-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Richard Avedon's photos with 3D qualities
- Thread starter SandyF
- Start date
simonclivehughes
Well-known member
Sandy,
Avedon achieved much of the "3D" look from the intricate and exacting instructions he gave to his printer(s). Somewhere or other I saw a picture which he had marked up for dodging, burning etc, and I was amazed at the level of structure that he knew was there but just needed massaging to pull out. This is especially true of his portraits which are usually printed quite large.
--
Cheers,
Simon
Website: http://web.mac.com/simonchughes/
Avedon achieved much of the "3D" look from the intricate and exacting instructions he gave to his printer(s). Somewhere or other I saw a picture which he had marked up for dodging, burning etc, and I was amazed at the level of structure that he knew was there but just needed massaging to pull out. This is especially true of his portraits which are usually printed quite large.
--
Cheers,
Simon
Website: http://web.mac.com/simonchughes/
Donald Ferguson
Leading Member
Hello Sandy,
I guess we just have to try to keep in perspective not only the format of a given camers but now also film vs. digital. I think Truman made some good points in his response here. Also there were some good points made on post processing to bring out the photographers intended vision.
I personally was drawn to Foveon/ sigma for these qualities after studying myriads of images over aperiod of time. I mostly concentrated on output from Sd9 and Sd10 output as the Sd14 did not yet exist and time after time I was seeing something different, call it a depth if you will that I was attracted to. These two Cameras along with the DP1 are my only cameras now for this reason.
What is it and how can one define it? I beleive it lies in The dr ability of thes cameras, not overall DR from absolute white to absolute black dut finer Dr over say the size of a leaf in a tree or a rock on the beach. DR of a small point in an image and it is hard to quantify. It is seen in great art as well and I have heard terms like, micro contrast or local contrast but not really suite it properly. Timberwolfs explaination comes very close though in my opinion. Very illusive but there!
I think we have to break the image down to smaller areas and inspect them as part of a whole and what effect they have on that whole to come close to understanding this.
Take Care
Don
I guess we just have to try to keep in perspective not only the format of a given camers but now also film vs. digital. I think Truman made some good points in his response here. Also there were some good points made on post processing to bring out the photographers intended vision.
I personally was drawn to Foveon/ sigma for these qualities after studying myriads of images over aperiod of time. I mostly concentrated on output from Sd9 and Sd10 output as the Sd14 did not yet exist and time after time I was seeing something different, call it a depth if you will that I was attracted to. These two Cameras along with the DP1 are my only cameras now for this reason.
What is it and how can one define it? I beleive it lies in The dr ability of thes cameras, not overall DR from absolute white to absolute black dut finer Dr over say the size of a leaf in a tree or a rock on the beach. DR of a small point in an image and it is hard to quantify. It is seen in great art as well and I have heard terms like, micro contrast or local contrast but not really suite it properly. Timberwolfs explaination comes very close though in my opinion. Very illusive but there!
I think we have to break the image down to smaller areas and inspect them as part of a whole and what effect they have on that whole to come close to understanding this.
Take Care
Don
Roland Karlsson
Veteran Member
Thanx Sandy. That was rather impressive images. And as I understand even much more impressive in real life. I really like to see those famous (and other) persons so "naked". I would have liked to visit that exhibition.
As several already have said - 3D look is mostly an illusion. It is created by choice of subject and lighting and then intensified by the choice of photographic equipment and technique.
A large camera is preferable. Thats mainly because of the more subtle gradiation - but also because of larger lenses with smaller, and more precise DOF.
There is a possibility that equal pixels doing simple measurement (like Foveon) is to prefer over a more computed look (like Bayer). And several here have tried to prove it, with some success, with examples. But - unfortunately - examples are no proof. And comparisons are no good either, as comparisons always will be criticized regarding how to count pixels, i.e. what Bayer CFA camera to compare to.
So - of you want to take good images - with a 3D effect - then use your camera and learn how to master subject, light and Photoshopping. Thats the best way IMHO.
--
Roland
support http://www.openraw.org/
X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
As several already have said - 3D look is mostly an illusion. It is created by choice of subject and lighting and then intensified by the choice of photographic equipment and technique.
