1 reply to this topic

[BishopB]

Hi all...just wanted to echo other comments elsewhere on this forum that I have really enjoyed your book, Amadou! Still working through it but after reading through sections and giving the whole issue of conversion some thought I realize I am a bit handicapped by the fact that I have never shot B&W film and never processed such film in a traditional darkroom. While this doesn't make me unusual in today's digital age, it does limit my understanding of what makes for a nice B&W print. It seems that fine prints can run the gammut of a more high key approach such as that by Michael Kenna and those found in B&W magazine which really push the blues to the dark side (hoefully this is an acurate description). As such, i was wondering if you or others could comment on this and how to best approach processing in light of the various options??

Additionally, I would appreciate your comments on the attached image from both a conversion process and critique if you feel so inclined. I have spent much time on this image but remain uncertain as to whether or not the B&W conversion is really bringing out all that the image might become. Thanks in advance and best regards!

Edited by BishopB, 28 August 2007 - 10:13 PM.

[adiallo]

For me at least, one of the great pleasures of working B/W is the freedom to interpret a scene in the way that is most meaningful; to you and hopefully your audience. But "what makes a nice B/W print" can vary greatly from one image to the next. Of course, looking at as many examples of b/w photography as you can, whether it's coffee table books or visiting galleries is the best thing you can do for yourself. Some images work best with a small but very subtle range of tones where delicate transitions among highlights are the focus. Others demand the fullest possible tonal range from paper white to ink black. The key is really to find the right balance between contrast and a smooth continuous tonality. An image that is unintentionally low contrast can feel dull and lifeless. An image with lots of blocked shadows and blown out highlights can feel one dimensional.
One thing I would strongly urge is to consider how the image will render on paper. No paper white will match the brightness of your monitor. No ink will absord as much light as your monitor black. So, one thing to keep in mind if you are not softproofing in Photoshop, is that a pleasing contrast onscreen may feel a bit flat in the actual print. As a general rule (made to be broken), within the range of paper white and ink black, you want to have a full range of grays present in the image. A b/w photographer/printer with years of experience has the benefit of knowing what they like best. There is nothing wrong with experimenting. That's one thing that digital has definitely made more convenient. Take a single image and produce three distinctly different interpretations. Do this enough and you start to get a feel for what grabs you. You may find that certain elements from each interpretation appeal to you, and that a final image containing all of these attributes works best. That's the beauty of localized or selective edits. Don't worry if there's no mystical voice in your head telling you what a b/w print should look like. Experiment with different "looks" and eventually you'll start to hone your style.
Judging from the shot you provided, I would try to push the light tones in the water closer to paper white. Not blown out, but laying down just enough ink to "tint" the paper. Large areas of 50-65% gray can also be troublesome, as they fell a bit dull. So maybe place those tones a bit darker, creating more contrast with the highlights.