Modern Black and White Aesthetic

[Brian Atherton]

In the 60s and 70s, when I was starting out, the grainy, high contrast ‘litho look’ was all the rage (eg, remember the 1966 film, Blowup?). In general it was a look I never really took to.

At the other end, during the same period I remember borrowing library books of HCB’s images that looked to me, low contrast and soft, and I assumed them to be just cheap and poorly printed by the technology of the time… until I saw my first London exhibition of HCB’s work. It was quite a revelation to find many of the prints to be exactly this; low contrast and soft.

Currently, here in the UK, Sky Arts has been running a Master of Photography prog, which has been entertaining. Photographers have to produce work on theme to be judged, and quite often the cry goes up from judges for more image ‘impact’, ‘punch’, ‘sparkle’ etc.

It must be really hard for young photographers to fight this constant need for ‘impact’.

 

[chipgreenberg]

Maybe they don't know any better. Somebody here posted/ postulated they haven't been exposed (see what I did there) to large quality B/W prints. I never got to be a really great printer but it did take me a long time to realize what is good and what's not.

Doing Youtube clips saying this is what film looks like is something else. But I don't watch those things

It has occurred to me as I view the work that is posted on Flickr and other sites, that there is a huge generational change in how we expose and develop our film and how we expect it to look. No surprises here, as the up and coming film fans are brought up expecting high iso performance in a digital world. It has become the norm to routinely push film 2 or more stops when totally unnecessary, ie for daylight shooting with nominally iso 400 and above. That is great if done for effect and it is great to bend the rules and see what happens. However, we run the huge risk of a loss of capability and experience as those of us brought up on film get older and fall off the perch, or loose our remaining few marbles. I am very encouraged every time I see a new person taking to film in grandads leicanikon heirloom but I find myself wishing that we collectively took the time to explain, and where possible, demonstrate the true wonder that is a perfectly exposed and printed or scanned negative and what it really is capable of as a medium. There is more to it than soot and whitewash. I have seen some graphically excellent images literally spoilt because there is no shadow detail and they might as well be taken on lith film. I guess it isn't cool to shoot slow film or use a tripod. Likewise pulling film doesn't sound a sexy as pushing to the max. Perhaps the result is less important than the process of using film cameras and the fun that is to be had. I love the tactile aspect of actually shooting a film camera and to be honest, that is why I am a die hard film shooter and have never gone down the digital route. Comments please.

 

[chipgreenberg]

I experimented with that and also really high speed grainy film of the time. Got some images I really liked.

In the 60s and 70s, when I was starting out, the grainy, high contrast ‘litho look’ was all the rage (eg, remember the 1966 film, Blowup?). In general it was a look I never really took to.

At the other end, during the same period I remember borrowing library books of HCB’s images that looked to me, low contrast and soft, and I assumed them to be just cheap and poorly printed by the technology of the time… until I saw my first London exhibition of HCB’s work. It was quite a revelation to find many of the prints to be exactly this; low contrast and soft.

Currently, here in the UK, Sky Arts has been running a Master of Photography prog, which has been entertaining. Photographers have to produce work on theme to be judged, and quite often the cry goes up from judges for more image ‘impact’, ‘punch’, ‘sparkle’ etc.

It must be really hard for young photographers to fight this constant need for ‘impact’.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

.......<snip> I don't think there is a intrinsic argument for what or how much dynamic range to include beyond what effect you'd like to produce. For me sometimes reducing the dynamic range is a way of focusing the viewer the same as cropping might be............

Exactly.

From the first post in the thread: ......<snip>...”I have seen some graphically excellent images literally spoilt because there is no shadow detail.....>

Spoilt? It might be this bit in the first post that put some people’s teeth on edge, and it may or may not have been misinterpreted, but....
My guess is that this is the sentence that has thrown the cat among the pigeons here, and resulted in pleas for a wider definition of what “good photography” is. Whatever it is.

As noted above, sometimes shadow detail is just a distraction and directs the eye away from the intended effect of the photograph. Sometimes it is shadow detail which spoils a photo. Sometimes it enhances. Depends on the subject, depends on the photographer’s intent.
There is no doubt that managing to consistently obtain a long tonal scale in a film photograph requires considerable skill and a knowledge of craft. I suspect no one is arguing any different.
Whether or not that look is the essence of “good photography”, the only way to skin the aforementioned cat, is what seems to be in question here.

 

[LCSmith]

There is no doubt that managing to consistently obtain a long tonal scale in a film photograph requires considerable skill and a knowledge of craft. I suspect no one is arguing any different.
Whether or not that look is the essence of “good photography”, the only way to skin the aforementioned cat, is what seems to be in question here.

As long as the result is intentional and well-done, the means of arriving at that point matter only on a theoretical plane.

 

[JeffS7444]

Having attempted to do good black and white landscape photos for a number of years, I've come to see much of Ansel Adams's work as very much it's own sort of "decisive moment", where a moment too soon or too late would've looked totally ordinary. It remains relevant as a reminder that the natural world has value simply by being there.

 

[LCSmith]

Having attempted to do good black and white landscape photos for a number of years, I've come to see much of Ansel Adams's work as very much it's own sort of "decisive moment", where a moment too soon or too late would've looked totally ordinary. It remains relevant as a reminder that the natural world has value simply by being there.

Yes! It has been said that "Watkins photographed geography, whereas Adams photographed the weather." The early prints of Adams attempt to communicate that moment of perceived clarity.

 

[ranger9]

Currently, here in the UK, Sky Arts has been running a Master of Photography prog, which has been entertaining. Photographers have to produce work on theme to be judged, and quite often the cry goes up from judges for more image ‘impact’, ‘punch’, ‘sparkle’ etc.

It must be really hard for young photographers to fight this constant need for ‘impact’.

Oh, it's hard for not-young photographers too. This is why worrying about having your photos "judged" (or "scored", or even "liked") is a bad idea in general. There's always a big pool of photos, so the arbiters have to do an extremely cursory initial screening, and then concentrate on those that are merely eye-catching (which they prefer to define as "impact", "punch", "sparkle" etc.)

As it says in this essay: "Do you really want to train yourself to make superficial photographs that appeal to people with two-second attention spans? Then why would you enter a contest that rewards that?"

Yeah, I wrote that essay, but still...

 

[robert blu]

...
Photographers have to produce work on theme to be judged, and quite often the cry goes up from judges for more image ‘impact’, ‘punch’, ‘sparkle’ etc.

It must be really hard for young photographers to fight this constant need for ‘impact’.

Question: is it , or could it be becasue today most of photographs are seen on a screen or projected by a video projector and not as prints on a table or hanging on a wall?

I noticed this in many photoassociations, when you have prints on a table the way people look at them is very different than when you watch at them through an electronic device.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Question: is it , or could it be becasue today most of photographs are seen on a screen or projected by a video projector and not as prints on a table or hanging on a wall?

I noticed this in mant photoassociations, when you have prints on a table the way people look at them is very different than when you watch at them through an electronic device.

Most of photography now is consumed via dumpsters like Instagram. Where moutons forced to square format and low resolution. Facebook image quality only recently became better.

Majority of the pictures are viewed on the mobile phones now. Instafilm reflects it. It matches phone screen size. And film itself is nothing but status of been cool. It has nothing to do with image characteristics itself. Nobody cares if film is pushed or not in real world.

Large prints with sixteen grades of shade Adams' technique became something rudimentary. They are sold like decor as part of interior design contract.
Nobody will go on photo exhibition and pay for tickets if photographer is unknown, doesn't matter how big and technically perfect prints are.
But if name and correct agenda are attached crowds will come. And none of them would care about how many shades of grade was printed, film or not.

The bitter truth came then I read how someone went to buy some photo paper and been told it is for old people.

This thread caused big storm, in the old fashion fine china tea cap. Something which is not relevant to the real world full of Starbucks caps filled with crappy liquid, but status is cool 🙂

 

[Brian Atherton]

Question: is it , or could it be becasue today most of photographs are seen on a screen or projected by a video projector and not as prints on a table or hanging on a wall?

I noticed this in many photoassociations, when you have prints on a table the way people look at them is very different than when you watch at them through an electronic device.

Quite possible, Robert, and an opinion I wouldn’t discount; it has crossed my mind.

Us oldies can remember an era of crap black and white telly screens, not the hi-def, giant flat-screens and calibrated computer monitors available today.

All of my formative experiences viewing photos came from books or exhibitions, which in many cases left a lot to be desired. The nearest I came to viewing my slides was through a battery-powered, handheld slide viewer, which had a 6 inch magnifying glass.

Really decent art books were and still are, expensive, and apart from the few library copies I was able to get in my hands early on, way out of my pocket. Now, having the financial resources, I delight in buying good photo books.

You may be entirely correct that the ubiquitous use of electronic screens has skewed the printing of images to reflect this. One only has to go into a store selling TVs to see the extreme colours and over-sharpened images calculated to temp buyers. A number of my friend’s TVs are set to the same settings; for some this is the acceptable norm.

 

[Corran]

Another observation regarding the print vs. screen discussion. I went to a showing of Weston prints at the High Museum in Atlanta a few years ago, and the lighting was so dim and terrible all the prints looked like garbage anyway.

I end up printing silver gelatin prints differently than I edit them on the computer from scans, due to the difference in look from screen to paper. Especially matte papers as I prefer.

Large TVs-as-picture-frame are already possible, but simply haven't been marketed/successful. But I'm sure it will come. The question will be what folks want to see on it? Their vacation photos? Famous paintings/photographs? Local artists? Constant stream of high-interaction Instagram posts?? I don't know. I have some other thoughts and ideas on this matter but probably not relevant here.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with art made/purchased for home decoration. Just because something hangs in a home doesn't invalidate its relevance or significance.

 

[Brian Atherton]

...Then why would you enter a contest that rewards that?"

Yeah, I wrote that essay, but still...

I forgot to mention there was a first prize of €100k. Maybe this was an incentive to the entrants? 😉

And I liked the essay... "Being special is like being cool: Trying to be it disqualifies you from being it. So forget about it. Concentrate on making photos that matter to you. Then if special happens, rock it; if it doesn’t, you’ll still have work that satisfies you."

 

[nightfly]

The people who we purchased our current apartment from had one of these, it actually looked pretty good:

https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/tvs/the-frame/highlights/

 

[charjohncarter]

We, meaning in my community, had a man the passed away about 8 years ago that was an expert in the carbon process. He did absolutely beautiful prints, it did not matter what the subject was, they were just great. Here is Sandy King's write up on the process:

https://sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/carbon-transfer-process

 

[albireo]

Such an interesting discussion. Truly it's forums like these you have to join to find reasoned, informed discussions around the most interesting aspects of film photography.

I'm someone who's probably younger that most contributors to this forum, but not as young as the new generation of photographers embracing film photography. From my perspective, I can't say I've noticed a particular focus, either in my cohort of film photographers or in the younger one, towards high contrast/grainy/pushed black and white. What I've noticed is a particular 'rebel' aesthetic, so to say, in which technical shortcomings in the manipulation of the medium are adopted as key stylistic functional elements. I've noticed many 'millennial' photographers strive to retain, for example, the following elements in their photography as creative devices:

-lens flare
-dust from flatbed scanning
-scanned sprocket holes
-gross chromatic errors due, for example to in-camera light leaks
-strong colour dominants produced by poor digital negative inversion techniques, or by overexposure of colour negative material (the dreamy 'pastel' Portra 400 effect somebody was referring to earlier).

I have to say I do not have particularly strong feelings for or against this new wave of 'low-fi/analog' driven creativity. I do find it problematic, though, when it becomes almost 'dogmatic'. I have visited forums and online resources, where many of these young photographers meet and discuss their work, in which the absence of some, or all of the above 'creative devices' in an analogue photo is almost frowned upon.