A large camera is preferable. Thats mainly because of the more subtle gradiation - but also because of larger lenses with smaller, and more precise DOF.
There is a possibility that equal pixels doing simple measurement (like Foveon) is to prefer over a more computed look (like Bayer). And several here have tried to prove it, with some success, with examples. But - unfortunately - examples are no proof. And comparisons are no good either, as comparisons always will be criticized regarding how to count pixels, i.e. what Bayer CFA camera to compare to.
So - of you want to take good images - with a 3D effect - then use your camera and learn how to master subject, light and Photoshopping. Thats the best way IMHO.
--
Roland
support http://www.openraw.org/
X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
DavidMillier
Veteran Member
Hi Ed
My sister gave my parents one of the LCD photo frames.
I have to say that looking at the images is fun for a minute to two but it doesn't seem to me to be an adequate substitute for a print. Backlight suits some images better than others but even so, there is something about a back projected electronic slideshow that is lacking. Prints still rule (for me)!
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
My sister gave my parents one of the LCD photo frames.
I have to say that looking at the images is fun for a minute to two but it doesn't seem to me to be an adequate substitute for a print. Backlight suits some images better than others but even so, there is something about a back projected electronic slideshow that is lacking. Prints still rule (for me)!
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
Roland Karlsson
Veteran Member
Then - please take the paper into account. A good image might be converted into an extraordinary image by choice of the correct paper. And you have dye and pigment based inkjet printers also.
--
Roland
support http://www.openraw.org/
X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
Ed_S
Veteran Member
David,
Your point well taken. From the sheer volume (not to say quality) of images we're collectively creating even in this fledgling digital age, I fear that digital may be a cultural/technological adaptation necessitated by quantities of image files.
I've resisted the temptation to get one of those digital frames although I've considered it for a couple of years now. A good friend who is I think a decent, casual photographer has proudly displayed some of his work on his. I find the size/quality somewhat lacking. Even the 15" diagonal display on my Dell laptop (which I frequently use for editing) has its obvious limitations. Some would say that no LCD is really "good" for photos but I'd suggest that for the size/quality of images we routinely toss about here, something at least 17" diagonal and of high qualilty is preferable for digital viewing.
I do love well-executed physical prints. The quality of home inkjet printing especially 6 color or higher is becoming truly photographic - although size may be a limiting factor for those of us with limited printing equipment and limited display space. If this economy would straighten out I'd love to get a larger format printer for just the reasons you mention.
Kindest regards,
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires
DavidMillier
Veteran Member
I'd quite like to know why the red text in the sidebar menu on that website appears to float 6mm or so above the white text to my eyesight. It is a disturbingly real 3D effect - and one that disappears completely if I close one eye.
Does anyone else see it like this or do I really have X3 vision?
A fine gallery of portraits but I'm not sure quite what you are trying to demonstrate.
Clearly, you get a "roundness" to the modelling of the face from good lighting and the prints are excellently made. But in what sense are they "3D"?
Could it be that "3D" is just a bad choice of word? Are we just discussing the difference between high technical quality and not so high? A good look at an Ansel Adams print reveals something of that nature. The extremely controlled tones in the prints make the landscape look more "real" than it actually is.
For years I tried to make Adams' style darkroom prints and couldn't understand why I produced flat, dull smudgy looking output and he had these bright, vivid, intense images (and this was despite being trained in the zone system at college).
The answer of course is that everything needs to be right. The subject, lighting, processing, printing all have to come together. Errors at any point can ruin it. But crucially, beyond this, you need that gut instinct understanding of tonal relationships and how to manipulate them to achieve an effect. Never, never underestimate the contribution made by the darkroom wizard!
I found it interesting that I was never that fond of Adams' colour work. Pretty pictures but his forte was the tonal relationships of monochrome work IMO.
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
Does anyone else see it like this or do I really have X3 vision?
A fine gallery of portraits but I'm not sure quite what you are trying to demonstrate.
Clearly, you get a "roundness" to the modelling of the face from good lighting and the prints are excellently made. But in what sense are they "3D"?
