Modern Black and White Aesthetic

[Larry Cloetta]

............. I`m 46 and I did it when I was young... ..........
I know I certainly didn`t like the same photography when I was 20 as I do now. It is nothing new.

Cracking me up, John. It’s likely not obvious to you yet, but you are still very young, in every way. Mid-40’s isn’t a plateau, it’s about half way up the mountain. When you get to be my age, God willing, you will look back on the 46 year old you from the same intellectual distance you can now look back on the mid-twenties version of yourself. Or 24 looks back at 12. Better every day, in every way, as they say.
Enjoy the ride.

 

[jsrockit]

Cracking me up, John. It’s likely not obvious to you yet, but you are still very young, in every way. Mid-40’s isn’t a plateau, it’s about half way up the mountain. When you get to be my age, God willing, you will look back on the 46 year old you from the same intellectual distance you can now look back on the mid-twenties version of yourself. Or 24 looks back at 12. Better every day, in every way, as they say.
Enjoy the ride.

I agree completely... I would say the only difference between being 20 and being 46 is that I have experienced enough to know that people older than me REALLY have been there and done that and may have something to offer. Of course, I can only speak from my 46 year old perspective right now. Unfortunate as well is the fact that the only people who consider me young are the previous generations. Everywhere else, I am old.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

........ Unfortunate as well is the fact that the only people who consider me young are the previous generations. Everywhere else, I am old.

LOL, yeah, there’s that. Think how I feel.🙂

 

[roscoetuff]

Shared anti-thetical thought

Shared anti-thetical thought

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.

Sooooooooo tired of that. Add to this: Caffenol (which is a fine developer) left scratched, dusty, and just plain horrible but posted as if "it's Caffenol and it's fun and mistakes aren't my fault"

Yeah... and looking at this stuff is my fault. My eyeballs can't dodge out fast enough.

 

[robert blu]

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 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.

Interesting post, thanks for it.

When I was 20 my father was 55 and as passionate amateur photographer taught me to print in the darkroom. More exactly he taught me how to print with a good scale of tones...from ligh light grey through middle grey toward dark greys. You understand it.

This happened in the late 60's beginnning '70s, the years of the controculture and young, political and somehow rebel movements and one of my first reaction was to do exactly the opposite of what he taught me.

Pushing films even when not necessary, printing on high contrast papers etc. It was part of my rebellion in the usual young/old contrapposition.

By the way only years later, maybe decades later I learned in the same time a movement called Provoke was active in the japanese photography, with similar motivation.

Of course later I matured both as young man and as photographer and came to more "normal" photography.

I tell you this because I can understand this reaction from people, mainly young ones who just discovered film photography. It is a phase, it is part of the luggage which contributes to the growth of a photographer.

What I do not like is when it becomes a dogma: it must be like this, high contrast, gritty look, grain, scuff on the negatives ...you know what I mean and mainly this is due to the social media attitude, FB, IG etc.

It is an easy way to get attention, to feel different without realizing they are all doing the same things LOL. Photography is not about dogmas.

It must be a choice by the photographer depending on what the photographer wants to communicate, sometimes high contrast grainy photos communicates better than a tone on tone photo, sometimes it is the opposite. It depends...

Among the photographers whose B&W I like very much, one is Vanessa Winship with her portrait and documentary work, the other is Michael Ackerman, his style, his aesthetics is absolutely different but very strong in terms of communication.

Both are acclaimed photographers, we can like one or the other depending on our preferences but I think we cannot say one style is correct and the other is wrong !

Just my opinion...

 

[Ste_S]

I think my Instagram must be different to other peoples right now. Rather than high contrast B&W (or any B&W come to that), or any intentional lomo style effects it's wall to wall Portra (or Colorplus for those on a budget) for today's young film shooters.

If Kodachrome defined one generations film photography, Portra does for this generation.

 

[Ronald M]

10/20 years ago I saw an A. Adams in Chicago. They had been rematted but I could see the the original print was dry mounted to now yellowed board.

I expected something quite extra ordinary after all I read all his books and others about how prints were supposed to “sing”. These did not. They were flat and dull although most contained whites and blacks. Composition was quite wonderful.

The problem is I think the papers were not as good as we have today. I used DuPont Varilour in early 60`s, then Kodak varicontrast and now Ilford multigrade which is better than all.

 

[JeffS7444]

10/20 years ago I saw an A. Adams in Chicago. They had been rematted but I could see the the original print was dry mounted to now yellowed board.

I expected something quite extra ordinary after all I read all his books and others about how prints were supposed to “sing”. These did not. They were flat and dull although most contained whites and blacks. Composition was quite wonderful.

The problem is I think the papers were not as good as we have today. I used DuPont Varilour in early 60`s, then Kodak varicontrast and now Ilford multigrade which is better than all.

Try illuminating the crap out of it: That's what they do at the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite Nat'l Park.

 

[Prest_400]

It is an easy way to get attention, to feel different without realizing they are all doing the same things LOL. Photography is not about dogmas.

Just my opinion...

Totally agree with that note Robert. There are even academic studies in how people that begin a subculture to differentiate end up diluted and homogenized.

I think my Instagram must be different to other peoples right now. Rather than high contrast B&W (or any B&W come to that), or any intentional lomo style effects it's wall to wall Portra (or Colorplus for those on a budget) for today's young film shooters.

If Kodachrome defined one generations film photography, Portra does for this generation.

BTW that remarks the importance of the algorithm. I used to have a lot of surf and wedding film photography but recently I've stopped checking IG much and get shown more random crappier content.

I'd agree with Portra defining part of a generation. I am grateful to have tried Kodachrome back in 2009-10 and that probably helped me understand and enjoy different palettes.

Eager for June to come and have time for darkroom. Eager to make some beautiful FB prints. Another note is that social media film photography is largely based on scans and not prints, and my experience with modest flatbed scanners is that the tonality from a scan of a B&W neg is not as good as a decent print. (IMO and not going crazy over scan and post)

 

[Corran]

stupid old mens’ forum’s

As someone who's browsed photography forums for about 10 years, starting in my 20s, there is absolutely a dogmatic group of film photographers, often 50+, that believe there is a specific way of shooting that is "correct" and everything else is wrong. Often they bemoan the loss of their favorite film of choice and express discontent at the idea that newer films might be just as good if not better. They lambaste those experimenting with oddball techniques like cross-processing. And yes, God-forbid you ever deviate from the manufacturer's instructions. It's called gate-keeping and it's absolutely a thing, and can be seen here all the time if you pay attention. And one final note - it can and does happen on the flip-side, as you've noted, with the dreaded "too-digital" criticism and similar statements (which funnily enough also gets bandied about from the Traditionalists regarding newer films).

I think the premise of this thread is flawed. "Black and white" itself is not an aesthetic, it is a class of film or setting on a digital camera. What one does with it is a personal aesthetic, and we can choose how we engage with the world through our photography using that aesthetic.

 

[chipgreenberg]

Corran you post has some validity. But you know, most of the photographers I’ve known were pretty dogmatic. It was because they needed to reliably produce quality images day in and day out. They figured out what worked for them and stuck with that process within certain boundaries. Most “tested” and experimented to expand those boundaries. But that was based on their existing foundation usually.

 

[charjohncarter]

Corran you post has some validity. But you know, most of the photographers I’ve known were pretty dogmatic. It was because they needed to reliably produce quality images day in and day out. They figured out what worked for them and stuck with that process within certain boundaries. Most “tested” and experimented to expand those boundaries. But that was based on their existing foundation usually.

You are right, that is one reason I don't change anything as I have what I want. No matter what idiot says I'm wrong. Good Post!!!

 

[Corran]

Commercial photography certainly implies a specific style, one in which the client probably expects you to follow or emulate after seeing your previous work. And I understand this is why some want to express their way as being "the" way to shoot film, after a career of following this baseline to get consistent images.

But in 2020, what percentage of film is being shot in a commercial setting? 5%? The handful of photographers using film for weddings/family portraits (which mostly all looks identical due to the commonality of shooting color negative films at +1 or 2) and that's about it. Those pursuing "art," whatever you define that as, or just shooting as a hobby, can choose to do what they want aesthetically with no consequence other than some wasted film/time if it doesn't work out.

 

[Peter Jennings]

I’m almost 50 and grew up using film, but very infrequently and never seriously. When digital came along I was very happy, but I never got serious with it, either. It wasn’t until about 7 years ago, when my son was little and I desperately wanted good photos of him, that I began to take my time and try to truly learn how to make a good photo on film. At first, I used my trusty old Nikon F and some Tri-X. I couldn’t muster a consistent exposure to save my life, but I did learn a few things. I was able to manipulate the scans of some of those supposedly underexposed shots to make what I felt were beautiful photos. I guess they fall into the high-contrast and low tonal gradation category. Actually, I was lucky with these shots because this was the perfect effect for the scenes and subject I was shooting. Shadow detail would have rendered them quite boring.

As I gained more experience, I slowly learned how to get consistent exposures in most situations. Nowadays, shooting HP5, I normally overexpose slightly so that my negs have plenty of shadow detail because I know that I can add contrast after scanning if I think the image needs it. But, having learned from those early experiences, I also know how to achieve the high-contrast effect when I think the scene needs it.

 

[John Bragg]

I’m almost 50 and grew up using film, but very infrequently and never seriously. When digital came along I was very happy, but I never got serious with it, either. It wasn’t until about 7 years ago, when my son was little and I desperately wanted good photos of him, that I began to take my time and try to truly learn how to make a good photo on film. At first, I used my trusty old Nikon F and some Tri-X. I couldn’t muster a consistent exposure to save my life, but I did learn a few things. I was able to manipulate the scans of some of those supposedly underexposed shots to make what I felt were beautiful photos. I guess they fall into the high-contrast and low tonal gradation category. Actually, I was lucky with these shots because this was the perfect effect for the scenes and subject I was shooting. Shadow detail would have rendered them quite boring.

As I gained more experience, I slowly learned how to get consistent exposures in most situations. Nowadays, shooting HP5, I normally overexpose slightly so that my negs have plenty of shadow detail because I know that I can add contrast after scanning if I think the image needs it. But, having learned from those early experiences, I also know how to achieve the high-contrast effect when I think the scene needs it.

Perfect solution. Get as much information on the negative as you want or need and tweek in post.

 

[Ste_S]

As someone who's browsed photography forums for about 10 years, starting in my 20s, there is absolutely a dogmatic group of film photographers, often 50+, that believe there is a specific way of shooting that is "correct" and everything else is wrong. Often they bemoan the loss of their favorite film of choice and express discontent at the idea that newer films might be just as good if not better. They lambaste those experimenting with oddball techniques like cross-processing. And yes, God-forbid you ever deviate from the manufacturer's instructions. It's called gate-keeping and it's absolutely a thing, and can be seen here all the time if you pay attention. And one final note - it can and does happen on the flip-side, as you've noted, with the dreaded "too-digital" criticism and similar statements (which funnily enough also gets bandied about from the Traditionalists regarding newer films).

I think the premise of this thread is flawed. "Black and white" itself is not an aesthetic, it is a class of film or setting on a digital camera. What one does with it is a personal aesthetic, and we can choose how we engage with the world through our photography using that aesthetic.

Very much agree, and it's rife in Photrio. Shame it's creeping into this forum with this thread.

 

[LCSmith]

I think the premise of this thread is flawed. "Black and white" itself is not an aesthetic, it is a class of film or setting on a digital camera. What one does with it is a personal aesthetic, and we can choose how we engage with the world through our photography using that aesthetic.

This is a thoughtful sentiment and I like where you are going. There is some logic in reducing "black and white" to the medium (film) or a "camera setting" as you put it. This reduction however does not ipso facto entail a devaluation of aesthetic. Let's not forget what aesthetic actually means -- a value of perception (from anc. grk. aesthanomai, to perceive; cf. "anesthesia" which is the loss of perception, like an anesthesiologist!).

A number of photographers will say they "see" i.e. perceive in black and white. Not just old fuddy duddy luddites, but "cool" photographers like Bruce Gilden (even though his work is color now). This value of perception, I argue, is at the very core of what qualifies as an aesthetic.

 

[LCSmith]

If Kodachrome defined one generations film photography, Portra does for this generation.

We must travel in different circles!

 

[Corran]

This reduction however does not ipso facto entail a devaluation of aesthetic.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not devaluing the idea of an aesthetic, but separating it from the medium itself.

An aesthetic is a personal choice, a style developed from practice, observation, and choice. I would agree that certain styles might be popularized, especially in today's world of social media "influencers" and the tendency to emulate those kinds of images. And perhaps many photographers never develop past their first ideas.

 

[LCSmith]

I think you misunderstand me. I am not devaluing the idea of an aesthetic, but separating it from the medium itself.

An aesthetic is a personal choice, a style developed from practice, observation, and choice. I would agree that certain styles might be popularized, especially in today's world of social media "influencers" and the tendency to emulate those kinds of images. And perhaps many photographers never develop past their first ideas.

Thank you for a civil and cogent explanation of your meaning.

It is interesting that you mention "social media influencers". I do not doubt this is a "thing" and that it is important; but doesn't it seem like serious photography is becoming post-social? Much like serious photographers in the post-magazine era eschewed commercialism for pure amateurism.