ku # 455 ~ 0 - 255
Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 09:59AM 
Cold,snowy and grey • click on photo to embiggen itOne thing that I have always disliked about Ansel Adams' photographs is that, no matter the weather or conditions, every day was a full-range day, tonally-speaking. There was very little visual difference between, say, a photograph created in the full light of day and one created in the indirect light found in a shaded canyon. He had 10 steps in his Zone System and, by god, he was going to use each and every one of them.
Now, there is no denying the radiant beauty of Adams' prints. They just seem to glow. But, that said, the reason that many of us feel a little "grey" on a grey day is because ... well ... because it's a grey day. On grey day, things are not all bright (literally and figuratively) and cheery. In fact, most things are rather leaden and cheerless visually-speaking.
That being the case, why is it that so much landscape photography, no matter the weather or conditions, is so bright and cheery?
Very few landscapists seem to venture out in less than ideal conditions. When some do, the photographic results almost always, in the digital age, exhibit maximum 0-255 range snap and punch - for those of you not digital darkroom conversant, that means a print with a tonal range from black with no detail to white with no detail (in a perfect Adams' world, the detail-less whites would be limited to small areas [specular highlights] of the print and the detail-less blacks would also be limited to equally small areas).
IMO, photographers who always print to the full-range, 0-255 standard are not making photographs which are true to the spirit of fact. Instead, they are making photographs which are true to the spirit of Adams, which, in my book, is a whole other thing.
publisher's comment: a good case in point
Joel Truckenbrod asked, "Do you have have some examples of other photographers who follow this train of thought?" - Joel, which train of thought - always using the full range, or not using the full-range?
Reader Comments (4)
Thank you! I get so annoyed when I post photos that have snow in them and if the snow is in the shade or on an overcast day, invariably, someone will comment that the snow is grey (especially in a B&W photo). Duh, it is not pure white in the shade or on an overcast day, to my eye, so why should it be in my photo? I try to process my photos to be as close to what my eye and brain perceives. I suppose that is why I get so annoyed by these comments.
Printmaking is always a difficult topic simply because so much personal interpritation is involved. I'm not sure I agree with you 100%, as some of the statements seem to be a bit to broad at times. There seems to be occasions where it works well and others where it may not. However, I most certainly do agree that a full tonal representation can at times hurt an image - your image posted here is a good example. Regardless, when we make our choices in preparing an image for print, we need to follow our own voice, not the voice of the choir. I also think its worth mentioning that printmaking is really a craft in many senses. As with most pursuits, it takes time to really develop one's ability and confidence.
Do you have have some examples of other photographers who follow this train of thought? I would be interested to explore the idea and see it's implimentation a bit more. Perhaps in a future blog posting?
First, I agree with what I think you're saying, Mark. Those who consistently use the full tonal range in Photoshop simply because they can are somewhat analagous to those who push the saturation sliders as far as they can. Actually, they're probably the same people. They've learned that images should "pop" and so they make them pop.
That's fine, I guess, if that's what you really want. But I tend to feel, as you seem to, that when you do so you're being a bit unfaithful in many instances to what was in front of the camera. Your image is a perfect example. It would be no problem to make the snow look "white". But I don't think that that's what you're trying to convey with this image. I look at it and feel cold without even going outside!
Having said that, I also understand (a little) why people want to make their images brighter. It's been said that most people who view photographs spend less than 8 viewing seconds on any one (I'm not sure where the supporting data on this is, but let's take it at face value). What holds the average viewer's attention is contrast. We first look for recognizable forms, and then we look for contrast. When an image appears to be tonally flat, people tend to get bored with it quickly.
That's "wrong", of course, but that's the way it seems to be. So if I want your attention, I stand a better chance of getting it by pushing the tonal boundaries. If I can also make the colors jump out at you, maybe you'll look at it a while longer. Have you ever seen a postcard that was tonally flat with muddy colors? No one would buy them.
Again, I agree with you. If your image above went from 0 to 255, it would have a completely different effect on me. Personally, I much prefer it in its current form.
In response to your question to my question: I'm asking for examples of photographers who choose not to use the full white to black tonal range. Many thanks in advance, as this is a very relevant topic for many different approaches.