Could it be that "3D" is just a bad choice of word? Are we just discussing the difference between high technical quality and not so high? A good look at an Ansel Adams print reveals something of that nature. The extremely controlled tones in the prints make the landscape look more "real" than it actually is.
For years I tried to make Adams' style darkroom prints and couldn't understand why I produced flat, dull smudgy looking output and he had these bright, vivid, intense images (and this was despite being trained in the zone system at college).
The answer of course is that everything needs to be right. The subject, lighting, processing, printing all have to come together. Errors at any point can ruin it. But crucially, beyond this, you need that gut instinct understanding of tonal relationships and how to manipulate them to achieve an effect. Never, never underestimate the contribution made by the darkroom wizard!
I found it interesting that I was never that fond of Adams' colour work. Pretty pictures but his forte was the tonal relationships of monochrome work IMO.
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
Brooke A
Leading Member
Agreed.
I am fortunate to have the skills to print my own work. That by itself does not make a great photograph.
Let's assume that for purposes of this discussion your negative is printed as best as it can.
--
Brooke
I am fortunate to have the skills to print my own work. That by itself does not make a great photograph.
Let's assume that for purposes of this discussion your negative is printed as best as it can.
--
Brooke
Brooke A
Leading Member
Dean Collins was likely the first that taught this knowledge on mass. The masters (and master printers) that knew of this usually kept those "little secrets" to themselves.
-taken from one of Dean Collins teaching CDs. You can Google on the net to get more info.
Exposure - Getting a proper exposure is the foundation of good image making in any format - still or video. This chapter demonstrates proper metering techniques, and provides a basis for understanding 18% gray tones and exposure manipulation.
Shadow Edge Transfer - Understanding and controlling the degree of shadow edge transfer (i.e. Light Quality) is a key element in shaping the look of your imagery. Demonstraions of light source size, distance from the subject, and much more, will help you to understand the true nature of light control for portraits, interviews, product work and more.
Specular Edge Transfer - Training your mind's eye to see light the way a camera captures it is a key to successful lighting. This chapter describes understanding and manipulation of surface texture on products, skin tones, etc. This is one of the keys to top-level product work.
Contrast between Shadow & Diffused - Controlling contrast is one of the most powerful tools for an image-maker. This chapter provides a thorough understanding of the manipulation of shadow contrast - here you will see demonstations on light placement, fill light control, lighting ratios and ambient light control.
Contrast between Diffused & Specular - The "other" contrast control. This section explores the control of highlights and how, through the size and distance of your light sources, you can have complete control over highlights for both still and video work.
Special Features - See original interviews with Dean Collins about his introduction and concepts of 3-Dimensional Contrast. See also humorous clips from the production of 1990 and out-takes.
--
Brooke
-taken from one of Dean Collins teaching CDs. You can Google on the net to get more info.
Exposure - Getting a proper exposure is the foundation of good image making in any format - still or video. This chapter demonstrates proper metering techniques, and provides a basis for understanding 18% gray tones and exposure manipulation.
Shadow Edge Transfer - Understanding and controlling the degree of shadow edge transfer (i.e. Light Quality) is a key element in shaping the look of your imagery. Demonstraions of light source size, distance from the subject, and much more, will help you to understand the true nature of light control for portraits, interviews, product work and more.
Specular Edge Transfer - Training your mind's eye to see light the way a camera captures it is a key to successful lighting. This chapter describes understanding and manipulation of surface texture on products, skin tones, etc. This is one of the keys to top-level product work.
Contrast between Shadow & Diffused - Controlling contrast is one of the most powerful tools for an image-maker. This chapter provides a thorough understanding of the manipulation of shadow contrast - here you will see demonstations on light placement, fill light control, lighting ratios and ambient light control.
Contrast between Diffused & Specular - The "other" contrast control. This section explores the control of highlights and how, through the size and distance of your light sources, you can have complete control over highlights for both still and video work.
Special Features - See original interviews with Dean Collins about his introduction and concepts of 3-Dimensional Contrast. See also humorous clips from the production of 1990 and out-takes.
