Black and white portrait skin tones...

[jim kitchen]

Dear group,

If you have a moment, I am trying to learn a few things about black and white portraits, and where to set the skin tones on the grey scale, so if I could ask a few of the portrait photographers within this group for some feedback, I would be forever grateful...

A gallery recently suggested that I should produce a few new exploratory pieces, where they suggested that I should investigate an emotive theme, and where I should try to expand my portfolio base to include the human form. For the moment, I do not photograph people, I do not know how to photograph people, I am more comfortable with rocks, trees and water, but I am willing to learn, and although this attached image is my first attempt at a portrait in three decades, I am completely lost within this subject matter. :)

Historical information and a few notes in the archive, lead me to believe that the placement is somewhere within, or close to Zone VI, and in this image I simply placed the shadows along the left side of her forehead within that zone. I imagine everyone has their own style in this very subjective field, but I am looking for a possible pseudo baseline to migrate too, or distance myself from, while I explore this suggested emotive avenue. I do welcome your comments and your healthy suggestions, while I look for a young pair of eyes to add to my portfolio...

Thank you in advance,

jim k

[John Berry]

Trying to learn? Looks pretty good to me. A green filter is recommended sometimes to smooth the skin tones.

[neil poulsen]

That's what I've always heard. I printed caucasion as high as Zone VII, and was criticized for it. I wouldn't change the photograph, though.

Your photograph looks like about a Zone VI on my calibrated monitor. It's very nice. Is this cultural clothing, or an interesting way to frame the eyes?

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi the pupils from the eyes are round but so I prefer also round reflextions from the light in the eyes!
My 2 cents, Armin Seeholzer

[Greg Lockrey]

Yellow-Green filter and Zone VI for caucasians is about right. Nice capture of the high zones. I would have liked the catch light to be a "hard" square and perhaps have a "window pane" in it too. My 1 1/2 cents

[Frank Petronio]

I wouldn't worry about the catchlights but harder dishes or umbrellas seem more popular for portraits these days, the softbox is so 90s.

Frankly I would never filter for a portrait unless I was going for a special effect (or gimmick). If you really want versatility just shoot color neg and convert -- it gives you the entire range of possibilities -- but unfiltered HP5 seems to be "right" to me.

[Bruce Barlow]

I don't use filters.

Play with them when you print them. I did a project of 19 portraits in a limited edition hand-made book. I learned that 1/2 second under the enlarger or - are you ready? - 1/8th paper grade with my variable head made all the difference in some cases. These were pictures of 8th graders, and I found I could make the skin tones glow if I got the enlarging right. So I made them all glow, and the results are quite nice.

So, what's right is what moves you when you look at the print. MAybe glow is what you want, maybe some other feeling. But when the feeling's right, the picture is right.

Portraits are a lot of fun. And yes, people can be like rocks for your purposes. Have fun!

[BrianShaw]

... the softbox is so 90s.

Frankly I would never filter for a portrait unless I was going for a special effect (or gimmick). If you really want versatility just shoot color neg and convert -- it gives you the entire range of possibilities -- but unfiltered HP5 seems to be "right" to me.

Is that 1890's or 1990's, Frank?

I also prefer unfiltered B&W also (FP-4, though), but I can't abide by the "shoot/scan clolor and convert" notion -- never seems quite right to me.

Jim K... your photo is excellent. You can probably stop "trying to learn" any day now :D

[Ralph Barker]

Nice image, Jim.

There is a gob (pardon the technical term) of theory, technique and practice relating to portraiture, much of it drawn from classical painters. How much of that one chooses to adopt is, I think, a matter of how "classical" one wants the portraits to appear, and what the portrait client wants. Once you've developed a personal style, or portrait vision, what the client wants may be exactly that - your style.

I usually place the skin tones based on the individual's actual skin tone, whether that's a Zone VI, a Zone VII, or a Zone III. Variations from actual skin tone, I think, should be based on mood, lighting, or some other obvious factor. I typically do not use tone-varying filters, either, unless for a special effect. But, I'll sometimes use a softening filter, if doing so contributes to the mood desired in the image.

Portaiture also opens the question of lighting technique, whether B&W or color. While there are always trends that are, well, trendy, it may be better to use the style of lighting that contributes best to the desired mood of the image, and what the portrait is trying to say about the person. Note, too, that there are various "classical" approaches to portrait lighting, all described well in various books on the subject. It's helpful, I think, to discuss these aspects of the sitting with the individual being photographed, and then work through little emotive exercises to achieve the desired looks or expressions. Good communication with the subject is probably as important as anything else in the process.

[steve simmons]

Since most skin has some red in it any filter with green would make the skin a little harsh in my book. Now, if you have a swarthy old sailor it might work but I would not use anything green for a female. It is just a matter of taste. For a caucasion female I would go zone 6.5ish, if they have an olive complexion zone 5.5 to 6ish and if they are African-American I am reluctant to go below zone 4

There is an article in the current issue of View Camera about portraiture and figure work with large format and in the Free Articles section of the web site there are some articles on metering for portrait and figure with flash.

It is hard to judge a black and white print from an image on the screen as the transmitted light can artificially give a luminence to the photo that may not be there but the white in the fabric of your image is quite nice and the skin tone seems about right.

Barker's portrait on the right is lifeless, even with the backlighting of the monitor. The lighting is too flat for my taste and there is no glow to the skin (to see someone who could make skin glow see Ruth Bernhardt) The portrait on the left is better but there should be a little more detail in the shady side of the face. Jim's photo above is much more engaging and seems to give off light much better.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

[Peter Lewin]

OK Ralph, I'll bite: in your (beautiful) portrait on the right of your thumbnails, what filter did you use to get green eyes in a B&W shot?

[domenico Foschi]

I rarely use filters in my portaiture, although I am open to new things, for instance I want to try red filter and play with it.
What I find many times necessay is the use of N- development especially when there are White clothes involved.
If you place the skin(caucasian) at 6/ 6 1/2, the white fabric goes over the roof in the tonal scale. N- development also creates much smoother transitions from the light tones to the shadows in light fabric, which helps in a more plesing view of the image.
All this said, seems that you nailed it anyway....

[steve simmons]

I woud agree that you have to be careful of white fabric if you place skin tones up around zone 6.5ish. However, if you use a staining developer your high values are more protected and it is easier to print them. Just my 2 cents.

BTW, Dominico, Ted Harris and Tom Paiva and I had a very nice free lunch in Santa Monica last week. The free part is another story.

steve simmons

[domenico Foschi]

I woud agree that you have to be careful of white fabric if you place skin tones up around zone 6.5ish. However, if you use a staining developer your high values are more protected and it is easier to print them. Just my 2 cents.

BTW, Dominico, Ted Harris and Tom Paiva and I had a very nice free lunch in Santa Monica last week. The free part is another story.

steve simmons

Well, Steve, the free meal part was another positive component of us meeting.:)

Me going back and forth to the parking lot actually was a Godsent considering I had Fish and Chips, not exactly a low calories meal.

DId you buy A brass fuzzy lens yet?

[Ken Lee]

"I am looking for a possible pseudo baseline"

If you want to exactly reproduce the skin tone, then "ignore" the skin: take a reading off a standard grey card, or use an incident light meter.

You can always depart from the natural skin tone later, either in the darkroom or Photoshop. The skin tones in the image you posted, would be easy to vary, according to taste.

Skin tones aside, you might want to try lightening the whites of the subject's eyes. This could add drama, and make the person look healthier.

[domenico Foschi]

I am not trying to be unhelpful, but sometime is OK to disregard reality.

[John Kasaian]

Beautiful portrait, Domenico!

[jim kitchen]

Thank you for the kind comments, suggestions, and your great portrait examples too...

It is true though, I am trying to learn how to photograph people because it never interested me earlier, and although a few of my older processing habits might benefit the exposure and film development, this exercise is definitely igniting several of my dormant brain cells regarding portraiture. I have a few images locked up in my head, and although I wish to focus on the eyes of the subject for the moment, I will expand the subject material as I explore. I decided to draw attention to the eyes in this image by adding assorted fabrics around the eyes to eliminate a distracting background.

I am excited to see whether this thread expands, and with that expansion, I might see more of your images...

jim k

[cobalt]

Thank you for the kind comments, suggestions, and your great portrait examples too...

It is true though, I am trying to learn how to photograph people because it never interested me earlier, and although a few of my older processing habits might benefit the exposure and film development, this exercise is definitely igniting several of my dormant brain cells regarding portraiture. I have a few images locked up in my head, and although I wish to focus on the eyes of the subject for the moment, I will expand the subject material as I explore. I decided to draw attention to the eyes in this image by adding assorted fabrics around the eyes to eliminate a distracting background.

I am excited to see whether this thread expands, and with that expansion, I might see more of your images...

jim k

Oh.. stop it!
The image you posted is very,very nice. I recently realized that I made the very best images when I didn't know what I was doing....don't assimilate any goat tripe; what you are doing is far above average. Go with that.

[william linne]

The best thing to remember is that "There are no rules, everything is permitted."

Courtesy of W.S. Burroughs and Hassan I Sabah.

[jim kitchen]

Aside from Cobalt's patronizing remark, I would like to ask the question again regarding portraiture as I tried to do earlier, to see how other portrait photographers within the group practice their craft, since I would like to learn more about how you approach portraiture...

If you have a moment, and if you would like to contact me off line that would be great.

jim k

[Ken Lee]

"..I am looking for a possible pseudo baseline..."

Since your original question was of a strictly technical nature, one answer is that the luminosity of human skin varies considerably, even on one person's body.

Just pass over your own face in a mirror, with a spot meter. You will see that there can a zone (or f/stop) of variation, even in diffused light. Once we add the effects of lighting, shadow, and fill, things get more complex.

This is why I suggested that if you really want to capture the skin tones it exactly as they are, meter off some a uniform standard value - either a gray card or via use of an incident meter. Let the skin values "fall" where they may.

That would be one way at least, to find your "pseudo baseline".

[Ralph Barker]

As a follow-on to Ken's comments, I use a spot meter to double-check subject lighting ratios, background level, and subject highlights, but use incident mode for exposure determination. (That's after having set the main:fill ratio in advance with the meter in incident mode, and the background level with spot mode.)

[steve simmons]

from Ralph Barker

"As a follow-on to Ken's comments, I use a spot meter to double-check subject lighting ratios, background level, and subject highlights, but use incident mode for exposure determination. (That's after having set the main:fill ratio in advance with the meter in incident mode, and the background level with spot mode.)"

Maybe that is why your images aren't working technically. Too many meters and an overly complicated system of trying to mix and match them. Try simplifyng your precedure down to one meter and then properly calibrate your film exposure and development.

My own preference is to use just one meter. I take spot readings of both sides of the face,the background and any dark areas in the photo. For caucasion skin I place it in zone 6.5 or so, for an olive complexion zone 5.5 to 6 or so, and if they are African American never below zone 4. If there is white fabric in the photo I will also read that and have it go as high as zone 7-7.5 if I need to. With a staining developer you can get away with this becausu the high values won't block up. I do the same procedure with available/continuous light or with flash. I adjust the lighting on the background so it separates from whatever hair or clothing tones will also be in the photo. If the hair is dark or the clothing is dark I may lighten the background just a little. If the hair or clothing is lighter I can let the background go darker. I almost always use a hairlight.

For women I amy have a contrast range of 1-1.5 stops from one side of the face to the other, for a little more drama I may go 2 stops. For mean a general rule of thumb is 1.5 to 2 stops and for a little more drama maybe 2.5 stops.

The key, IMHO, is to have the skin glow and give off light regardless of where it is placed on the scale

steve simmons

[Monty McCutchen]

I have posted this image before in other threads but seems appropriate here as well. Shot natural light, open shade about 30 minutes before sundown. Metered with an incident meter 1/2 second wide open at f11 with a 550 lens on a 20 x 24 camera. This put the lens about 2 feet give or take from lens to nose. The model negotiated a hard bargain--ice cream BEFORE dinner and wouldn't sit still until I budged off the after dinner clause. My son Satchel, 4. Pt/Pd gumover print. Skin dead on.

Monty

[jim kitchen]

Ken et al,

Since this image is not with natural light, and I wanted a lighting setup that mimicked natural light, I set up a rented studio light with a soft box, read the flash exposure from the sync connection on my light meter, took the reading and set my camera lens; accordingly, believing that the light reading would be Zone V, or there about. I gave the TMY negative N-1 development in XTOL, from an experimental point of view since I knew I would scan the negative, where maybe I should not have, but that is what I did...

The original shaded skin tone in the image happens to around Zone IV, so I lightened the general image in Photoshop, to make the skin shadow approximately Zone VI. Although the original image looks respectable and contains a richer tonality, compared to this controlled lightened image, I wondered at that moment what another photographer would do when printing the image, so that thought generated the original question.

Using a studio light and soft box are quite a challenge, at least for me, since I do not have the tools to see where the shadows fall or do not fall, until I process the negative. :) But, time and effort will teach me what I need to know too, along with your input...

That said, I have a learning curve to master, and I appreciate your time and your feedback.

jim k