Crushed & lifted blacks.. why are they appealing?

juggler

juggler

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,059
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
You know, that sort of faded lifted black point style of processing. It undoubtedly is often appealing but I can't for the life of me work out why.
By way of example here's a snap with an exaggeratedly milky look:

S8260328_zpsvxbtzcju.JPG

Whenever I try it myself I think 'oh, that's pretty' followed sometime later - maybe a few minutes, maybe a few days - by thinking 'why did I do that?'. Yet there are folk who consistently make it work.

I'm pretty sure it's not just a nostalgia thing that's harking back to the days when film was the only option. To quote Zack Arias - 'if my prints had come back from the lab looking like that I'd have sent them back'. So what is it that makes this style work? When doesn't it?

Any insights on a postcard to the usual address.
 
Last edited:
Is it always on purpose? It's an effect you'd get if your editing monitor hadn't had the black level adjusted for the ambient lighting.
 
I went to a talk the other day at my camera club. The speaker was Irene Froy (I'd never heard of her) her style was interesting, in that a lot of her photos were soft or just plain blurred. Now this is intentional and did add something to be images. It got me thinking, if I'd taken these photos and shown them to a friend or entered then into a club comp, i think most would say that I missed focus and to try again.
 
Nostromo said:
I went to a talk the other day at my camera club. The speaker was Irene Froy (I'd never heard of her) her style was interesting, in that a lot of her photos were soft or just plain blurred. Now this is intentional and did add something to be images. It got me thinking, if I'd taken these photos and shown them to a friend or entered then into a club comp, i think most would say that I missed focus and to try again.
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like Julia Margaret Cameron.

edit: I've just looked. Irene Froy is nothing like JMC.
 
Last edited:
If one thinks of it as an effect, like sepia B&W or uber-HDR it makes more sense. Some make it their trademark, and for portraits where lifted shadows and lack of solid blacks can be complementary then it's probably OK, especially if combined with a retro under-exposed print film look for nostalgia. I was going to say that IMO it's a bit over-used, but at the moment it's still fashionable enough to be accepted routinely.
 
It never looks good to me. It always looks too much like a mistake. But maybe it's because I remember badly exposed and developed prints and darkroom failures.
 
I like it, but in moderation. I have a homemade preset/action so I can try a "ballpark" effect on every picture which, if it works, I refine a bit more subtley. If it doesn't suit the image I undo and move on. But I think it has a cinematic feel to it that, when paired with the proper photo, looks great.
 
Nostromo said:
I went to a talk the other day at my camera club. The speaker was Irene Froy (I'd never heard of her) her style was interesting, in that a lot of her photos were soft or just plain blurred. Now this is intentional and did add something to be images. It got me thinking, if I'd taken these photos and shown them to a friend or entered then into a club comp, i think most would say that I missed focus and to try again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for mentioning her - I've just had a look, and found some fascinating stuff.
 
I think it harkens back to the days of film in the 70s and we get a nostalgic jolt from it. It reminds me of those Kodak instant photos my parents used to pull out of the camera and we'd sit there staring at the print, waiting for it to develop before our eyes. I like the PP in some shots and find it quite unappealing in others but it's all about taste and to each his own.
 
WingTsun said:
I think it harkens back to the days of film in the 70s and we get a nostalgic jolt from it. It reminds me of those Kodak instant photos my parents used to pull out of the camera and we'd sit there staring at the print, waiting for it to develop before our eyes. I like the PP in some shots and find it quite unappealing in others but it's all about taste and to each his own.
Click to expand...

It's not referencing film per se but perhaps it does reference instants.

I suspect that removing shadow detail helps to remove unwanted information & drive attention to the principal subject. Shadow detail often provides a sense of richness, though, so balancing the two is tricky.

I also wonder whether it's a fashion thing - we're unconsciously drawn to it 'cos it's the current big thing? Maybe it will go the way of HDR and selective colour.
 
juggler said:
It's not referencing film per se but perhaps it does reference instants.

I suspect that removing shadow detail helps to remove unwanted information & drive attention to the principal subject. Shadow detail often provides a sense of richness, though, so balancing the two is tricky.

I also wonder whether it's a fashion thing - we're unconsciously drawn to it 'cos it's the current big thing? Maybe it will go the way of HDR and selective colour.
Click to expand...

I think you're absolutely right and I think it is a current fashion. It will probably fade except for those who keep it as their "trademark style". Like you said, it suits some images (for me: some portrait and people shots) but not everything.
 
It always reminds me of an over exposed print that has been whipped out of the developer to try to save it.
In most shots I like to see a full tonal range from rich blacks to detailed highlights. In the past few months I have noticed that many photographers are losing their fear of strong blacks, but not all have achieved the trick of maintaining a maximum black at the same time as not blocking them completely. The correct S curve was automatic in analogue work, it has to be applied in digital.
 
Last edited:
Its just a fashion thing, Helped along by the influx of instagram and retrica users who are now interested in photography as its more accessible through a mobile phone.
 
It's just a fashion, as others have said. Just as over-cooked HDR has had it's day a few years ago, and tobacco grads did in the 80s etc. There's always something that's popular.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's just a fashion, as others have said. Just as over-cooked HDR has had it's day a few years ago, and tobacco grads did in the 80s etc. There's always something that's popular.
Click to expand...

Oo.. I'd forgetten about tobacco grads. My father had a huge selection of filters which he took everywhere with him. Starburst filters with different numbers of points, prismatic jobs & loads of coloured grads.
 
Unfortunately... I hadn't forgotten them. Terrible things :)
 
They were OK for skies "mono" landscapes. :) ;) :beer::clap: :sneaky: :whistle:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top