most powerful part of the ZS, in my opinon, is the concept of previsiualization. Sure, we all look at a scene and think "I wonder what it would look like if I used a wide angle and go really close, and distored that thing in the background." But how often do we say "I'd like that V to look like a VII, for an effect?"

And the ZS lets us do that. Whether there is a IX or I or II in a scene has nothing to do with whether it's in the final print or not. Or even on the negative.

allan
 
Magus, I find the prints to be dull, but have huge tonal ranges, or better contrast and a loss of lighter tones. I think its down to the processing and printing of the images because, as you say, the neg preserves a helluva lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom