PDA

View Full Version : Paper "whites"



RodinalDuchamp
14-Mar-2015, 16:44
Let me preface this by saying I do not attempt to undermine any of the advice I have been given on this topic but I would like to expand on this question through this forum

I have been told that a picture ought to have some "paper whites" in order to be considered tonally correct or "not gray".

I do not doubt this can be the case but this in theory can not apply to all photographs am I right? For example shooting a forest scene with no sky or dark grey skies.

In these situations what prevents a traditional print from being called " gray".

Jac@stafford.net
14-Mar-2015, 17:02
Paper White in a print usually refers to an unexposed area, highlights with neither tone nor texture. Of course some subjects will not have such, but it does not make them inferior, per se. That is all all you need to know.


I do not doubt this can be the case but this in theory can not apply to all photographs am I right? For example shooting a forest scene with no sky or dark grey skies.

Correct!

If you are concerned with gallery presentation, you might want to review posts that discuss the reflective qualities of certain brands of papers. Some include whiteners which are susceptible to light frequencies that make, or break the sense of luminance.

.

Ken Lee
14-Mar-2015, 17:29
I have been told that a picture ought to...

By whom ? :cool:

jp
14-Mar-2015, 17:47
Just go to the big box store for white paint. None of it is paper white or #FFFFFF color. It's going to be something less in some respect to color and shade.

Study photo history some more for cool images that have no paper white. Or weren't even on white paper when they started or were finished. Many of the pictorialist images from 100-120 years ago range from nearly black to soft light grays and they look spectacular in person. Even some of the later "modern" photos lack white to show a mood or atmosphere like http://blog.corbis.com/florence-thompson-missing-thumb/ Migrant Mother.

As a matter of craft, if you're trying to make some portions white and they aren't or things in your print are dark or muddier than you want, you have to address that aspect of your craft, and perhaps your "helper" is attempting to address that.

RodinalDuchamp
14-Mar-2015, 18:01
Paper White in a print usually refers to an unexposed area, highlights with neither tone nor texture. Of course some subjects will not have such, but it does not make them inferior, per se. That is all all you need to know.



Correct!

If you are concerned with gallery presentation, you might want to review posts that discuss the reflective qualities of certain brands of papers. Some include whiteners which are susceptible to light frequencies that make, or break the sense of luminance.

.
For example is zone X does not appear in every scene we encounter.

Just go to the big box store for white paint. None of it is paper white or #FFFFFF color. It's going to be something less in some respect to color and shade.

Study photo history some more for cool images that have no paper white. Or weren't even on white paper when they started or were finished. Many of the pictorialist images from 100-120 years ago range from nearly black to soft light grays and they look spectacular in person. Even some of the later "modern" photos lack white to show a mood or atmosphere like http://blog.corbis.com/florence-thompson-missing-thumb/ Migrant Mother.

As a matter of craft, if you're trying to make some portions white and they aren't or things in your print are dark or muddier than you want, you have to address that aspect of your craft, and perhaps your "helper" is attempting to address that.
I agree. However what good would I be as an apprentice if I didn't question my master. I have been told that all prints must contain some portion of paper white.

By whom ? :cool:
Someone with a lot more experience and knowledge than myself.

Ken Lee
14-Mar-2015, 19:02
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/histogram.jpg

Here's a photo and accompanying histogram. The only area which is pure white, is the border around the print.

The whole image is basically Zone V and VI with a touch of Zone VII.

It's not the greatest photo in the world, but I think it works alright and doesn't feel overly muddy or dark.

Vaughn
14-Mar-2015, 19:50
...For example shooting a forest scene with no sky or dark grey skies. In these situations what prevents a traditional print from being called " gray".

The amount of contrast in the forest on an over-cast day can be quite nice:

ic-racer
14-Mar-2015, 20:01
You should be in control of your printing process. Each negative might be best served by an individual assessment rather than some dogmatic approach.

djdister
14-Mar-2015, 20:08
I have been told that all prints must contain some portion of paper white.

Someone with a lot more experience and knowledge than myself.

You really need to get out more, talk to more people, and look at a lot more photographs.

Mark Sawyer
14-Mar-2015, 23:38
If bright whites and deep blacks were necessary for "good" prints, no one would ever make platinum prints. I've always admired Ken Lee's work, in part because he can make such lovely prints in such a delicate tonal scale without ever feeling muddy or flat.

Then again, I've always wished someone would make a glow-in-the-dark photo paper...

RodinalDuchamp
15-Mar-2015, 06:28
I think that's the key right. If it feels flat it is with or without tones at the extreme ends and vice versa.

jp
15-Mar-2015, 06:39
If you're talking about keys, not every piano song uses all the octaves on the keyboard, yet we dismiss any keyboard as a toy if it does not have an excessive number of keys. Tones are a choice. You really need to check out photographs from photo history, either in good books, or in person if you can get to exhibits/museums.

invisibleflash
15-Mar-2015, 06:46
OP, well kinda or very close to paper white. Just depends on the image. Just depends on your final use too. Printing files may be different than viewing file.

I try to go for pure black to pure white. But sometimes whites look better with a touch of grain in them. Other times you have to go with paper white if the white is your light source.

(Small format examples)

http://danielteolijr.tumblr.com/image/41366188294

I prefer darker, higher contrast photos myself. Some so pure paper white keeps them balanced.

http://danielteolijr.tumblr.com/image/42924242457

Some of my photos lose shadow / black detail which is fine with me. I am not looking for a commercial catalog image. I'm looking for an image I like.

http://danielteolijr.tumblr.com/image/41815906088

Jim Jones
15-Mar-2015, 06:51
External factors such as matting and lighting should be considered when deciding the tonal range of a print. Often a print looks better if its highlights are brighter than the mat.

Michael R
15-Mar-2015, 07:29
No rules. Whatever the photographer thinks best suits the image, series etc. (and this is not necessarily a constant for any image over time either).

bob carnie
15-Mar-2015, 08:04
Rodinal - If you are observing a scene and you indeed see a pure paper white (no detail whatsoever) then yes put that in your print... the only things that I can assume would be a white wash building with no texture or specular highlights..
As Ken points out with basically three tones you can create the illusion of white... for example I am from a province that snow is captured a lot... I would never print snow pure white, I always flash in some tone so that the image balances.

Sudek was a master of three tones, but after viewing prints for a few years now I think I would find pure white in snow, textured white walls , open sky's not right for the print.

We will adapt immediately , for example pt pd prints generally do not exhibit the blacks we associate with silver, but when we see a good pt pd our eyes/ brain fill in the gaps and make the full scene come out.

You should spend some time making print ringarounds ... low key, high key , mid tone spreadsheets , this will help you understand reproduction and make you a better printer.. Kodak books have ton's of information on this.

Some simple testing and grasping of the basics will help you up your knowledge .



Let me preface this by saying I do not attempt to undermine any of the advice I have been given on this topic but I would like to expand on this question through this forum

I have been told that a picture ought to have some "paper whites" in order to be considered tonally correct or "not gray".

I do not doubt this can be the case but this in theory can not apply to all photographs am I right? For example shooting a forest scene with no sky or dark grey skies.

In these situations what prevents a traditional print from being called " gray".

Greg Miller
15-Mar-2015, 09:39
I have been told that a picture ought to have some "paper whites" in order to be considered tonally correct or "not gray".

No. Does a foggy scene an daybreak have any whites? Typically not. So that scene would not need a paper white in it.

Some people robotically create a levels layer and adjust whit and black points to have a pure black tone and a pure white tone in the image. That doesn't work in a foggy scene either.

Look at the scene. Use your artistic vision to determine the ideal end product. They decide if a paper white make sense or not.

RodinalDuchamp
15-Mar-2015, 09:44
I appreciate all the opinions, but I should have mentioned that I only print wet. Though the advice is still applicable there really isn't any histogram or layers to deal with; rather a test for white is to hold a piece of unexposed paper up to the highlight to see of it matches.

Greg Miller
15-Mar-2015, 09:47
I appreciate all the opinions, but I should have mentioned that I only print wet. Though the advice is still applicable there really isn't any histogram or layers to deal with; rather a test for white is to hold a piece of unexposed paper up to the highlight to see of it matches.

Doesn't matter. We are speaking conceptually/

ic-racer
15-Mar-2015, 10:04
I have been told that a picture ought to have some "paper whites" in order to be considered tonally correct..."
".

Yes, and you can file that information with "set the ISO dial to the number on the box" and "center your subject in the frame" and "always shoot with the sun at your back" etc.

bob carnie
15-Mar-2015, 10:11
My advice is based on wet printing.. and by the way still applys for digital printing. Why are you so fixated on paper white?

I appreciate all the opinions, but I should have mentioned that I only print wet. Though the advice is still applicable there really isn't any histogram or layers to deal with; rather a test for white is to hold a piece of unexposed paper up to the highlight to see of it matches.

RodinalDuchamp
15-Mar-2015, 10:13
No I'm sorry of it came off that way. I actually do not believe paper white must exist in a print in order to display pleasing and a complete sense of tonality.

jnantz
15-Mar-2015, 10:22
Someone with a lot more experience and knowledge than myself.

i was told similar things by someone who is well respected and looked at to be the godfather of abstract expressionist photography ( aaron siskind )
and then he gave me a poster of a photograph with absolutely NO WHITE IN IT shook his finger at me and said, "i take photographs like this don't YOU ever"

people say "stuff" all the time to discourage or boost to whatever ..
the moral of the story is, do what you want, and don't forget to have fun

Lenny Eiger
15-Mar-2015, 14:11
This is a philosophical issue. There used to be a distinction between offset printer and darkroom printers. The offset guys were taught that a good print had a good, solid black and a good, solid white. The photographic printers would say that a good print had neither, that it may go all the way up to the edge but never cross it. Of course, since then there has been every variation in photographic printing imaginable. One could say that the printing of Bill Brandt, or Robert Frank is not correct, but that's the way they did it, you can either like it or not.

The way I look at it is that I want to reproduce a scene the way that I see it and I don't see anything that drops off to total black, except for maybe the end of a pipe. There seems to be light coming from the black dress over there, it doesn't drop off to a black hole. Further, I want my viewers to be able to step into my prints, so they can experience them vs just seeing an image on the wall. I find that to do this, the range of tonalities must be "comfortable". If things are too contrasty the edges appear sharp to the point where walking around in the image might be dangerous - you might get cut. As a result I use contrast sparingly. This is very different from the genre os "shock and awe" that one might see in an Adam's image. I like images that are "sleepers", that reveal their truth a bit more slowly until they get very deep, like a stew with many layers of interesting flavors.

Printing in the darkroom or any other kind, I want the edge of a print to be distinct. Skies are not to fade off into the paper, there ought to be a definite line across the top of the image. I m working in a particular rectangular format and I designed the image to fit in that space. There is a deliberate design that fails if there is no edge.

So I would say that I don't let anything go white unless its a specular highlight, a reflection off someone's glasses or something like that. Tone everywhere...

Don't know if that helps, just another person's opinion.

Lenny

Fred L
15-Mar-2015, 14:21
like others here, I need to see grain in my highlights otherwise the print feels off. blacks that fall off into oblivion I'm ok with but not blown highlights unless specular. I don't believe in rules for printing (except leaving the print in the developer for recommended times and thus consistent prints) so expose and manipulate for the image as you saw it.

N Dhananjay
15-Mar-2015, 15:46
I think how your whites looks has a huge impact on how your prints look because it sets the mood or feel of the light. Pure paper white has a sharp, contrasty, surgical, almost gritty look to it - you instinctually feel like there is a bare electric bub around, it can feel like an operating room or an assault on your visual senses. Which may be just what you want for gritty war photography or urban decay photography etc. Getting just off paper white to the faintest hint of a tone alters the feeling substantially and the light feels more soft and natural. And all this happens without the relative tones of the print changing.

Dmin and Dmax are only useful as sensitometric constants and should not be dictators of artistic decisions. Dmax may be the maximum black a paper is capable of, but quite a few of the tones below that will look like a convincing black. The same is true at the Dmin (white) end of the scale although there is typically less latitude here.

Cheers, DJ

RodinalDuchamp
17-Mar-2015, 18:11
I did some more printing today. I think having confidence in your vision in what you want from the print is not subjective. I think everyone will be able to say do this or do that but if you make a print that is honest to the vision no one will be able to break its inherent qualities. Ad Reinhardt had no problems with a limited pallette, though I'm not saying we as photographers should limit our palette. I'm saying if its great no one will challenge.

jnantz
19-Mar-2015, 06:48
I did some more printing today. I think having confidence in your vision in what you want from the print is not subjective. I think everyone will be able to say do this or do that but if you make a print that is honest to the vision no one will be able to break its inherent qualities. Ad Reinhardt had no problems with a limited pallette, though I'm not saying we as photographers should limit our palette. I'm saying if its great no one will challenge.

i am not sure if this is directed towards me or something posted in general but ...
the work i presented to him was of the crumbling new england mill industry,
portraits and some other things. not non-subjective ( by that time clichéd lame, copycat pseudo-abstracts of paint peeling, or asphault patches or graffiti .. )

i wasn't some kid who had just picked up a camera after reading
articles in "pop photography" 1 day before ( sorry there was no internet back then )
or someone who had no formal training ( whatever that is ) and never had work on a wall + critiqued before .. 7+ solid semesters of
critiques by peers + teachers ... i had never been threatened before, and it kind of threw me for a loop.

if you believe what you said, go full-bore .. but i think the BS, is to stroke one's ego.
that said, for a 70-80 years old world recognized, established artist and teacher to to wag his finger and threatening a 20-something year old,
well, in my book, that is about as lame as one can get. ( the person who suggested i see him was astonished when i told him what happened. )
but, i guess in the end, it also meant i was on the right track if he felt threatened enough by what i was doing
to throw the full weight of his massive ego at me and threaten me ..

as i ( and others ) said, most of everything is just opinion anyways, people like different things for different reasons.
do what you want and enjoy yourself, and if someone questions what you are doing make sure
you can answer what you are doing, and why - with + without esoteric, aesthetic and abstract philosophical BS ..


good luck!

Michael Wesik
19-Mar-2015, 07:41
I did some more printing today. I think having confidence in your vision in what you want from the print is not subjective. I think everyone will be able to say do this or do that but if you make a print that is honest to the vision no one will be able to break its inherent qualities. Ad Reinhardt had no problems with a limited pallette, though I'm not saying we as photographers should limit our palette. I'm saying if its great no one will challenge.

Great philosophical discussion!

Another thing to take into consideration is the possible difference between the articulation of your vision and people's reception of it. I've found that being honest to your vision doesn't mean that people will receive it in the way you intended. It's inherent qualities may still exist but the operation of making meaning of it might find a disconnect. There's not so much a challenge to your vision itself as much as there are very different ways of interpreting what that vision is according to how you choose to articulare it.

I look at vision and production as organic things, shifting and changing as you work through your process. There's no single way of communicating your vision, just that some end up being more palatable than others. Moving through this discussion about paper whites is part of refining your articulation. Critiques are great for figuring this stuff out.

Greg Miller
20-Mar-2015, 11:20
Great philosophical discussion!

Another thing to take into consideration is the possible difference between your articulation of your vision and people's reception of it. I've found that being honest to your vision doesn't mean that people will receive it in the way you intended. It's inherent qualities may still exist but the operation of making meaning of it might find a disconnect. There's not so much a challenge to your vision itself as much as there are very different ways of interpreting what that vision is according to how you choose to articulare it.

There's a reason we're photographers, and not writers. Some are blessed to be able to both at a high level. Most are not. So I think any writing that we do about our work and vision should be kept simple and straight forward. Otherwise we risk having our written words interpreted incorrectly. We should excel at what we do best, and don't muddle things by adding other media with which we do not excel.

Michael Wesik
20-Mar-2015, 18:52
There's a reason we're photographers, and not writers. Some are blessed to be able to both at a high level. Most are not. So I think any writing that we do about our work and vision should be kept simple and straight forward. Otherwise we risk having our written words interpreted incorrectly. We should excel at what we do best, and don't muddle things by adding other media with which we do not excel.

I agree with your point about keeping things clear and simple but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

RodinalDuchamp
20-Mar-2015, 21:01
i am not sure if this is directed towards me or something posted in general but ...
the work i presented to him was of the crumbling new england mill industry,
portraits and some other things. not non-subjective ( by that time clichéd lame, copycat pseudo-abstracts of paint peeling, or asphault patches or graffiti .. )

i wasn't some kid who had just picked up a camera after reading
articles in "pop photography" 1 day before ( sorry there was no internet back then )
or someone who had no formal training ( whatever that is ) and never had work on a wall + critiqued before .. 7+ solid semesters of
critiques by peers + teachers ... i had never been threatened before, and it kind of threw me for a loop.

if you believe what you said, go full-bore .. but i think the BS, is to stroke one's ego.
that said, for a 70-80 years old world recognized, established artist and teacher to to wag his finger and threatening a 20-something year old,
well, in my book, that is about as lame as one can get. ( the person who suggested i see him was astonished when i told him what happened. )
but, i guess in the end, it also meant i was on the right track if he felt threatened enough by what i was doing
to throw the full weight of his massive ego at me and threaten me ..

as i ( and others ) said, most of everything is just opinion anyways, people like different things for different reasons.
do what you want and enjoy yourself, and if someone questions what you are doing make sure
you can answer what you are doing, and why - with + without esoteric, aesthetic and abstract philosophical BS ..


good luck!
I do not mean anything to be directed at anyone in particular unless I quoted someone. I don't mean to offend.

Greg Miller
20-Mar-2015, 21:42
I agree with your point about keeping things clear and simple but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Then my point is proven. I'll stick to photography and let someone else communicate with writing.

Michael Wesik
22-Mar-2015, 08:29
Then my point is proven. I'll stick to photography and let someone else communicate with writing.

I think that you're a better writer than you give yourself credit. I just didn't know where you were headed with your previous post. One way or another, all communication requires refinement. And in the context of this thread, my post was in response to RodinalD's comment about subjectivity and having confidence in your vision. My thought is that how white your whites need to be to communicate your vision is a subjective choice on the part of the photographer and that choice is made under the caveat that there are multiple ways to articulate a vision in terms of the tonality of a print, size, toning, etc. Which articulation of the vision best illustrates the vision itself is then determined by the viewer because what's the point of a vision if it isn't received? That's where I was going. I think feedback is really important and that objectivity doesn't exist in art. That's just my opinion.