--
Brooke
James M Hughes
Veteran Member
OK - how about this? Here's a portrait taken with the Olympus E1 which has, I feel, a very filmic 3D sort of look.
Sorry to post Oly images here - I do have an SD-14, but use it less than I ought!
J M Hughes
Yes, I see that too. I often notice that some reds will seem to "leap" off backgrounds such as grey, white, some greens, and black. It's particularly noticeable to me on white or black "special boards" in restuarants. BTW, my wife and kids don't see it. I figure it's some sort of X-power.
ImagesOfNowhere
Leading Member
Ed,
Thanks for the comments. I know on this subject there are a lot of like-minded photogs here. You also make a important mention - slides! A good, low-ISO, well exposed color positive slide has a life all its own. Also ties in substantially to the whole "3D-ness" theme of this thread, no? Well shot (and presented) slides are able to convey this very effectively.
Sincerely,
--
-BC
Thanks for the comments. I know on this subject there are a lot of like-minded photogs here. You also make a important mention - slides! A good, low-ISO, well exposed color positive slide has a life all its own. Also ties in substantially to the whole "3D-ness" theme of this thread, no? Well shot (and presented) slides are able to convey this very effectively.
Sincerely,
--
-BC
CKDexterHaven
Well-known member
1. Large format.
The larger the film, the longer the focal length of the lens, and the more pronounced the dimensionality. You get less DOF with longer lenses, and coupled with that, the low levels of grain give you a 'larger' sense of space.
If you shoot with a compact digital P&S camera, you have a (very) small sensor. If you compare those images to those of a full-frame dSLR, you see that the bigger sensor gives you more dimensionality. Compare that, again, to a Medium Format digital back, and there's a bit more of it. Same thing applies to 35mm versus 8x10.
But, Avedon also used a Rolleiflex 6x6 camera, and a Hasselblad 500-series, with a 150mm lens with extension tube. With the Rolleiflex, he often used a Rolleinar close-up attachment. When used very close, there was 'distortion.' Whatever is close to the lens element gets big in the resulting image. Most people avoid that - like when it's said you shouldn't use wide angle lenses for portraiture. Avedon and Penn both embraced that. They didn't necessarily aim to make the most 'flattering' portraits. They made vivid depictions of people and their characters. This leads to number 3....
2. Avedon's Printing.
You have to realize how much work goes into each of his prints. I'm not sure which of his books show this - i'm not at home and don't have access to mine at the moment - but there have been illustrations of how much dodging and burning is done to each print, to bring back tone, and to add tone to too light areas. If you just make a straight print from a negative, you're only getting what the natural light gave you. With darkroom artistry, you're essentially PAINTING in shadow and highlight, all of which can give you more sense of 'physical relief' and dimension. I think this was also demonstrated in an old issue of American Photography - the Avedon tribute issue. When i get back from 'vacation,' maybe i'll scan it.
3. You're not going to get great "3-D-ness" with a Sigma Foveon. That's not the key. And, grain isn't necessarily a problem. Also, don't try shooting with telephoto lenses, and they squash and compress a scene. Shoot with a 'normal' lens (50mm on a full-frame or film camera) or try a 35mm lens to even increase dimensionality. But, keep the plane of the lens parallel to the plane of the subject's face/body in order to diminish distortions. And, then get close with it. It will make the nose a bit more prominent, but you're not trying to make an Olan Mills / mall studio glamor portrait, right?
Here are a couple of my most Avedon-ish, recent pictures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/749126949/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/2423385091/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/2056261184/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3061156403/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3062346622/sizes/o/
Some other informational links:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157603570980071/
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00LebS
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/006sTu
--
http://www.derekstanton.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven
The larger the film, the longer the focal length of the lens, and the more pronounced the dimensionality. You get less DOF with longer lenses, and coupled with that, the low levels of grain give you a 'larger' sense of space.
If you shoot with a compact digital P&S camera, you have a (very) small sensor. If you compare those images to those of a full-frame dSLR, you see that the bigger sensor gives you more dimensionality. Compare that, again, to a Medium Format digital back, and there's a bit more of it. Same thing applies to 35mm versus 8x10.
