I hope none of this is suggesting that this impression of depth is some magical difference clearly obvious that is easily recognized. I find it pretty subtle actually. Also, as others have suggested, hue shifts or split toning will not be the answer to this look in all cases. In fact, it's not even appropriate to all images. Additionally, how it is perceived is image depandant. A lot of my very textural personal work barely shows it, while the same split make be clearly obvious in a portrait, with larger smooth areas with slow gradations. Sometimes it can even appear garish. Interesting examples in darkroom printing with opposing shifts are Michael Kenna with his sepia highlights and cold shadows, and Olivia Parker with her rust red selenium warm shadows and cold Azo silvery highlights. Some Platinum paladium shows a subtle split as well, but some traditional platinum is lead pencil neutral. Amadou's comments about resolution are very important for dimension in photography on paper, and I find too much USM can kill all depth very quickly. So many dimensional prints exhibit no hue shifts, or obvious hue shits, I don't think split toning is always the answer, just another tool to use if desired. I've seen dead neutral K7 prints with great photographic roundness. Sometimes it's image dependent. Also, a lot of amazing photography just doesn't seem like it should be "printerly" for lack of a better word and deserves a respectful straight approach. A Cartier-Bresson show I saw years ago was totally straight with no printmaking issues calling attention, and they were perfect. Not as easy to do as it sounds. A lot of this goes back to Walker's comment a few weeks ago that we should perhaps talk more about the fine craft and art of printing and less about technical issues. I always liked Paul Caponigro's comments about trying anything and everything with no preconceptions and keeping your eyes open for the possibilities. I still find tonal placement, balance, harmony/disharmony, global and local contrast the Bill talked about, lightness/darkness, the normal stuff, the real challenges. Ink and hue choices will not save work that didn't have those areas covered. Keep knowledge and tools and tricks at hand and just keep working, something will happen. Or you'll just find yourself done at a certain point. Sometimes you simply have to conclude the image doesn't have a "special" print in it, so you do a good one and move on. These are some of the things that make printing a constant learning experience for me and an atrocioulsy boring subject for those that have to be around me. Oh yeah, it's Thanksgiving, back to that... Tyler
Message
[Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?
2006-11-24 by Tyler Boley
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.