The Apocalypse

[Manfred M]

People in this thread are pushing Raymond to do conventional processing in order to bring out the shadows in his clouds. I disagree.

I believe that both the processing and the capture (exposure value 11.6 EV) are quite deliberately under-exposed, i.e. they are not in error and do not require the remedial advice offered in this thread.

Under- or over-exposure is quite legitimate for artistic renderings in the genre and I firmly believe that bringing out shadow detail will detract from the originally-posted image and from the last image (post #17).

Ted - the biggest area that has an issue, in my view, are the trees along the bottom edge. That large, textureless mass is problematic. There are a few areas in the clouds, especially on the left hand side and the top right hand corner that are not working for me either and we can see that these textures are in the original image that have been crushed in post.

More texture is generally more interesting than solid masses of pure black or pure white. Preserving that texture is a matter of technique (i.e. local adjustments = dodging and burning); in my experience, that ends up giving you a stronger image.

[Manfred M]

Ted - the biggest area that has an issue, in my view, are the trees along the bottom edge. That large, textureless mass is problematic. There are a few areas in the clouds, especially on the left hand side and the top right hand corner that are not working for me either and we can see that these textures are in the original image that have been crushed in post.

More texture is generally more interesting than solid masses of pure black or pure white. Preserving that texture is a matter of technique (i.e. local adjustments = dodging and burning); in my experience, that ends up giving you a stronger image.

Dan - the one main difference between painting and photography is that a painting is actually a 3-dimensional image (watercolours excepted, to some extent). Any painting will have texture left by the bristles or palette knife, so if the painter uses pure black, then they can add interest by adding texture.

That being said, all of the trained painters I have ever met don't use colours straight out of the tube, but rather create their own blends, so even in the darkest areas, we can see small variations in tone.

[DanK]

Dan - the one main difference between painting and photography is that a painting is actually a 3-dimensional image (watercolours excepted, to some extent). Any painting will have texture left by the bristles or palette knife, so if the painter uses pure black, then they can add interest by adding texture.

That being said, all of the trained painters I have ever met don't use colours straight out of the tube, but rather create their own blends, so even in the darkest areas, we can see small variations in tone.

Be that as it may, I still see this as a guideline, not a rule. The proof may be in the pudding, at least for me: my macros with pure black backgrounds are among my more successful images, not just in terms of informal reactions, but also in terms of what is accepted for exhibiting. I have never had a single negative comment about the backgrounds, although I have had a few questions about how I achieve them.

[Manfred M]

Be that as it may, I still see this as a guideline, not a rule. The proof may be in the pudding, at least for me: my macros with pure black backgrounds are among my more successful images, not just in terms of informal reactions, but also in terms of what is accepted for exhibiting. I have never had a single negative comment about the backgrounds, although I have had a few questions about how I achieve them.

Dan - again, white there is an element of taste / preference what I can say is that every national and international level judge I've ever worked with (that's 8 different individuals); all view significant areas of blocked shadows (or blown out highlights in high key images) as a minor to major flaw and deduct points accordingly. The amount different judges found acceptable or unacceptable does vary, especially in B&W work.

I sat in on a macro competition two weeks ago and all three judges on the jury were national level (one them judges international level competitions as well). Blocked shadows were definitely identified and images were scored accordingly. As I am not a macro photographer, it is one of the topics I excuse myself from judging, but we do get macro shots in the general category, so I have judged macro images. The consistency of judging was that most images were scored with 1 point (out of a total of 10) with the occasional 2 point difference. This is pretty typical when judges of this caliber view an image.

That being said, it is good to have these discussions and opinions are important. The photographers here at CiC are learning and need to view different opinions. You and I tend to agree quite often and this is one of the areas where we can agree to disagree.

[xpatUSA]

Ted - the biggest area that has an issue, in my view, are the trees along the bottom edge. That large, textureless mass is problematic.

I did think about the trees, honest, Manfred. I even measured them! The "large texture-less mass" is less than 17pct of the image area and has a good amount of features, namely the silhouetted branches, and is easily out-weighed by the cloud - which, by the way, seems to be the subject of the shot. My opinion remains that the silhouetting of the foreground was deliberate as part of the theme and is artistically acceptable - in spite of judicial opinion to the contrary.

There are a few areas in the clouds, especially on the left hand side and the top right hand corner that are not working for me either and we can see that these textures are in the original image that have been crushed in post.

More texture is generally more interesting than solid masses of pure black or pure white. Preserving that texture is a matter of technique (i.e. local adjustments = dodging and burning); in my experience, that ends up giving you a stronger image.

On the other hand, the literature often suggests that it's OK to clip unwanted highlights or shadows in furtherance of a desired image. I do take your point and personally might not have bottomed the left-side top-right clouds in the processing of the capture prior to more extreme editing. Leaving a little texture in there would give a bit of wriggle-room for later illegal perpetration.

[DanK]

Dan - again, white there is an element of taste / preference what I can say is that every national and international level judge I've ever worked with (that's 8 different individuals); all view significant areas of blocked shadows (or blown out highlights in high key images) as a minor to major flaw and deduct points accordingly. The amount different judges found acceptable or unacceptable does vary, especially in B&W work.

I sat in on a macro competition two weeks ago and all three judges on the jury were national level (one them judges international level competitions as well). Blocked shadows were definitely identified and images were scored accordingly. As I am not a macro photographer, it is one of the topics I excuse myself from judging, but we do get macro shots in the general category, so I have judged macro images. The consistency of judging was that most images were scored with 1 point (out of a total of 10) with the occasional 2 point difference. This is pretty typical when judges of this caliber view an image.

That being said, it is good to have these discussions and opinions are important. The photographers here at CiC are learning and need to view different opinions. You and I tend to agree quite often and this is one of the areas where we can agree to disagree.

In general, I agree, but with exceptions. One exception is backgrounds. A second is silhouettes, with people often want fully black. In this case, i think the OP wanted to obliterate detail. Not to my taste, but that doesn't make it a mistake.

But in my view there is a more general point. For the most part, I just don't accept binding rules. There are guidelines, but just that. When Theolonius Monk composed, he broke "rule" after "rule" about chords and arpeggios. That's what made his music so remarkable. Mahler likewise broke with convention in numerous respects, including both the structure of his symphonies and orchestration. Most new schools of painting required breaking "rules", often at the cost of initially hostile reactions to what many of us now recognize as superb art. One example, which you don't particularly like but I very much do, is impressionism.

I do pure black backgrounds because I want them, not because others will like them, but I do think it is telling that they have been well received. Usually, if one submits images, one doesn't get to see the judge look at your work, but I have had occasion to watch people evaluate my prints, and the black backgrounds have never generated negative reactions. Lost detail in the flowers themselves would have, of course.

That doesn't mean ignoring guidelines. My mother, a musician, once said this when I became interested in improvisational jazz: you need to know the rules in order to break them effectively. IMHO, the points you have often made about not losing shadow or highlight detail are essential, and people should understand why they are important. Other than backgrounds, I personally follow those principles in every image I create. This is a learning forum, and it is important that people understand both the reasons for this and technically how to deal with it. But they should also feel free to explore using full black or full white if they have a reason for doing so and recognize what they are losing.

Just my two cents, for what it might be worth.

[selig1656]

thank you Ted

[selig1656]

Dan well presented , especially concerning the extreme process done in two of the captures, when it comes to Manfred's comments I hear him loud and clear in regards to capture #3, a true perfectionist he is and he is a valuable source.

[Manfred M]

In general, I agree, but with exceptions. One exception is backgrounds. A second is silhouettes, with people often want fully black. In this case, i think the OP wanted to obliterate detail. Not to my taste, but that doesn't make it a mistake.

But in my view there is a more general point. For the most part, I just don't accept binding rules. There are guidelines, but just that. When Theolonius Monk composed, he broke "rule" after "rule" about chords and arpeggios. That's what made his music so remarkable. Mahler likewise broke with convention in numerous respects, including both the structure of his symphonies and orchestration. Most new schools of painting required breaking "rules", often at the cost of initially hostile reactions to what many of us now recognize as superb art. One example, which you don't particularly like but I very much do, is impressionism.

I do pure black backgrounds because I want them, not because others will like them, but I do think it is telling that they have been well received. Usually, if one submits images, one doesn't get to see the judge look at your work, but I have had occasion to watch people evaluate my prints, and the black backgrounds have never generated negative reactions. Lost detail in the flowers themselves would have, of course.

That doesn't mean ignoring guidelines. My mother, a musician, once said this when I became interested in improvisational jazz: you need to know the rules in order to break them effectively. IMHO, the points you have often made about not losing shadow or highlight detail are essential, and people should understand why they are important. Other than backgrounds, I personally follow those principles in every image I create. This is a learning forum, and it is important that people understand both the reasons for this and technically how to deal with it. But they should also feel free to explore using full black or full white if they have a reason for doing so and recognize what they are losing.

Just my two cents, for what it might be worth.

Dan - first of all, backgrounds are a somewhat different issue and one where I don't always agree with the other judges. Ultimately, the question I have to ask is "is this working for this image because of the choices the photographer has made or could it work better?".

Pure black and pure white backgrounds can be a bit more challenging to evaluate. Usually it is the side effects of these choices that are most apparent. Edges of the subject blending with the background are usually not desirable nor is the softening of edge detail, especially in portraiture or still life work and these clues do impact the technical evaluation of an image. Case in point would be my posting of the tea cup and tea pot where the edge of the cup blends into the background; something that was pointed out and I then corrected:


High Key Tea


I do shoot one black and white backgrounds. Here are two examples using the ACR test I use. Both shots have some minor specular highlights, which was something I was expecting; both chrome and glazed porcelain are highly reflective, so the red areas showing clipped highlights can be seen.








In the low key image, the darkest areas have a value of (5,5,5) in the high key image, the brightest areas of the background have values of (250,250,250). Those are both in the range where we cannot distinguish the difference between those values and pure black and pure white, respectively, yet there is still some data there to work with. When I prepare images like these for competitions, I will present them in a way the the judges can easily see that I have not clipped the highlights by having a 1/4" - 1/2" unprinted border. I have yet to find a solution for the black that I like yet. These measures are aimed at the more traditionalist judges that deduct marks for clipped highlights and crushed shadows, when I enter print competitions.

All that being said, in Raymond's image, we are not discussing backgrounds per se, but rather substantive material in the image. Is it a point that most casual observers might miss? Of course it is, but part of the learning side it to make people aware of what they are doing. At that point it becomes something that they can either take away or ignore.

[DanK]

All that being said, in Raymond's image, we are not discussing backgrounds per se, but rather substantive material in the image.

Yes, that's a key point, I think. Personally, I almost never allow crushed detail in the substantive areas of anything I shoot, other than blown highlights in some night photography. However, if I could find the image, I think I did allow crushed shadow detail years ago when I shot a silhouette of my daughter and her fiance from behind, as they watched the last of the sunset on a lake shore.

It's interesting that I have never had a judge react negatively to purely black backgrounds in my flower images. I currently have 5 of them on exhibit in two places. For example, I have the one below on exhibit in one place, and the gallery owner who runs another juried show in which I have a different image of that type on display chose this one to use in her publicity materials for the exhibit. If the flowers were close in tone to the background, as is the case in your two images, I think the response might be different. Or maybe it's just variation among judges.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

Yes, that's a key point, I think. Personally, I almost never allow crushed detail in the substantive areas of anything I shoot, other than blown highlights in some night photography. However, if I could find the image, I think I did allow crushed shadow detail years ago when I shot a silhouette of my daughter and her fiance from behind, as they watched the last of the sunset on a lake shore.

I recall a shot of a piano player by Cartier-Bresson or Arnold or someone where the piano lid is virtually black and covers 40pct or more of the frame. The cognoscenti here might know of it. Definitely a "rule breaker" and it wasn't even background. A negative film shot in the Adams era, said piano lid had certainly been "placed" in Zone I or II, IMHO. Having said that, we can always dredge up some example or other from the enormous field of photographic images in order to "prove" a point, eh?

[DanK]

I'm guessing you mean Arnold Newman's 1946 portrait of Stravinsky. There is a copy here, although you will have to page down a bit. (I didn't want to directly post an image that isn't mine.) I get RGB values as low as 2, 8,4--not 0,0,0, but close enough. I perceive it as pure black, and it is very effective, IMHO.

It looks like there is some pure black in a few other images as well.

[xpatUSA]

I'm guessing you mean Arnold Newman's 1946 portrait of Stravinsky.

That's the exact one, Dan, thanks!

[edit] I only recollected the crop - and I wasn't on first-name terms with Mr Newman ... oops.

[xpatUSA]

I wondered about mono-level neutral gray backgrounds and wondered if there might be rules-of-thumb about that?

So, by way of research, I searched for images of the yin-yang on the net and found this oddity:



Silly post, I know ... kinda hard to judge an image where the percentages of black or white keep changing ...

[Manfred M]

It's interesting that I have never had a judge react negatively to purely black backgrounds in my flower images.

I have always suspected that judging runs in "fashions" and different aspects of photography are weighed differently at different times and places. I've done some training under the Photographic Society of America (PSA) Image Evaluation as well at the CAPA Judges training course to notice some fundamental differences in how images are evaluated, even though in the scheme of things, these are minor.

I find the comments about the images that you and Ted are referring to a bit interesting. I assume that both of you are looking at images that you have found somewhere on the web, so my question would how you know that you are looking at are accurate? Was the original copy well reproduced or were you looking at a scan that may have gone through several edits or enhancements in reproduction? The level of subtlety we are discussing can only be determined by working with the original negatives using a densitometer. While a value of 2,8,4 should raise some suspicious for a B&W image. That being said, a value of 2,8,4 is not 0,0,0. It is the latter (0,0,0) value that is the one I has an issue with as that indicated crushed shadow detail, not the former. My point is with black, not virtually black (i.e. very dark gray).

[DanK]

The level of subtlety we are discussing can only be determined by working with the original negatives using a densitometer.

I don't think so. Earlier, you referenced seeing subtle differences in tone and texture. If there are differences that can't be perceived by the naked eye and are only discernible with a densitometer, I don't care about them. For my purposes, if it is perceived as pure black, it's effectively pure black. I think that's where the discussion started, in an earlier thread: whether it is acceptable to remove all visible details in a black section of the image.

Re the original image: that to doesn't matter much to me. My reaction to the image is that it is very effective with a large area of effectively pure black, as I perceive it now.

As a side note, this is an issue with printing with my current printer. The Canon Prograf sprays a thin layer of "chroma optimizer" over the printed image. By default, it only lays down CO where it has put down ink. That creates a problem if there are areas of pure white, but you can tell the printer to ignore that and put CO on everything. Oddly, it will do this only with coated paper. it must spread in an undesirable way on bare matte papers.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree about this.

[xpatUSA]

<>

I find the comments about the images that you and Ted are referring to a bit interesting. I assume that both of you are looking at images that you have found somewhere on the web, so my question would [be] how [do] you know that [what] you are looking at are accurate? Was the original copy well reproduced or were you looking at a scan that may have gone through several edits or enhancements in reproduction?

Of course, we don't know. - Strike one.

The level of subtlety we are discussing can only be determined by working with the original negatives using a densitometer.

Obviously impossible. - Strike two.

While a value of 2,8,4 should raise some suspicious for a B&W image ...

... in a perfect world. - Strike three. And I'm out.

That being said, a value of 2,8,4 is not 0,0,0.

It is the latter (0,0,0) value that is the one I has an issue with as that indicated crushed shadow detail, not the former. My point is with black, not virtually black (i.e. very dark gray) ...

Manfred, I am tempted to hack the Stravinsky image and lower all "virtual" blacks to actual blacks and ask how much difference Dan's pesky values of 2,8,4 make to the judicial status of that image. Bearing in mind that 2,8,4 is not even a 'just noticeable difference' from 0,0,0, I'm thinking slim to none:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_difference#CIE76

One of the more sane descriptions of darks for digital:



Observe Zone I ... looks like Dan's measured values.

http://kronometric.org/phot/exp/zone/Hannemeyr%20%20Digital%20Zone%20System.htm

Like Dan and your good self, I too think we will just have to agree to disagree about this.

[xpatUSA]

The level of subtlety we are discussing can only be determined by working with the original negatives using a densitometer.

There is a way to determine a "level of subtlety" for digital. In the case of the example 8-bit image by Newton, first convert Dan's 2,8,4 to luminosity. It comes to about 6/255. Then go to a graph like this one from DPR:



https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp2/11

There we see that 6/255 is equivalent to about -5 EV (depending on camera model) relative to mid-gray (Zone V). That puts us firmly in Zone I, or even Zone 0, as already claimed earlier. Since Zone I has no texture, there is no "subtlety" to be seen, QED.

[selig1656]

Thank you for your comments, as I grow and continue to learn from all of you I do believe that some rules may be abandoned in the effort to be creative.The final objective is to convey the subject from ones perspective.

[selig1656]

Please show me your perspective and the changes you would make, I always look forward to be open to learn,Manfred you have been extremely helpful in you comments, thank you.