Stills

Robert - I don't (usually) mind the lack of black at all, and anyway printing inkjet on matte, the question of whether pure black is achievable is at least open to debate.

I did experiment in this pic (for screen, it isn't yet printed) in taking the lowest tone to zero, but it was clear that it would be difficult to keep the shadows at the back and the bark at the front with sufficient differentiation in them if I did that.

Black - who needs it?
 

It's strange but I don't have any problem with a pattern in a town: the two trees can be carefully framed and work very well as opposed to the branches in the stream in the glen shot. But then the patterns are everywhere here, punctuated by the gate top right, and the whole comes together very well.

Ten years ago you wouldn't have got this shot. Increasingly I notice in photos the amazing visual symbology used on roads: there is hardly a stretch in a built-up area without some bit of paint on the surface. For those of us who passed our test in the days of the 4-shilling gallon they could be a bit of a mystery but really they signify that there isn't enough space for all the vehicles because it isn't possible (thank goodness) to build more or widen existing ones because the land isn't available.

There is nothing wrong tonally here but I would have been unlikely to end up with this result!
 

but it was clear that it would be difficult to keep the shadows at the back and the bark at the front with sufficient differentiation in them if I did that.

I have played with this image, pretending it were mine.

I adjusted levels to get a few specular whites and a few spots of black. The image now sparkles and all the detail in the tree trunk is (very) visible on my monitor.

I concur with John There is nothing wrong tonally here but I would have been unlikely to end up with this result!

The white lines hint of the Zebra crossing off image.
 

I did not mean to be negative when I mentioned tones, it is just that we may all be somehow trained into thinking we need black as black can be and lightest lights possible.
It is fine, It is Colin, It is fine :o)
 

The image now sparkles and all the detail in the tree trunk is (very) visible on my monitor.

Ah, yes, but a monitor isn't the right test. Sparkles on a monitor are like transparencies of old. They looked great on the light box but were complete buggers to get onto paper.

I guess I'm just a low contrast kind of guy :-)
 

I don't change my work flow much for web vs print.

Are you saying this is a print based work flow?
 

Rex - I'm not printing at the moment for reasons to do with my sudden move of house at the beginning of the year, but the essence of the answer to your question is 'yes'.

I see the print as the end product of the photographic process and tatty little web jpegs as, well, tatty little web jpegs.

There are lots of good things about photography on the web, but the quality of the viewing experience isn't one of them. YMMV.
 

OK. Then I understand your tonal requirements a bit better.

I print with a 2100 and usually my work flow is similar but not identical and I get results I find pleasing.

The extent to which mysterious bits of software manipulate my pixels in order to produce a pleasing result, I confess, are beyond me.
 

Actually this debate has reminded me of something.

I had a discussion with someone who 'pushed' the zone system (John might recognise the description of this person). In that the 'end' zones are said to be incapable of showing detail. I had a short debate with them when I demonstrated that detail could be seen on a monitor in the classically defined 'no detail' zones. The comment was then 'well you are using a monitor'. So I took that at face value and stopped.

Then one day I was in a discussion with a lady in our Photo Forum evening and I repeated the blocking/zoning argument when printing. There was general agreement with my comments in the forum.

When I got home I thought umm I've got that carefully prepared zone test that I used on the monitor why don't I just print it out and then I can show what is meant by blocking to the lady at the next meeting. So I did. Low and behold all the details I had generated could be seen within all zones. So I showed it to the lady and apologised for propagating myth but saying I might have done something wrong.

A few weeks later we had a 'black belt' CS3 man come and give a lecture and in that he talked about zones and blocking during printing. He restricted his levels in order to avoid blocking. I asked him if he had ever tested that statement and he said “No”. I let it drop as otherwise I would have monopolised the evening.

Hence my comment about mysterious software. I cannot get blocking on my monitor or my printer using the classical values which are supposed to doe exactly that.

I can give you access to my test image if you wish, its big!
 

Rex - well you shouldn't get blocking if you know what you are doing (or unless the paper coating is faulty which is something that I've seen), but you will get compression. This is demonstrable in both theory and practice, and how much compression that you get is dependent upon a lot of different factors.

Whether the compression matters or not is a different thing. That partly depends on how well the compression is handled, but the most important issue is the nature of the image.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'classical values'. Nought is nought is nought.
 

I wonder if the print versus web workflow question is one that seems relevant mostly to photographers who work in B&W, where changes in contrast and luminance are about all you have to work with. FWIW, my web jpegs are made from the files I prepare for printing, so even if the file never gets printed, I adjust it for what I think it will look like on paper. One of the interesting aspect of B&W photography is doing these mental translations between what the eye sees, what the film sees, what the scanner sees and what the eventual print can describe.

All that aside, I now have another of Colin's tree photos to go out and reinterpret as my own photograph ;-)

There's a ying/yang aspect to the way this is balanced, both in the shapes of the trees and fences and in the light and shadow portions of the frame. Not a photo to be looked at too quickly.
 

Regarding B&W photographs and the use of the "pure" black and white (tails falling out of the histogram), I try to decide if the really blacks are needed or not based on the image. For me, a foggy day or an images that I want to convey somehting with a low contrast, does not need to have a total black.

For a sunny day such as this one, unless you are trying to convey a very somber or depressing mood, I am not sure that this low contrast suits it well. Perhaps if you don't want to take the whites up a notch or two, I would be taking the blacks down to the point of going off the histogram for the shadows across the street. There is no texture, thus, could they go absolute black. Okay, enough zone talk.

I find this composition very interesting with the parallel runing lines of the two fences and the repeating street lines. and the placement of the two trees in the composition, a nice overall balance.
 

A very interesting composition and I think it works well as it is on that aspect alone. A certain feeling and balance is achieved between the two trees by the flatness here and the road reads just right for me as is.

That said, I also think that—depending on what you are trying to convey— there is a case to be made for making a local contrast adjustment to the front tree only. Though the comparison is hampered a bit by the black background -- you can see my "tatty little web jpeg" illustrating that here:

http://cgstudios.smugmug.com/gallery/431455_mEVx5#315505151_BSHyQ-A-LB
 

OK, so I regret that line already :-)

I need to get both versions on the same background which probably means firing up the CS3 machine, but I think you've just taken what I did but done it a little more.

I did my biggest adjust on the road and may have left that front tree behind a little. I reserve judgement...
 

Christina's adjustment seems to be in the 'zone' I would be aiming for!

I did notice the curve in the foreground rail before and noted how it matched the paint 'wiggle' but I then wondered whether this was caused by a driver ploughing into it after a malt too many!
 

Perhaps because I am so far from being an expert on judging how to translate from monitor to web to print and posting meaningful thoughts about zones, I will stick with how the photo (as is) makes me feel. I enjoy it, because I find it a bit disquieting. It almost makes me dizzy (in a fun way), because I feel I may be looking into a mirror image. Or am I? Then there is that little dip in the pavement accented by the breaks in the white lines that contrasts with the slight rise in the iron railing. That definitely makes me more dizzy. The whole thing is bit like a fun carnival ride that I can't do just once.
 

On the assumption that I've set the permissions right, you can download a tif which has my original together with Christina's variant as a layer from here:

http://idisk.mac.com/colinjago-Public?view=web

It is a largish file because I had to save it as a tif to preserve the layers.

It is interesting to click the layers on and off and to consider which version is preferred and why.

Shout if it doesn't work. I've never used this drop box / public folder before.
 

I downloaded it, re did my version, they are all different. I think Christina's bark is better than mine. (I wanted to make a joke about bite)
 

Hmm. I did not believe that I had lightened/changed the background so much.

I might prefer a combination, since I think the shadows against the light street are better in the original. I was only trying to bring out the detail in the front tree a bit more.
 

Interesting - I think your judgement was close! On the layer I erased the shadow area at the top (other side of the road and extending on to the road), and gave a roughly 50% erasure of the foreground tree, and found that to be a happy medium.
 

I am quite late to the party, but my taste tilts to the original. For me, the feeling is in all those wonderful, crazy lines going in different directions that take me on a fun ride. I don't want my eye stopped at the tree and the fence.
 

Two things (of many) of interest here for me: how cramped this shot feels although there is so much space through the middle; and how well the gradual slope to the left (toppish) is well balanced by the tilting front tree and railing. Those two things alone take up more than enough of my thought process to then have to worry about any tonal issues...of which this version is just fine with me.