The Online Photographer

I am not easily impressed, but - WOW! What a beautiful portrait. I am not sure such tone can ever be guaranteed even by the best shooters, but if one is exceptionally good, sometimes it just happens.

You have talked about tone occasionally, but never in any great depth that I can recall. I would be eager to read more about what you see as good, acceptable, and bad tone.

I realize it may be hard to put into words. Possibly you could suggest other photographers' work--perhaps some commonly-available books--featuring really good tone.

Examples of work (again, books might be most helpful) which has other merits but has poor tone, might also be helpful for us students. Of course, that might be overly contentious.

I've been thinking about B&W over the last few months ... not deliberating shooting it but I've become aware of shooting for colour and shooting for "not colour, but something else". During post, I typically convert the latter images to B&W, as they don't work as colour images. Maybe the "something else" is tone, as the B&W conversion generally works out! :-)

I'd be interested to read your thoughts on "good tone".

Don't know what to say but "wow". What an image. The Good Tone is obvious, even on this small online posting. Thanks for sharing.

I never realized that there was such a large distance between the bottom of her nose and the top of her lip.

@ John Camp: all beautiful people have something just a little odd about their faces. It's the "attract"ant in attractive. For example, Jackie Onassis' eyes were "too far apart," and that was something that drew you to her striking appearance. A number of the classic beauties from the 1930's movies era were almost interchangeable in their appearances because the studios had this mold they expected an actress to fill. In later years, the slightly "off" actresses began to find audiences because the "normal" beauties just didn't stand out. For the record, I find Nicole Kidman to be one of the most striking beauties of our time.

Doesn't it look like she should have had a cigarette in her left hand ?

Nicole kidman you say, Mike? Strange! Are you sure it's not Lenina, you know, the sister of Josef :

http://www.kinnemaniac.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/1-The-Trial.jpg

So pneumatic!

I too would like to know what "good tone" actually means and second the call for a recommended text on how to define and achieve "good tone".

As a hobbyist who occassionally shoots black and white film, I'm wondering how to consistently achieve "good tone". Assuming I don't mess up development, good photos seem to happen more by chance than design. Of course, the answer could simply be "practice".

Thanks in advance.

That's lovely - but what's she doing that nonchalant smouldering cigarette-hand for, when she hasn't got a nonchalant smouldering cigarette? (grin)

John

I believe the good Doctors here in LA call that the Lip-n-Schnozz line. If you look at older pics of the gorgeous Ms. Kidman you'll see that line is adjustable, and is based on the age and popularity indexes of the subject, divided by the infamous "available discretionary funds" adjustment.

Cheers!
GB

Count me as another wondering what a working description of tone would be. And yet I get the parallels between images and sound, as the Armstrong reference suggests.

I see a texture brought about by the range of grays here. Something that therefore makes it "real enough" or at least more meaningful for the eye.

For you non-audiophiles out there (which would be, statistically most of you ...) in my opinion image tone is a fair analogy to that pursuit, as it's a harmony of sorts, a balance, a feeling nothing's missing nor over-represented.

Mike, I propose you start the ball rolling with a few examples, notes, book recommendations perhaps. I expect the comments section will do the rest. Moderating the discussion ought to be easier than the lengthy treatise you are not quite up to writing at the moment.

I hope you will rethink your answer to David Bostedo. I'm sure you could write a book about tone, but I am also sure you could do enough in 2 or 3 blog posts to help people get the idea and move their work in the right direction.

As someone who has been printing and looking at black and white for 40 or more years I think I know what you mean, but I'd like to hear more.

Right now I have 4 B&W prints on my evaluation wall, working toward a new portfolio. I'd say 2 have pretty good tone, though I'm not sure I'm satisfied. One of them I will try one more variation, the other I will probably let stand. One other print has potential for good tone and I have an idea how to get it. That one I will reprint. The last is a good picture but because of the subject matter and lighting will never have the kind of tone I like. Most likely it will not make the final cut for the print portfolio, though I sure do like the content and will probably keep it online.

To John Camp- hope you have no itch to draw a mustache there.

As a followup to Dave Bostedo's comment and your response I was wondering, Mike, if you could recommend any books on the subject of "tone" (or similar)? -- since it is the holiday season.

"...it doesn't matter. The results matter." Mike, this led me down an interesting chain of thought. I realised that, maybe just to me, and without being able to logically justify my position, I respect and appreciate film/darkroom prints more than digital/photoshop prints even if they look identical to the last 'pixel' (and I shoot waaay more digital than film btw). Something about the connotation of mass production/trickery in digital photography vs craft/skill in film. Like I said, totally not rational but there it is.

I'd say most of the tone referred to is due to the work of the retoucher who has good skills in Photoshop dodge and burn, separating the texture from the tone, and luminance masking.

I was in the Weston Gallery in Carmel, CA today and spent some time talking about the different tone of various BW prints on the walls. It seems that the desired tone for portraiture has changed dramatically over the years.

There were a few Karsh portraits and I am always surprised at how dark they are by todays standards. They are lit that way but they also seem to have a quality about them where the paper seems to have been heavily flashed. There is lots of detail in the shadows, but almost the entire face in every portrait is in the shadow. (The Churchill portrait being an exception.) I love his portraits party for this quality.

But there were other prints of portraits and nudes with this same darker flesh tone look. And thoughts on that?

Thanks.

John

We can read Demarchelier from an other angle than that of Aldous Huxley ("Brave new world", Lenina Crowne.

In his poem's "beauty"(The flowers of evil), Baudelaire:

Je suis belle, ô mortels! comme un rêve de pierre

I am fair, O mortals! like a dream carved in stone

http://fleursdumal.org/poem/116

A serious question arises: Is the Lady Kindman of Demarchelier pneumatic (Huxley) or hieratic (Baudelaire)?

But if we invite Baudelaire it is absolutely impossible to ignore the Greek philosophy and poetry: Homer, Plato, Plotinus - to interpret that image of the Lady Kindman of Demarchelier. One alternative:

* Mrs. K. is an Idol = Eidôlon. The image is a reflection, a simulacrum, a kind of facsimile of the Sensible appearance.

Confers the poem of Walt Witman "Eidolons" which is more in the sense of phantom:

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wwhitman/bl-ww-eido.htm

* Mrs. K. is an Icon = Eikon. The image is then a mere symbol in the order of the Intellect, decoupled from the Sensible.

Conclusion: Demarchelier is a master of ambiguity, which is the essence of art.

The truth is that most of us live in an age where the vast majority of visually literate people under the age of 40 have never seen good quality glossy silver black and white photographic prints up close and not behind glass. This makes most discussions of tone and such (pace digital printer Ctein and others) highly abstract. Still, being of a certain age, I can probably correctly imagine what that print of Nicole Kidman looks like in real life.

Speaking of the talented Ms. Kidman, life appears to have transformed her the wayphotoshop changes images. She sure looks different from what she used to look like years ago at the start of her career in Australia. Take a look at this picture of the younger Nicole Kidman.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1199542/thumbs/o-NICOLE-KIDMAN-570.jpg?15