My "skills" - contrast needed?

F

Florian1234

it's just hide and seek
Local time
10:05 AM
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
1,117
Hello all,

some friends of mine recently told me that my black and white photos would need more contrast. They would look "dull" and "boring".

Would you say that, too? Please have a look on my flickr page or my RFF gallery.
Please note that I just scanned the prints and did not do adjustments in PS or so.

How could I improve my skills to get more contrast? Is it possible to get more contrast from the beginning (that is taking the photo) and before the development/printing process? If so - how?

Thanks in advance.
 
I think they look fine as they are. I'm taking a guess here, but do these friends not do any photograpy of their own?
I ask because I find photographers often have very different criteria for what makes a 'good' image.
 
I'd suggest more exposure for the films, the images seem to be from thin or flat negatives to start. The easy test is to shoot a flat wall at metered value, your proofsheet printed dark enough to barely see sprocket holes should render an 18% grey for that frame.

Then, the usual rule for printing is to expose for the highlights, and adjust contrast for the shadows- one good trick if you seem to need just a touch more contrast is to develop the print for 35-50% longer.
 
Well, half of those friends are not into photohraphy. The other one uses SLR cameras (she's so into basic discussions like "mine is better than yours" and "you and your Leica - oh boy"). Mostly digital, so the worst counterpart:D.

Main point of the first half was that the motives would be boring ( this I want to change in the future by doing some "street" shots if possible. I'm still kind of shy when it comes to this style).
The other's point was lack of contrast as it comes out of the camera.

So, if I want more contrast - can I adjust it in the shooting or do I have to adjust it when it comes to printing? That's what I want to know.
Or simply put more light on the film, that is a longer shutter speed ?
 
More light on the film would be a good starting point I think. (without looking at negatives it's hard to say for sure, but that's still my guess)

The sprocket hole test works with regular images as well- the images should look nice and bright when the sprocket holes are barely visible.
 
What I did before to expose the XP2 400 super film was to meter the light at my hand (outside of course) and then use one shutter speed longer than the meter tells me, since I understood it that way. The light meter tells me my hand would be a grey-card, but skin colour of the normal European is one exposure value above the grey card's 18%. So one has to put one stop more light on it either by open up the apperture or to use a one stop longer speed.

Is that right? Or did I miss something?
 
Florian1234 said:
What I did before to expose the XP2 400 super film was to meter the light at my hand (outside of course) and then use one shutter speed longer than the meter tells me, since I understood it that way. The light meter tells me my hand would be a grey-card, but skin colour of the normal European is one exposure value above the grey card's 18%. So one has to put one stop more light on it either by open up the apperture or to use a one stop longer speed.

Is that right? Or did I miss something?
Click to expand...

that puts a Caucasian in Zone 6 which takes care of the mid tones and is in my opinion a good compromise.
 
You mention use of XP2 and I would wonder if shooting/rating it at 200 would give you more contrast?

Bob
 
You might want to try real B+W film instead of the C41 process stuff.
You say that you scan the prints? Some automatic machine makes those prints? You may want to learn to print negs yourself to gain control of the final product.
Or you can try scanning the negs instead of the prints, and adjust the contrast as you like with photoshop software.
These are technical issues. The content (motiffs) of the photos is the artisic side of the coin. Since you asked, IMO, some of your photos are weak in this area. Edit your work. One of the differences between a good and an average photographer, is that you never see the weak shots of the good photographer. Not becasue he never takes boring pictures, but because he edits them and does not show them.

Good luck! It seems like you are young and have a lot of time ahead of you to enjoy photography.
 
I think your contrast is fine, it's the density that could stand to be 'kicked up a notch'. As several have said, a little more exposure would probably do it. I would just try reducing your ISO 1/2 to one full stop and see how they look.
Otherwise, your photos are fine!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom