Ha, Ha, that is the eternal question...... Some print hard - high contrast - and some soft. Bernard Plossu said that he wanted neither black nor white in his photographs, only shades of grey. If you look at the work of Bill Brandt, who many consider one of the greats, including myself... you will learn that his early work was soft, lots of greys. The older he got, the harder/more contrasty he printed. He changed, his perspective changed, his photographs changed. So how contrasty am I, well that depends..... ;0)
I checked out Bill Brandt and I see they are highlighting more of his contrasty images on the official archive site. That's an interesting take... so maybe we change that preference over time... I find the whole thing curious! Thanks for the thought. :)
Most people who own Brandt prints, including the archive is from his later years, when he did fairly sizable editions of prints, all of them very contrasty. So, not surprised. Do you like his work, and I should ask are you more or less contrasty in your taste?
I do like his work. I think contrast is kind of tricky to be honest. I have noticed a trend towards extreme contrast with street photographers especially. Since this is a genre that I tend to shoot a lot, I began questioning. I was taught a lot of things 20 years ago that I never questioned and I’m only now starting to! I think contrast depends on the subject. At least, that’s what I’m thinking now. I’m going to continue experimenting and maybe share what I discover when I finally figure it out!
The Chicago School - Ray Metzker, Harry Callahan, etc. like the urban photographs either at dawn or near sunset when there are very hard shadows. Isolate one or two figures in the light. Focus on them and meter for them and everything else goes black. This is a style. Much imitated. Personally, I really like some of Metzker’s work, but I think it is easy to lose too much in the shadows, and if you do that, there is a risk that the photograph becomes one-dimensional. If your eye is only drawn to one particular area, because of the overpowering dark areas, then your eye cannot travel and enjoy the whole image. At least that is how I feel about these things. Have fun with your experimentation.
You got it! SO many street photographers are trying to emulate those hard shadow styles. I want to see humanity in all its glory and if you have to get up close for that or in soft light, then suddenly it's not deemed "good street." I agree fully that if your eye is only drawn to one area because of overpowering dark areas (particularly on a consistent basis), the image loses me....thank you and I'll let you know if I make any discoveries worth sharing!
Contrast really is an art form all to itself! I love the look of subtle highlights and mysterious, dark shadows. I find a little bit goes a long way, and really depends on the image.
You're right, Michael. I have largely ignored its appropriate use for quite some time. It's just been a matter of hiking up the contrast when I "felt" I needed it. I'm giving a lot of thought these days though to the "why" of stylistic choices. Thank you for the comment!
adding or not contrast depends on the photos. yesterday i posted a photo on notes, a photo of a line of trees in the fog. adding contrast to that is a crime, it will destroy the photo, naturally fog has no contrast. adding contrast might help sometimes but my approach is "just a pinch of salt"
It really all depends on the subject matter, doesn’t it? I prefer rich tones and that usually means more contrast than not. But sometimes a scene rendered in all grays is just perfect. - Terrific photos, by the way!
My favorites of your photos are 1,2,5. I love the sharpness of the hard contrast in the first one, the least contrast of the fog and the last one is different all together. Apparently I like a range of contrast. The subject matter, how a photo is framed, the story told, the emotion evoked has as much to do with my choice of those 3 photos as contrast does.
I, along with most, if not all of the others who have responded so far, "it depends." We are luckier than most photographers before us, to have post tools that allows us to easily select areas of a photo to adjust the contrast, or almost anything else we want in a section of a photo.
As viewers, we also have the benefit of seeing much more work in a greater variety of mediums. Do I view a contrasty or subtle image on my phone the same as an 8x10 or in a 40x50 poster? I doubt it. Do I think about what the viewer will see, yes if I am working on an image for someone else.
At the end of my post processing, I want an image that will move the viewer, when it is a third party or myself.
Thanks Susanne. I am questioning it for myself. In the darkroom when actually choosing an image to print, I was schooled to only select frames with higher contrast. Later when I started scanning film instead, I would manually up the contrast just because...but now I'm questioning all of it!
You had a lighter hand on contrast from my POV. However, when contrast is added, than the sky goes too bright. Btw, I didn't study image processing yet but it's high on my list in 2025.
I’m drawn to high contrast shots. Way back, when I was processing film and printing in the darkroom my main goal was to have a good tonal range represented in the image, from pure black to pure white. I read about Ansel Adam’s Zone system used this as a starting point and tried to have all the other tonal zones in the image as well. I try to do the same with my digital processing in B&W.
Adding or subtracting contrast is a personal choice. I agree with everyone’s input, it all depends on the image. What I do look out for in my own work is to retain detail in the shadow areas as much as possible instead of it being just hard core black. That subtle nuance I think adds depth to a photograph.
For me it totally depends on the subject and light. As an example, on a foggy landscape I may reduce the contrast; on a street scene at night I may increase it to highlight the most important parts.
Wonderful photos. I love the contrasty scenes. My favorites are the pampas grass with the sun in the sky. But to answer your question: I love contrast, in subjects and as a style. Take a look at my post: Contrast - https://phototalk.cafeludwig.com/2024/12/29/contrast-2/
Ha, Ha, that is the eternal question...... Some print hard - high contrast - and some soft. Bernard Plossu said that he wanted neither black nor white in his photographs, only shades of grey. If you look at the work of Bill Brandt, who many consider one of the greats, including myself... you will learn that his early work was soft, lots of greys. The older he got, the harder/more contrasty he printed. He changed, his perspective changed, his photographs changed. So how contrasty am I, well that depends..... ;0)
I checked out Bill Brandt and I see they are highlighting more of his contrasty images on the official archive site. That's an interesting take... so maybe we change that preference over time... I find the whole thing curious! Thanks for the thought. :)
Most people who own Brandt prints, including the archive is from his later years, when he did fairly sizable editions of prints, all of them very contrasty. So, not surprised. Do you like his work, and I should ask are you more or less contrasty in your taste?