But, Avedon also used a Rolleiflex 6x6 camera, and a Hasselblad 500-series, with a 150mm lens with extension tube. With the Rolleiflex, he often used a Rolleinar close-up attachment. When used very close, there was 'distortion.' Whatever is close to the lens element gets big in the resulting image. Most people avoid that - like when it's said you shouldn't use wide angle lenses for portraiture. Avedon and Penn both embraced that. They didn't necessarily aim to make the most 'flattering' portraits. They made vivid depictions of people and their characters. This leads to number 3....
2. Avedon's Printing.
You have to realize how much work goes into each of his prints. I'm not sure which of his books show this - i'm not at home and don't have access to mine at the moment - but there have been illustrations of how much dodging and burning is done to each print, to bring back tone, and to add tone to too light areas. If you just make a straight print from a negative, you're only getting what the natural light gave you. With darkroom artistry, you're essentially PAINTING in shadow and highlight, all of which can give you more sense of 'physical relief' and dimension. I think this was also demonstrated in an old issue of American Photography - the Avedon tribute issue. When i get back from 'vacation,' maybe i'll scan it.
3. You're not going to get great "3-D-ness" with a Sigma Foveon. That's not the key. And, grain isn't necessarily a problem. Also, don't try shooting with telephoto lenses, and they squash and compress a scene. Shoot with a 'normal' lens (50mm on a full-frame or film camera) or try a 35mm lens to even increase dimensionality. But, keep the plane of the lens parallel to the plane of the subject's face/body in order to diminish distortions. And, then get close with it. It will make the nose a bit more prominent, but you're not trying to make an Olan Mills / mall studio glamor portrait, right?
Here are a couple of my most Avedon-ish, recent pictures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/749126949/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/2423385091/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/2056261184/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3061156403/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3062346622/sizes/o/
Some other informational links:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157603570980071/
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00LebS
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/006sTu
--
http://www.derekstanton.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven
CKDexterHaven
Well-known member
which is a small excerpt of this:
--
http://www.derekstanton.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven
James M Hughes
Veteran Member
Thanks for posting this - and thanks for the image links in your previous post.
which is a small excerpt of this:
I've seen this image before - I think it's from Avedon's book 'The Sixties'. Either that, or - 'Evidence 1944-1994'. When I first saw it, ten or so years back, I was impressed (and more than a little intimidated) by the huge amount of work that seemed to have gone into the printing of this shot. But now it all seems a bit excessive - and (dare I say it?) unecessary.
The basic picture itself isn't that good, and the 'enhancement' hasn't really elevated it into anything special. While I accept the premise of dodging and burning to enhance tone and contrast in order to create a 3D effect (or whatever), here I think Avedon was trying to 'save' a fundamentally naff shot that was poorly lit - LOL!
To be honest, I think the first two of your pictures (in the previous post) demonstrate the '3D effect' much better, and are superior technically.
That said, there are some wonderful pictures in 'The Sixties' - in particular, the full-length portrait of the young Bob Dylan (taken 1965) wearing a (suede?) coat. This image has the most beautiful tonality and a lovely soft blurred background. It's one of my favourite Avedon images - indeed, one of my all time favourite images, period.
Here's a link
http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=14&p=0&a=3&at=1
However, believe me, the printed version looks much more beautiful than this!
J M Hughes
Right on the money. Look at the depth and richness of Weston's pepper. It would have been extremely difficult to get with anything but a large format.
Avedon is a master of the portrait. He not only controlled distortion of shooting with close to the subject, he used this distortion to create depth without the viewer knowing there was distortion.
This the most overlooked area in digital photography is the final print. Adams compared it to music where the negative was seen as the score and the print as the interpretation of the score. Your work is only 10% done after you have a perfect negative. The interpretation of an image from the same negative can be completely different in two different prints from the same negative. Too often in digital photography - quaintly replaces quality. The "I can take a 1000 shots on one card - if I take a 1000 shots one will be good right off the card."
Yes the Foveon is too small of a sensor. This is an area where a large sensor is the proper tool. The right tool for the job.
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum