Modern Black and White Aesthetic

[John Bragg]

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 unnescessary, 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.

 

[gavinlg]

I think you'll find the popularity of the pushed bw look is more a result of photographers who usually use digital and are used to very very flat digital files.

I like a fairly contrasty print, but I'm not interested in full on Daido Moriyama style look. In saying that, Moriyamas work is highly accomplished so I'm not exactly in the position to criticise his aesthetic either.

Do you have some examples of something you feel is correctly exposed/printed/scanned?

 

[Michael Markey]

Probably lots of reasons for that John but probably the most prominent one I guess would be fashion .
Punchy contrast images which have instant impact .
I see this time and time again at my local photography society .
Judges are always telling people that shots need impact …. the wow factor .
Few take time to study a print and appreciate the tonality .
It`s all fast food , if it doesn`t grab you immediately its gone .
Every things fast on the eye it seems.

 

[John Bragg]

I think you'll find the popularity of the pushed bw look is more a result of photographers who usually use digital and are used to very very flat digital files.

I like a fairly contrasty print, but I'm not interested in full on Daido Moriyama style look. In saying that, Moriyamas work is highly accomplished so I'm not exactly in the position to criticise his aesthetic either.

Do you have some examples of something you feel is correctly exposed/printed/scanned?

I have deliberately avoided skewing the conversation by including my photos. I know what pleases me and how to achieve that, but I am more curious about how other folk feel and if this thing is a real change and not just my perception.

 

[John Bragg]

Probably lots of reasons for that John but probably the most prominent one I guess would be fashion .
Punchy contrast images which have instant impact .
I see this time and time again at my local photography society .
Judges are always telling people that shots need impact …. the wow factor .
Few take time to study a print and appreciate the tonality .
It`s all fast food , if it doesn`t grab you immediately its gone .
Every things fast on the eye it seems.

Thanks Michael. I like the work of James Ravillious amongst others. I wonder how they would judge his prints ?

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I certainly see a lot of badly underexposed images around! I saw a review of one of the Lomography films I shoot in its original Orwo form and the reviewer said it was very contrasty. What I actually saw was shadow detail lost in badly underexposed image, but the highlights were fine.

I push for specific reasons, but it's very rare nowadays. Low to medium contrast is what I'm after in a flat negative, the real blacks can be added in printing or in post processing. I have hardly started to understand scanning after nigh on 3 years, so I understand why a generation of hybrid shooters might be equally at sea. Printing my own, albeit for a horribly brief month before the darkroom was locked down, taught me so much about original negative quality that I decided to flog my Zeiss ZM lenses - not because they were poor, great things, but just too contrasty from the beginning.

If there is one contemporary film aesthetic that does trigger me horribly is the dust and negative scratches happily displayed - "it's analog innit"!.

 

[teddy]

As far as I'm concerned, I do not admire digital capture, but I do admit it's convenience. I do like the Fuji digital look. In terms of its influence on film shooters - some who scan at home while others pay a pro lab, I find that those who scan at home will require years of skill and "eye" experience in getting a contrasty photo at home. The rest, will stick to the Frontier look, or the Noritsu look because these scanners are superb and bring out contrast (specially Frontier SP3000) that is just beautiful in the highlights. Many though will get used to the low res base scan of these and perhaps won't get any better or wouldn't care about how to improve their film photograph quality or just won't know because it requires real art in the eye of seeing colour nuances - experience.

On the other extreme, there's a whole bunch of people who like the "process" look - and most of these photograhs I do not like. What about the Portra over "exposed" "washed out" and "clean" look? Nice - but may get tiring. My point is that like you say, unless one knows how to make a good scan, play classical, baroque or studied the "classics" - knows how to cook a tried and true Italian, French or Thai dish, then you won't have the foundations to know what a good scan looks like.

When it comes to black and white - I prefer lower contrast lenses. They allow me to retrieve higher shadow detail, higher highlight detail when I process in Lightroom. But I make sure that the contrast is realistic. Sometimes, I get it wrong but then I go back to adjust. Sometimes I may adjust an image 6 months later when my eyes are "fresh".

However, I do not like "punchy contrast" - it's tiring to my eyes. Like Hi-Fi - too clinical or bright tweeters are tiring.

.. ... ... Man, that was a rant!!! ;D

 

[John Bragg]

I
If there is one contemporary film aesthetic that does trigger me horribly is the dust and negative scratches happily displayed - "it's analog innit"!.

I agree with that one. It isn't hard to avoid most nasties on negatives and digital spotting is so easy in a hybrid workflow.

 

[Michael Markey]

Thanks Michael. I like the work of James Ravillious amongst others. I wonder how they would judge his prints ?

So do I John …. I sometimes post stuff like that on their FB page but it doesn`t get much attention.
We have some members who were serious darkroom workers and have written articles on printing ect in the national photographic magazines back in the day yet everybody now follows the modern trend .
Tastes have become jaded

 

[Ste_S]

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 unnescessary, 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.

Needs context for style, subject matter and season.

I suspect the majority of 'soot and whitewash' photos you're complaining about are street style images. To get the f8/f11 and 1/250s+ shutter speed you're going to have to push, mostly when overcast or during the winter.
During winter the only colour film I shoot is Lomo 800 and push B&W to 1600 or shoot Delta/TMax 3200.
The high contrast look also helps with what would otherwise be flat images due to overcast skies.

Rather than complain about this kind of image, they should be applauded if you support film. It's far,far easier to do that style of photography on digital.

 

[John Bragg]

So do I John …. I sometimes post stuff like that on their FB page but it doesn`t get much attention.
We have some members who were serious darkroom workers and have written articles on printing ect in the national photographic magazines back in the day yet everybody now follows the modern trend .
Tastes have become jaded

I have just been looking at some work by Mary Ellen Mark. I also revisited some Bob Carlos Clarke this week. I love his portraits of Marco Pierre White.

 

[John Bragg]

Needs context for style, subject matter and season.

I suspect the majority of 'soot and whitewash' photos you're complaining about are street style images. To get the f8/f11 and 1/250s+ shutter speed you're going to have to push, mostly when overcast or during the winter.
During winter the only colour film I shoot is Lomo 800 and push B&W to 1600 or shoot Delta/TMax 3200.
The high contrast look also helps with what would otherwise be flat images due to overcast skies.

Rather than complain about this kind of image, they should be applauded if you support film. It's far,far easier to do that style of photography on digital.

You misinterpret my motive. I am observing, not complaining. Healthy discussion is good and your point of view is different from mine. I shoot street with ei200. Zone focussing helps and a steady hand. 1/15 second with a 28mm lens. Have you tried using slow films ? Have you seen the quality that can be had ?

Some nice pics on your instagram btw

 

[Ste_S]

You misinterpret my motive. I am observing, not complaining. Healthy discussion is good and your point of view is different from mine. I shoot street with ei200. Zone focussing helps and a steady hand. 1/15 second with a 28mm lens. Have you tried using slow films ? Have you seen the quality that can be had ?

Some nice pics on your instagram btw

Thanks! 🙂

Slow shutter speeds (and film) are fine if you're shooting static objects, not so good for freezing motion. If someone is walking through your frame at 1/15s they're going to be blurry.

 

[John Bragg]

Thanks! 🙂

Slow shutter speeds (and film) are fine if you're shooting static objects, not so good for freezing motion. If someone is walking through your frame at 1/15s they're going to be blurry.

Very true, but that is an extreme example. Usually in winter light 1/125th or 1/60th is easily attainable. It helps using a prime wide and not a zoom. Also many modern auto focus lenses don't have a depth of field scale. With a manual lens set to the hyperfocal distance it becomes a point and shoot.

 

[lynnb]

I think people who grew up in a digital world don't have much experience of seeing traditional wide tonal range prints. Digital post processing software makes it easy to push the sliders to the stops to get "drama". At the other end of the scale is the HDR fad which produced photos that ignored the natural tonal relationships between light and shade in the real world, and looked fake as a result.

I like APX100 in Rodinal...

 

[Prest_400]

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.

That is something that I strive, to help others onboard film.

I participate in a photo club that has a fully equipped darkroom. I can't say I'm a master but I try to pass on the basics plus I've gathered lots of nerdy film details.
Ron Mowrey (Photo Engineer at APUG) who sadly passed months ago was a Kodak engineer and in many discussions, the technical complexity of film and loss of knowledge was a pressing issue.

I don't have the best close up view but the younger ones (I'm 25) picking up film in our photo club tend to stay away from the darkroom and just scan.
Why am I commited? I took 10 years to finally get access to a darkroom and do the whole process.

Thanks! 🙂

Slow shutter speeds (and film) are fine if you're shooting static objects, not so good for freezing motion. If someone is walking through your frame at 1/15s they're going to be blurry.

Well, not bad if it's the street and not the people as main subjects 😛

As far as I'm concerned, I do not admire digital capture, but I do admit it's convenience. I do like the Fuji digital look. In terms of its influence on film shooters - some who scan at home while others pay a pro lab, I find that those who scan at home will require years of skill and "eye" experience in getting a contrasty photo at home. The rest, will stick to the Frontier look, or the Noritsu look because these scanners are superb and bring out contrast (specially Frontier SP3000) that is just beautiful in the highlights. Many though will get used to the low res base scan of these and perhaps won't get any better or wouldn't care about how to improve their film photograph quality or just won't know because it requires real art in the eye of seeing colour nuances - experience.

On the other extreme, there's a whole bunch of people who like the "process" look - and most of these photograhs I do not like. What about the Portra over "exposed" "washed out" and "clean" look? Nice - but may get tiring.

I do like the overexposed Portra look and was surprised to see a roll of pastel 400H I shot last year during a town celebration. Looks like romantic wedding palette on the streets 😀 (OT as we discuss B&W). I rarely have high key B&W shots however.
I did once sit on a Frontier scanner station during a photo event where a quite popular lab brought one for photographers to test. The machine did great straight scans from a properly developed P400 neg. But there's of course some lightroom PP.
My color film (E6 and C41) is frozen as I find it a bit dead-ended to just have it scanned. I was lucky to discover a good lab in UK that does full res and even TIFF scans for a normal price (single digit amount!) but a few rolls get pricy enough compared to B&W material.

I have an Epson flatbed (4990 or the older one) that is OK but its scans don't compare to the tonality that one gets from a simple darkroom print. And much more boring to use

Back to the topic my main film in 120 is HP5 and my current routine is rather longer scale low contrast. I am "smart" too that I'm shooting this film in lower contrast light so there's a lot of grade 5 in split printing to give back some life to it.

I honestly don't shoot a lot and am able to print most of my frames, specially in medium format, so I don't experiment that much. Slower speed wise I've shot Delta 100 which is contrastier (box speed in HC110 may be it) and I like it for some usage although the flexibility of HP5 is very welcome in handheld medium format. 6x9 is a great platform and this film has enough grain and texture in it for my usual 24x30 print size.

 

[helen.HH]

I love a Photo that moves me, pulls me in
Gets me thinking, stirs my emotions

Does not matter whether it’s ‘punchy’ , a full tonal spectrum of greys, or lots of rich inky blacks
😉

 

[Dralowid]

So, an old Summar, FP3, grade 2 paper, Johnson darkroom chemicals past their sell by date and you get the results I have en masse in boxes from the '60s and '70s.

Put the same neg in the scanner and the result is far, far from the original print with which I was quite happy at the time.

 

[John Bragg]

So, an old Summar, FP3, grade 2 paper, Johnson darkroom chemicals past their sell by date and you get the results I have en masse in boxes from the '60s and '70s.

Put the same neg in the scanner and the result is far, far from the original print with which I was quite happy at the time.

So many variables in scanning. My darkroom is in mothballs so I have adapted. Hybrid workflow for me, but I try to make the best nagative I can, just like I would for enlarging and wet printing. The neg still needs to be made to contain maximum information.

 

[helen.HH]

I do understand when One wants a body of work to look, read the same.., tonal range, depth, shadow detail etc

But I just can’t get into too much formulation for my shooting/ developing ...

Blasphemy for what I am about to say... Let the trolls begin their ascent
Ansel Adams does absolutely Nothing for me
His developing, long range of greys and final product bore me
( though his sense of composition can make me curious)
Some people find his work Extraordinary and that’s ok , it’s a big World with lots of Eye Candy