I do like his work. I think contrast is kind of tricky to be honest. I have noticed a trend towards extreme contrast with street photographers especially. Since this is a genre that I tend to shoot a lot, I began questioning. I was taught a lot of things 20 years ago that I never questioned and I’m only now starting to! I think contrast depends on the subject. At least, that’s what I’m thinking now. I’m going to continue experimenting and maybe share what I discover when I finally figure it out!
The Chicago School - Ray Metzker, Harry Callahan, etc. like the urban photographs either at dawn or near sunset when there are very hard shadows. Isolate one or two figures in the light. Focus on them and meter for them and everything else goes black. This is a style. Much imitated. Personally, I really like some of Metzker’s work, but I think it is easy to lose too much in the shadows, and if you do that, there is a risk that the photograph becomes one-dimensional. If your eye is only drawn to one particular area, because of the overpowering dark areas, then your eye cannot travel and enjoy the whole image. At least that is how I feel about these things. Have fun with your experimentation.
You got it! SO many street photographers are trying to emulate those hard shadow styles. I want to see humanity in all its glory and if you have to get up close for that or in soft light, then suddenly it's not deemed "good street." I agree fully that if your eye is only drawn to one area because of overpowering dark areas (particularly on a consistent basis), the image loses me....thank you and I'll let you know if I make any discoveries worth sharing!
Contrast really is an art form all to itself! I love the look of subtle highlights and mysterious, dark shadows. I find a little bit goes a long way, and really depends on the image.
You're right, Michael. I have largely ignored its appropriate use for quite some time. It's just been a matter of hiking up the contrast when I "felt" I needed it. I'm giving a lot of thought these days though to the "why" of stylistic choices. Thank you for the comment!
adding or not contrast depends on the photos. yesterday i posted a photo on notes, a photo of a line of trees in the fog. adding contrast to that is a crime, it will destroy the photo, naturally fog has no contrast. adding contrast might help sometimes but my approach is "just a pinch of salt"
That makes a lot of sense. I can't imagine fog with a lot of contrast... quite the opposite! Thanks for commenting.
I am intrigued by contrast and love your experiment. I love #2 with all the shades of gray. And the light shining through the grass in #5.
Thank you Vanessa! I wonder how this translates for you, in your medium. Let me know sometime!
It really all depends on the subject matter, doesn’t it? I prefer rich tones and that usually means more contrast than not. But sometimes a scene rendered in all grays is just perfect. - Terrific photos, by the way!
Thank you so much! I too am leaning more towards it being a subject matter-related thing, Alicia.
My favorites of your photos are 1,2,5. I love the sharpness of the hard contrast in the first one, the least contrast of the fog and the last one is different all together. Apparently I like a range of contrast. The subject matter, how a photo is framed, the story told, the emotion evoked has as much to do with my choice of those 3 photos as contrast does.
Thank you so much, Sheryl! I am glad you shared which ones spoke to you. It helps inform me about this topic and how contrast serves. Happy new year!
I, along with most, if not all of the others who have responded so far, "it depends." We are luckier than most photographers before us, to have post tools that allows us to easily select areas of a photo to adjust the contrast, or almost anything else we want in a section of a photo.
As viewers, we also have the benefit of seeing much more work in a greater variety of mediums. Do I view a contrasty or subtle image on my phone the same as an 8x10 or in a 40x50 poster? I doubt it. Do I think about what the viewer will see, yes if I am working on an image for someone else.
At the end of my post processing, I want an image that will move the viewer, when it is a third party or myself.
That is a good point about how the image is viewed on a phone versus a poster. Thank you for that, Barry. I agree that we are lucky to have options!
For me, it really depends on the image and the story I’m trying to tell.
How much contrast I add really depends on the mood I want to convey. In generell, I try to be careful with the contrast slider though…
Thanks Susanne. I am questioning it for myself. In the darkroom when actually choosing an image to print, I was schooled to only select frames with higher contrast. Later when I started scanning film instead, I would manually up the contrast just because...but now I'm questioning all of it!
I think it is really comes down to personal taste.
I notice that photographs I have created on emotionally darker days, I often developed a bit more contrasty.
You had a lighter hand on contrast from my POV. However, when contrast is added, than the sky goes too bright. Btw, I didn't study image processing yet but it's high on my list in 2025.
I’m drawn to high contrast shots. Way back, when I was processing film and printing in the darkroom my main goal was to have a good tonal range represented in the image, from pure black to pure white. I read about Ansel Adam’s Zone system used this as a starting point and tried to have all the other tonal zones in the image as well. I try to do the same with my digital processing in B&W.
I try out what’s working best for the image. It has to feel right for me.
Adding or subtracting contrast is a personal choice. I agree with everyone’s input, it all depends on the image. What I do look out for in my own work is to retain detail in the shadow areas as much as possible instead of it being just hard core black. That subtle nuance I think adds depth to a photograph.
For me it totally depends on the subject and light. As an example, on a foggy landscape I may reduce the contrast; on a street scene at night I may increase it to highlight the most important parts.
Wonderful photos. I love the contrasty scenes. My favorites are the pampas grass with the sun in the sky. But to answer your question: I love contrast, in subjects and as a style. Take a look at my post: Contrast - https://phototalk.cafeludwig.com/2024/12/29/contrast-2/