-"No dust on the photo? Normally saturated colours? No lens flare? No gross mis-exposure? Good sharpness and colour fidelity?"
-Nah, thanks, too digital!

Personally I don't know what to make of this. I enjoy the freedom of discovery and personal expression granted by film photography, which means, to me, any way is good. Some people look for extreme sharpness in their negative; others will look for perfectly exposed shadows and well developed highlights a la Ansel Adams, other will look for this low-fi ethics as above.

I recently stumbled on the following blog post, purportedly a 'review' of the old german Agfa APX 400 film by one of these 'young lions'. I was a bit taken aback by the tone

https://frozenwaste.land/35mm/blaback

Quoting from the above link:

"I developed all of this in their/all the ****ing stupid old mens’ forum’s favorite for it"

"I think if I learned anything shooting the APX it’s that some film is just straight up dog**** awful"

Wonder if we're witnessing something akin to what 'the Punk movement' came to represent in the UK at the end of the 70s for music; or if, simply, this is just another instagram-driven fad.

 

[John Bragg]

Such an interesting discussion. Truly it's forum like these you have to go to find reasoned, informed discussion around the most interesting aspects of film photography.

I'm someone who's probably younger that most contributors to this forum, but not as young as the new generation of photographers embracing film photography. From my perspective, I can't say I've noticed a particular focus in my cohort of film photographers or in the younger one, towards high contrast/grainy/pushed black and white. What I've noticed is a particular 'rebel' aesthetic, so to say, in which technical shortcomings in the manipulation of the medium are adopted as key stylistic functional elements. I've noticed many 'millennial' photographers strive to retain, for example, the following elements in their photography as creative devices:

-lens flare
-dust from flatbed scanning
-scanned sprocket holes
-gross chromatic errors due, for example to in-camera light leaks
-strong colour dominants produced by poor digital negative inversion techniques, or by overexposure of colour negative material (the dreamy 'pastel' Portra 400 effect somebody was referring to earlier).

I have to say I do not have particularly strong feelings for or against this new wave of 'low-fi/analog' driven creativity. I do find it problematic, though, when it becomes almost 'dogmatic'. I have visited forums and online resources, where many of these young photographers meet and discuss their work, in which the absence of some, or all of the above 'creative devices' in an analogue photo is almost frowned upon.

-"No dust on the photo? Normally saturated colours? No lens flare? No gross mis-exposure? Good sharpness and colour fidelity?"
-Nah, thanks, too digital!

Personally I don't know what to make of this. I enjoy the freedom of discovery and personal expression granted by film photography, which means, to me, any way is good. Some people look for extreme sharpness in their negative; others will look for perfectly exposed shadows and well developed highlights a la Ansel Adams, other will look for this low-fi ethics as above.

I recently stumbled on the following blog post, purportedly a 'review' of the old german Agfa APX 400 film by one of these 'young lions'. I was a bit taken aback by the tone

https://frozenwaste.land/35mm/blaback

Quoting from the above link:

"I developed all of this in their/all the ****ing stupid old mens’ forum’s favorite for it"

"I think if I learned anything shooting the APX it’s that some film is just straight up dog**** awful"

Wonder if we're witnessing something akin to what 'the Punk movement' came to represent in the UK at the end of the 70s for music; or if, simply, this is just another instagram-driven fad.

As the OP on this thread, that is one of the best replies. I guess it should be taken as a kind of flattery if the new wave want to embrace film "warts and all", but not if it is a thinly veiled excuse for lazyness. The truth is that film is a mature technology, but you can't blame people for trying to reinvent it.

 

[jsrockit]

I've noticed many 'millennial' photographers strive to retain, for example, the following elements in their photography as creative devices:

-lens flare
-dust from flatbed scanning
-scanned sprocket holes
-gross chromatic errors due, for example to in-camera light leaks
-strong colour dominants produced by poor digital negative inversion techniques, or by overexposure of colour negative material (the dreamy 'pastel' Portra 400 effect somebody was referring to earlier).

I have to say I do not have particularly strong feelings for or against this new wave of 'low-fi/analog' driven creativity. I do find it problematic, though, when it becomes almost 'dogmatic'. I have visited forums and online resources, where many of these young photographers meet and discuss their work, in which the absence of some, or all of the above 'creative devices' in an analogue photo is almost frowned upon.

-"No dust on the photo? Normally saturated colours? No lens flare? No gross mis-exposure? Good sharpness and colour fidelity?"
-Nah, thanks, too digital!...

...Wonder if we're witnessing something akin to what 'the Punk movement' came to represent in the UK at the end of the 70s for music; or if, simply, this is just another instagram-driven fad.

Yes, it is reactionary for sure... but not punk. Too trendy for that. I would imagine it is a bit of columbusing as well. It is normal young person behavior. I`m 46 and I did it when I was young... and it happens in every creative outlet. It is a focus on material properties of the medium instead of substance. These things can be exciting at first. I remember using my Holga and toy cameras in the 90s. I thought it was unique...until I found out people used them many years before too. It is a normal part of the learning process in my opinion. I know I certainly didn`t like the same photography when I was 20 as I do now. It is nothing new. In the end, it is all just experimenting and learning. I think what really hurts the old guys is that these young guys won`t listen to their knowledge. haha. That`s been going on forever too...and will continue to.

 

[Prest_400]

I do find it problematic, though, when it becomes almost 'dogmatic'. I have visited forums and online resources, where many of these young photographers meet and discuss their work, in which the absence of some, or all of the above 'creative devices' in an analogue photo is almost frowned upon.

-"No dust on the photo? Normally saturated colours? No lens flare? No gross mis-exposure? Good sharpness and colour fidelity?"
-Nah, thanks, too digital!

I recently stumbled on the following blog post, purportedly a 'review' of the old german Agfa APX 400 film by one of these 'young lions'. I was a bit taken aback by the tone

https://frozenwaste.land/35mm/blaback

Quoting from the above link:

"I developed all of this in their/all the ****ing stupid old mens’ forum’s favorite for it"

"I think if I learned anything shooting the APX it’s that some film is just straight up dog**** awful"

Wonder if we're witnessing something akin to what 'the Punk movement' came to represent in the UK at the end of the 70s for music; or if, simply, this is just another instagram-driven fad.

I think there's a lot of instagram behind it, attention and validation. I skimmed through the text and there's a disclaimer at the end: "really the words (and gear talk) is just here to push my seo ranking, so thanks, and sorry for any bloviation"

The "too digital" quote actually made me chuckle, longstanding film forum members say the exact same about T-grained B&W films 😀

As the OP on this thread, that is one of the best replies. I guess it should be taken as a kind of flattery if the new wave want to embrace film "warts and all", but not if it is a thinly veiled excuse for lazyness. The truth is that film is a mature technology, but you can't blame people for trying to reinvent it.

Of course in other disciplines, there are other dogmas. Equipment or aesthetical.

For some reason, and having began shooting film during the digital revolution when boomers said it was "passé, obsolete" etc. I have a particular public stance in shooting film and occasionally just find baffling that this perception has reversed and it's "cool".
There are really so many subcollectives and factions. I replied today over at APUG on a thread about camera availability and how the hype and attention is on the kids with Leicas, Mamiyas and such high valued cameras. Of course a lot of us, and many talented photographers of all demographics are photographing great work with modest gear.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

There are really so many subcollectives and factions. I replied today over at APUG on a thread about camera availability and how the hype and attention is on the kids with Leicas, Mamiyas and such high valued cameras. Of course a lot of us, and many talented photographers of all demographics are photographing great work with modest gear.

That or some plastic fantastic p&s with 20 year expired Kodak Gold 5 frames from which you can learn precisely nothing about the camera.

I've spent the last 3 months testing cameras for a local dealer and with my own stupid collection of things I've always wanted and can now afford, come to the inexorable conclusion that within a band of excellent performance you can find incredibly inexpensive kit that gets you at least 95% of the way there. The rest is either technical (possession of a spot meter vital for me) or ergonomic (I like heftier bodies for holding) or lens sharpness.