I looked at "Supermoon Rising" this morning and was modestly shocked.
(Black-and-white geek here.)
The picture is best viewed on a calibrated monitor under subdued room light. For me, that means at night. I work in a room with windows on all four sides, and today is sunny, so my room is bright with natural light right now. The darks in the picture look much darker than they did last night—at nighttime, I work with the room darkened and with one color-correct desk lamp off to the side of the monitor.
Dark tone detail, whether on a screen or in a print, changes a lot depending on ambient light. If you doubt it, try this test—in normal room light in the daytime, look at a large B&W print with lots of shadows (dark tones—light tones are called "highlights") but that has some detail in the shadows. Then, take a cardboard tube from a roll of paper towels, close one eye, and look at the dark areas in the print with the other eye through the tube. Surprised? I used to set up this test with students, and that was always a fun day. It demonstrates how much pictures are affected by ambient light.
This works with on-screen images too—try it. It works with a print if there is detail in the dark shadows of the print. It doesn't work if the blacks are just empty Dmax (maximum paper black). So how can you tell if there is detail in the shadows? Take a flashlight and shine it through the print from the back; the detail will suddenly be very apparent.
Why is that? It's because the reduced silver that forms the image in a traditional B&W print sits on top of the paper. That means it cuts down light in the shadow areas twice—once when the viewing light is going through the reduced silver on the way to the paper, and once after the light reflects from the paper base and is coming back out. By using the flashlight from behind, you cut out one of those "trips" the light is taking thought the image-forming silver. So it will look considerably lighter and whatever detail is there will show up clearly.
As with any technical area of photography, or actually any sort of craft, or most of them anyway, sloppy approximation tends to work fine for a sloppy approximate result, which is all most people require to get the gist. However, if you want to really understand and control what's going on, you can get very deep into the weeds. (Think music reproduction. Earbuds or a cheap radio with a 25¢, 2" speaker are enough to get the gist, but audiophiles go to great lengths. Think bicycles. Knives. Golf clubs. Any such thing, really.)
As far as B&W tonality is concerned, one of the saddest developments in my lifetime is the current fashion among museum conservators to prioritize very slight reductions in the life expectancy of prints by showing work under dim, murky lighting—when the photographers who made the work were expecting what used to be called "gallery lighting"—strong, direct light. With the lights turned down low, museum-goers are just not seeing the works as they were intended to be seen. (I've had at least one museum insider tell me that the museums are merely trying to save money on the lighting bill, so that's a possibility too. Most museums are strapped for cash and don't want to look like they are.) Whatever the cause, it's a shame.
Maybe I should prepare another version of "Supermoon Rising" to be looked at under brighter ambient lighting! That way, there's a better chance of one of them looking the way I intended, for more viewers.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Display lighting is a critical, and under-appreciated and under-discussed, factor in optimizing a fine print. Thanks for bringing it up, again*. My worthy fine prints aren’t final, at least for my own viewing, until display lighting is taken into account. This includes considering any cover glass, which can also affect subtle and important tonalities and textures. It can be the difference between a nice print and one that ‘sings.’
* (I also commented here)…
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2022/11/the-worst-exhibition-lighting-i-ever-saw.html
Posted by: Jeff | Friday, 18 October 2024 at 06:26 PM
I have been taking part in international Print Exchanges for the last 20 years. Because my prints will be viewed in all sorts of lighting conditions, I always print for viewing in Daylight, the only consistently common light available across the world!
Posted by: Jayanand Govindaraj | Friday, 18 October 2024 at 09:16 PM
"The picture is best viewed on a calibrated monitor under subdued room light."
So, Mike, what would be the best way to view a print of it?
[Depends on the print. --Mike]
Posted by: Arg | Saturday, 19 October 2024 at 07:37 PM
Some time ago I had already written my comment on the appropriate lighting strength for viewing images / photos, but perhaps these are also helpful here in this context, especially as I would like to add:
a few years ago I met with an “actually” very experienced photographer to discuss the technical quality of my black and white enlargements, as I was planning to open a professional lab.
That evening turned out to be a disaster.
To my credit, I have to say that I have decades of experience in the darkroom, both privately and professionally.
To make a long story short, the photographer insisted on having a 1000 watt lamp hanging above the viewing table, about 2 meters away, to “see everything”.
His main criticism was that all my enlargements were not really black, but only gray in the depths.
I said what was technically right and necessary, but it was hopeless.
Fast forward:
A few months ago, I took my incident light meter to various museums and galleries in Berlin and also to private homes to measure the average, diffuse light level during the day.
In my opinion, these real-life light levels are the real benchmark for adjusting the brightness and contrast of photos.
- Museum of Photography Helmut Newton Foundation, fall 2023:
6 EV and mostly 7.2 EV and ditto
- Museum of Photography Helmut Newton Foundation, August 2024: 5 EV to 5 ½ EV
- Public museum, KUNSTFORUM: new, modern lighting design!: 5 EV - 6 EV
Professional photo gallery (F3): Walls 5 EV , if spotlight lighting:
in the center: 8 EV, at the spot edge: 7 EV
- Private apartments: mostly 4 EV to 6 EV
- Reproduction specialist / Graphic Arts, viewing desk (JUST):
half power: 8 ½ EV (most used), full power: 9 EV
(this last positions are far to bright!)
I think you are well advised to adjust new photos on average so that they look good with a viewing light in the range of 5 EV to 6 EV.
Posted by: Lothar Adler | Sunday, 20 October 2024 at 08:30 AM
A couple years back, I made an enthusiastic trek to Louisville to see a Meatyard exhibition at Louisville's Speed Art Museum. On exhibit were a series core to saving Kentucky's wild and beautiful Red River Gorge from becoming a reservoir. The Gorge is in a rather impoverished region of central Appalachia, and in retrospect, it is miraculous that the grass roots effort built enough momentum to prevail.
The prints were towards the high contrast side, and the gallery was darkened to supper club level. Sadly, it was difficult to see anything. Even after 15 minutes acclimatizing, there was little I could discern. Just awful and disheartening.
There has to be a reasonable path around this issue. I know it isn’t difficult to produce a modern LED light with virtually nil UV and IR output, and timing the amount of ‘on’ time, either with motion detectors or timers is also feasible.
Posted by: Dave Glos | Monday, 21 October 2024 at 08:54 AM