Black

[kaskais]

Um mundo lavado pelo Sol, não sofre de enigmas. Tudo nos parece transparente e lúcido, inclusive a ideia de Deus o Qual, assumindo formas diversas, pode aparecer ao entardecer para dois dedos de conversa. Por sua vez, o “Outro Lado” é a dominação que a tradição judaica dá ao que é demoníaco. Quando entras na sombra nunca sabes como vais sair. Esta imagem perdeu-se nas sombras, expurgou-se da relação anacrónica com a arte ou a beleza.

https://kaskaisphotos.wordpress.com/2019/02/16/black/

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[DanK]

interesting composition, but it looks oversharpened. You have halos around the people--particularly the one on the viewer's right.

[Manfred M]

Fernando posts image here and my understanding is that his English skills are not great, so the feedback is not going anywhere.

His image making is provocative and at times interesting. He pays little to no attention to the technical aspects of photography and the way that he arranges the elements are often suspect. His work is often imaginative and has impact on the viewer. If he improved the technical and organizational side of his images, he could turn out some very effective work. As things stand he does the hard parts of photography well, but scrimps on the basics.

As an example, when I bring his image into ACR, most of the image has no shadow detail. This is one of the basics of photography.

[mugge]

I agree with Manfred except that sometimes (and Fernando does it so well), we need black and I mean total black for impact and hang the basics. I guess you need to harness it a bit. Sometimes total black can be effective.

Cheers Ole

[Manfred M]

I agree with Manfred except that sometimes (and Fernando does it so well), we need black and I mean total black for impact and hang the basics. I guess you need to harness it a bit. Sometimes total black can be effective.

Cheers Ole

I think Ansel Adams (and many others) would disagree with you. Small amounts of total black are fine, but areas that are very, very close to black (Zone 1 (slight tonality but no texture) and even Zone 2 (slight textured black) in Adam's Zone System) are far more acceptable. This much total black just shows a lack of control on the photographer's part. When you look at Zone 1, it looks black but just a hint of interest.

At the other end of the spectrum, you want very little pure white (Zone X) in an image other than specular highlights (i.e. reflections) or light sources.

[DanK]

I think Ansel Adams (and many others) would disagree with you. Small amounts of total black are fine, but areas that are very, very close to black (Zone 1 (slight tonality but no texture) and even Zone 2 (slight textured black) in Adam's Zone System) are far more acceptable. This much total black just shows a lack of control on the photographer's part. When you look at Zone 1, it looks black but just a hint of interest.

At the other end of the spectrum, you want very little pure white (Zone X) in an image other than specular highlights (i.e. reflections) or light sources.

I disagree. I don't think that rule applies here. Like all others, there are times it should be broken or ignored. Adams had a goal of maximizing perceived tonal variation, which was consistent with his goal of highlighting detail. That doesn't appear to be Fernando's goal. It appears (I am surmising) that he wants large areas that lack detail. I've commented before that I don't like the very large detail-free areas in some of his images, in part because they throw the composition out of balance. However, I don't think he has to follow Adam's own procedures to make a good image.

In many of my macros of flowers, I deliberately turn the background pure, detail-free black. This doesn't reveal a lack of control; on the contrary, I put some work into finding the cleanest way to create this effect in postprocessing. I'll post one example below. I do it because I think that any detail in the background would distract. That's something about which people will argue, and some would make a different choice. However, the fact that Adams, for his purposes, would never have done this is of no relevance to me at all.

[Manfred M]

Dan - let's agree to disagree on this one. Let me try to demonstrate why it is important.

Let's look at your image in ACR. The blue shows crushed shadow detail.





You likely have some contamination in some of the fine details, but it's difficult to detect with small images. The contrast in this image lets you get away with it.


Let me show you an example where you can't get away with it, especially if you are printing. This image is also shot against a black background but there are places where I do have limited crushed shadows. If I had let the background crush as well, the areas where I show black on black would merge into a single colour, black. If I print this, I can still bring out a hint of the outline of the black knife handles against the black background. This is why I shoot and process this way. Had you shot your image and kept the black values around 10, they background would still look totally black.






The same argument applies in a situation where I shoot white on a white background. By not clipping the highlights, I prevent bleed of the highlight and I still have separation of the white on white. In ACR / Lightroom clipped highlights are shown as red.

[xpatUSA]

I disagree. I don't think that rule applies here. Like all others, there are times it should be broken or ignored. Adams had a goal of maximizing perceived tonal variation, which was consistent with his goal of highlighting detail. That doesn't appear to be Fernando's goal. It appears (I am surmising) that he wants large areas that lack detail. I've commented before that I don't like the very large detail-free areas in some of his images, in part because they throw the composition out of balance. However, I don't think he has to follow Adam's own procedures to make a good image.

In many of my macros of flowers, I deliberately turn the background pure, detail-free black. This doesn't reveal a lack of control; on the contrary, I put some work into finding the cleanest way to create this effect in postprocessing. I'll post one example below. I do it because I think that any detail in the background would distract. That's something about which people will argue, and some would make a different choice. However, the fact that Adams, for his purposes, would never have done this is of no relevance to me at all.

The black appears to work well in this case, the image after all being one of thistle-down (if that's what the plant is). What impressed me greatly is the amount of contrast in the foremost seed, as shown in ImageJ:



I have the histogram set to luminance (a la B.T. 709) so the level spread of 70-255 and the variance really does show the wide contrast in what are essentially scene highlights.

Good work!

[Round Tuit]

Manfred - I agree with Dan that pure black backgrounds can be appropriate and do not necessarily reflect poor craftsmanship. This photo that I entered in the monthly competition is a good example where pure black works.



I'll grant you that very dark grey (zone 1 or 2) would also work but would not make the picture any better. Leaving any of the background texture which you can see in this original is simply too distracting.



The situation would be different if it were necessary to keep some separation between a black subject and the background but that is not always the case.

[Manfred M]

Manfred - I agree with Dan that pure black backgrounds can be appropriate and do not necessarily reflect poor craftsmanship. This photo that I entered in the monthly competition is a good example where pure black works.



I'll grant you that very dark grey (zone 1 or 2) would also work but would not make the picture any better. Leaving any of the background texture which you can see in this original is simply too distracting.



The situation would be different if it were necessary to keep some separation between a black subject and the background but that is not always the case.

André - same answer I gave Dan is that pure black is a bad practice, just as pure white is.

The competitions here are being judged by peers as opposed to trained / experienced judges (I.e juried competition ), so the standards are what they are. I would not enter the middle image in a "proper" photo competition because at least one or two judges (if not all three) will catch that and deduct technical points for that. In the old days publishers would reject prints with significant crushed shadow details. Very dark gray (i.e. almost black) or very light gray (i.e. almost white) is the limit to where I push images, both for competitions and when I prepare prints.

I would not argue about darkening up your image. just the degree to which you have darkened it. A value of between 5 an 10 (15 for prints) will still seem to be black to the viewer.

[DanK]

Manfred,

I don't buy it. Would you tell a painter never to use pure black paint? This seems like a rule that has come unmoored from its purpose.

Yes, if there is detail in an image worth keeping, one should try not to crush the shadows. There are no details worth keeping in the example I showed. I wanted pure black, and the only reason the background wasn't originally pure black was technical problems: I couldn't avoid some light spilling onto the black background, and unevenness in the surface created slight variations in tone. These were flaws, so I removed them.

I have submitted images to trained judges many times, and I don't think I have ever been criticized for intentionally using pure black, although I assume they often criticized people for inadvertently crushing shadow detail.

A value of between 5 an 10 (15 for prints) will still seem to be black to the viewer.

Indeed. I have just finished testing a wide variety of papers, and in most cases, it is impossible to distinguish 5 from 0. 10 is sometimes ever so slightly visibly different from 0, but you would have to look very hard to notice. So if the two tones are indistinguishable, why is one good and the other bad? This makes no sense to me.

So yes, I agree that crushing shadow detail is often a bad move, and it does often reflect lack of care. However, it's a big step from there to saying that it is bad to use pure black.

If the OP wanted pure black, then I think that's fine, although that doesn't mean that I have to like the image.

I also don't think that this rule is symmetrical. There is a reason to avoid 255 that doesn't apply to using a value of 0: a value of 255 means that no ink is laid on the paper. That creates an inconsistency in the surface that a value of 0 does not. For that reason, I do usually avoid values of 255 other than specular highlights.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

I don't buy it. Would you tell a painter never to use pure black paint? This seems like a rule that has come unmoored from its purpose.

Yes, if there is detail in an image worth keeping, one should try not to crush the shadows. There are no details worth keeping in the example I showed. I wanted pure black, and the only reason the background wasn't originally pure black was technical problems: I couldn't avoid some light spilling onto the black background, and unevenness in the surface created slight variations in tone. These were flaws, so I removed them.

I have submitted images to trained judges many times, and I don't think I have ever been criticized for intentionally using pure black, although I assume they often criticized people for inadvertently crushing shadow detail.



Indeed. I have just finished testing a wide variety of papers, and in most cases, it is impossible to distinguish 5 from 0. 10 is sometimes ever so slightly visibly different from 0, but you would have to look very hard to notice. So if the two tones are indistinguishable, why is one good and the other bad? This makes no sense to me.

So yes, I agree that crushing shadow detail is often a bad move, and it does often reflect lack of care. However, it's a big step from there to saying that it is bad to use pure black.

If the OP wanted pure black, then I think that's fine, although that doesn't mean that I have to like the image.

I also don't think that this rule is symmetrical. There is a reason to avoid 255 that doesn't apply to using a value of 0: a value of 255 means that no ink is laid on the paper. That creates an inconsistency in the surface that a value of 0 does not. For that reason, I do usually avoid values of 255 other than specular highlights.

Dan - I have studied printing under four different instructors. All of them delivered this same message. Three were colour printers in the film days as well as working in the digital world, the fourth is a digital only printer.

What I don't know is if this is local practice as there is a common link between three of them in terms of their background / history. The fourth one has a different background. I will ask for more details the next time I see one of them.

[smcrews]

It seems to me that this disagreement can be broken down into the question of style preference. Pure black, pure white, step back ask do you like the picture. Fernando has posted enough shots here that I'm sure he knows what style he likes. If you like his style than great. If you don't than great. Arguing over the details trying to prove you're right is pointless. Real art, in whatever form you choose, has no real right or wrongs just preferences.

[Round Tuit]

André - same answer I gave Dan is that pure black is a bad practice, just as pure white is.

The competitions here are being judged by peers as opposed to trained / experienced judges (I.e juried competition ), so the standards are what they are. I would not enter the middle image in a "proper" photo competition because at least one or two judges (if not all three) will catch that and deduct technical points for that. In the old days publishers would reject prints with significant crushed shadow details. Very dark gray (i.e. almost black) or very light gray (i.e. almost white) is the limit to where I push images, both for competitions and when I prepare prints.

I would not argue about darkening up your image. just the degree to which you have darkened it. A value of between 5 an 10 (15 for prints) will still seem to be black to the viewer.

Every organization that runs photo competitions creates a set of rules that the entries must meet in order to qualify. The photos are then judged based on criteria stipulated in those rules. For example, some will not allow man made structures in landscape pictures. Other will ban cloning, etc. These rules make sense in the context of the competition but we cannot extend them beyond the competition and use them to judge every photo. There is nothing wrong in Trevor's landscape or in your portrait of mother and child. Both are beautiful pictures.
The competitions that you take part in reject crushed shadow. I have no problem with that. However, I don't see the logic of making this particular rule universal. No viewer will be able to tell the difference between pure black and a value of 10 on a screen or as high as 15 on a mat print.
I will be curious to see what your instructors will have to say on the subject.

[Cantab]

It seems to me that this disagreement can be broken down into the question of style preference. Pure black, pure white, step back ask do you like the picture. Fernando has posted enough shots here that I'm sure he knows what style he likes. If you like his style than great. If you don't than great. Arguing over the details trying to prove you're right is pointless. Real art, in whatever form you choose, has no real right or wrongs just preferences.

I agree.

[Round Tuit]

It seems to me that this disagreement can be broken down into the question of style preference. Pure black, pure white, step back ask do you like the picture. Fernando has posted enough shots here that I'm sure he knows what style he likes. If you like his style than great. If you don't than great. Arguing over the details trying to prove you're right is pointless. Real art, in whatever form you choose, has no real right or wrongs just preferences.

Shawn and Bruce - I think that we would all agree that there is no right or wrong in art. What has happened here is that we have highjacked Fernando's thread. We are no longuer talking about his post but are now discussing Manfred's assertion that blacks should never be crushed to zero.
It does not matter to me, and I suspect neither to Dan nor Manfred, who is right or who is wrong. What is important to me is why. If Manfred can show me that I am wrong then I will have improved my ability to make better photos in the future. On the other hand, if Dan and I can show him that we are right, he will be freed from following a rigid rule and have more options to consider in the future.
To me, this is the essence of this forum. It is all about learning and having respectful discussions is how we do that.

[billtils]

Manfred,

I don't buy it. Would you tell a painter never to use pure black paint? This seems like a rule that has come unmoored from its purpose.

Yes, if there is detail in an image worth keeping, one should try not to crush the shadows. There are no details worth keeping in the example I showed. I wanted pure black, and the only reason the background wasn't originally pure black was technical problems: I couldn't avoid some light spilling onto the black background, and unevenness in the surface created slight variations in tone. These were flaws, so I removed them.

I have submitted images to trained judges many times, and I don't think I have ever been criticized for intentionally using pure black, although I assume they often criticized people for inadvertently crushing shadow detail.

Dan, I think that you have hit the proverbial nail on the head here in may ways. Perhaps the one that bridges the gap between some of the comments is where you mention "intentionally using black".

[Manfred M]

Shawn and Bruce - I think that we would all agree that there is no right or wrong in art. What has happened here is that we have highjacked Fernando's thread. We are no longuer talking about his post but are now discussing Manfred's assertion that blacks should never be crushed to zero.
It does not matter to me, and I suspect neither to Dan nor Manfred, who is right or who is wrong. What is important to me is why. If Manfred can show me that I am wrong then I will have improved my ability to make better photos in the future. On the other hand, if Dan and I can show him that we are right, he will be freed from following a rigid rule and have more options to consider in the future.
To me, this is the essence of this forum. It is all about learning and respectful discussion is how we do that.

Fair enough, but this is considered a technical flaw, just as much as blown out highlights are.

If I were to post and image like this:




People would either be all over me for having clipped the highlights badly or they would suggest no big deal because I should be able to do what I want. I find that people are more sensitive to clipped highlights than crushed shadow detail, probably because we were taught it is better to crush shadows than to clip highlights.

The problem with pure white and pure black backgrounds is that they contaminate edges of the image and detail is lost. I don't have a suitable image to demonstrate what happens with a black background, but I the high key image I've been showing reveals this issue fairly clearly. Both of the following images are shown at 100%, which doesn't happen very often when displaying on screen but is something that is common in prints. If you look at the edges of your black background image, you are going to see the same type of impact.

Open one of these images in Lightbox and toggle back and forth between them.



Image 1 - edge contamination can be seen in many places, but the fine details of the hair show it most clearly.





Image 2 - no edge contamination





Some people will say this is minor and no one will notice. Once one is aware of the issue, we see it right away. This is very much along the same lines as highlights around edges that come from sharpening or Chromatic Aberration issues. We don't see them until we are sensitized to them and then they poop right out at us.

[DanK]

this is considered a technical flaw

The passive voice makes it sound as though this is written in stone. It isn't. Better to write "Many people would consider this a technical flaw."

Then, one should ask: why? You gave a number of different reasons. One was edge contamination. That is an issue stemming from the use of selections, not printing pure black. Even when one is using a selection, one can often get away with this. As you pointed out in #8, I was able to avoid this problem in the image I posted because of contrast.

The second reason you gave, also in #8, is loss of shadow detail. As I pointed out, sometimes the only detail is undesirable. That is the case in my photos of flowers against a black background.

I also think you are being a bit inconsistent. You write that it is fine to print at a value of 5. Had I darkened the background in that image to a value of 5, it would have looked exactly the same, both in print and online. In other words, all the shadow detail would be invisible to the viewer. Why would that not be a technical flaw, when printing at the visually identical value of 0 would be?

I'm only going on and on about this because I think it illustrates a general point: be wary when rules become detached from their rationale.

Coincidentally, I had a related discussion last night with some friends who have never been to the Clark in Williamstown, MA, which has a stunning collection of impressionist paintings. I told them that every time I go there, I try to figure out what "rules" the artists followed. it's a lot easier to come up with rules they didn't follow.

In the case of the flower images that Andre and I posted: there is ample room to argue whether these look better with a detail-free background or a background with some variation in tone or color. To some extent, that is just taste. To some extent, it is a matter of the particular image. I've made both choices in the past. However, IMHO, it is not a "technical flaw" to opt for the former. Moreover, often one lacks a background that has detail worth showing.