No, not contrast as in irony. The technical one, although it can produce the other contrast. Also, not about the Zone system, but rather where you like to end up, whether you're "zoned out" or not.
Certainly, areas of contrast in an image tend to call attention to themselves, however just where do you draw the line on contrast?
Some years ago, I was a contrast junkie. Lots of those rich blacks and brilliant highlights the paper companies promised were everywhere in my early B&W work. Today, I've aquired a much more gray-centric taste; images that I like are often considered to be "too gray" to some viewers used to the modern POW! in your face contrast, yet they have values from highlight down into the shadows, show what I want to show ( sometimes a bit more or less ), and let me spend more time wandering around in the image. And well, I do confess to the occasional silhouette.
For non-photographers, it is an aquired taste, for this photographer, it is the preferred meal to have a varied and expressive range more often than not ( except when used for effect ). I'm definitely a grade 2 person these days, whereas I was often a grade 3 or 4 person in the past. Most of my subjects have plenty of contrast for grade 2 paper, and I love seeing textures. Perhaps also it is just the contact print that enjoys the more gray treatment. Maybe it just matches the color of my beard...
While sorting through stacks of old photographs from the 40's, which my father shot, I appreciate the ones with lots of information in the greys - I can actually see how people looked during the war in Alaska. The contrasty ones just cheat me of seeing what was going on. Ah, those "gray images", those sharp, honest little contact prints are the parts of a time machine that made it safely to me after 60 years. Interestingly enough, the glossy ones look the best of all.
Side point - I hope that many of you are making contributions to your own sort of time machines with your LF equipment! ( Thank goodness my dad didn't have a digital camera - yet he was taking 50-100+ megapixel images as a matter of course without even operating or knowing about digital computers ). One thing for sure, the grays in the image let me walk through the surface of the photograph into another time long past.
The old textbooks talked about placing certain color on the grayscale, or by example, "correct" vs. "incorrect". Or for many, it has always been just representing what's important in the limited paper range.
Alright, some of this is about developing and all that, however a lot of it is a combination of composition, and creative or selective interpretation on the part of the photographer. Never before have we had so many "sure fire" tricks to manipulate contrast in an image, with so much ease ( analog or digital ).
Okay, it depends on the subject, the photographer, and the purpose of the image, right? Your style, right? Certainly there are creative choices, trends among viewers, and with no doubt preferences of the photographer.
I'd like to hear how you call it in your mind's eye when you're shooting large format, and when you're making prints. What are your guidelines? What do you enjoy contrast-wise in prints? Are *you* a contrast junkie? And if you're not, how you prepare your viewers for a more subtle and understanded yet elegant presentation?
Bookmarks