Longer focal lengths in B&W

[nico4444]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know if this has been discussed already, but I'm wondering if focal lengths above standard make sense for B&W photography.

Let me elaborate. I was looking to get a Monochrom and the choice comes down to Leica M and Q2M, so M glass selection or fixed wide 28mm. I like to shoot with 75mm or longer in colour for portraiture and 28mm in B&W for street, but I realized I never shoot B&W at longer focal lengths, because utilizing the zone system in those occasions is not always intuitive.

I see a lot of professional B&W portraits, done almost exclusively in studio lighting, and B&W landscapes, where longer focal lengths are used, but in normal situations, like street, I find myself using wider focal lengths naturally.

It would be insightful to hear how users go about building their systems for B&W photography.

Thank you.

[Michael Hiles]

I use Leica Ms exclusively, about 90% of the time with a 50mm and about 8% of the time with a 90mm. The rest is roughly miscellaneous focal lengths suited to the circumstances.

I like the angle of view of the 50 (much like the human eye), and the 90 provides a little distance from the subject on the street, which means the photographer (me) does not much influence the scene dynamic.

I would never consider a Q – having only a 28mm lens with no options would drive me crazy (crazier).

I now shoot B&W exclusively - XP2. I think my choices would be the same if I were shooting colour (as I did years ago) - I do not think it matters.

[Jeff S]

I use my M bodies (currently M Monochrom v.1 and M10) with 28/35/50 focal lengths only.  But this has to do with my RF shooting preference, not b/w vs color requirements.  I also have an SL2 with the 2 longer SL zooms, along with the SL 75, for a different shooting experience and for different circumstances. A significant portion of my SL pics are shot with b/w intent.  Longer/wider focal lengths serve my varying compositional needs, not due to b/w vs color, which depends on other factors.  

Jeff

[Gobert]

I never realized there is a difference between B/W and color as far as it concerns focal length.

[pippy]

Like Gobert I have never thought about certain lenses being more suited for either colour or monochrom photography. Strikes me as a bit of a strange idea but if it works for some photographers' ways of working then why not?

Anyhow; FWIW the 75mm is a focal-length which I really like. If I'm only going to use one body I'll quite often carry the 75mm in a pocket to have as an option. If I'm taking both the colour and Mono bodies the 75 might well be attached to one of them from the get-go.

Before I acquired the 75 I would have carried a 90 instead but these days I find framing with the 90 just a bit too tight for most situations.

Philip.

Edited February 15, 2021 by pippy

[nico4444]

I'm strictly talking portraiture and in my experience dealing with normal lighting, a longer focal length onto someone's face does not immediately allow me to achieve the zone system unless I have the necessary gray tones in the blurred background and/or I position myself or the person in a way such that I create visible shadows. This is certainly possible in a studio environment, but I'm asking street/casual photographers who shoot B&W with longer focal lengths and if they find the zone system easy to work with. Apologies for the confusion.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The zone system isn’t any more linked with focal length than color vs b/w.  In any event, for casual street shooting, setting exposure (via meter, histogram, sunny 16, or whatever method) is quick and easy. Light is light. And with digital, flexibility in shooting and/or in post and in print provides for broad interpretation.

Jeff

Edited February 15, 2021 by Jeff S

[nico4444]

10 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The zone system isn’t any more linked with focal length than color vs b/w.

And I agree with that. What I am asking is whether it is more challenging to achieve it using longer focal lengths and if so, by how much, because that what makes or breaks a great B&W picture.

Edited February 15, 2021 by nico4444

[Jeff S]

My b/w photos and inkjet prints can be superb... or mediocre...for myriad reasons that have little to do with using the zone system or choosing focal length.  My large format film and silver print days presented different challenges, shooting and processing.  Even then, the results depended more on judgment and decision making than technique, which is much more easily learned. Photography is all about seeing and interpreting light.
 

Jeff

Edited February 15, 2021 by Jeff S

[nico4444]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

My b/w photos and inkjet prints can be superb... or mediocre...for myriad reasons that have little to do with using the zone system or choosing focal length.  My large format film and silver print days presented different challenges, shooting and processing.  Even then, the results depended more on judgment and decision making than technique, which is much more easily learned. Photography is all about seeing and interpreting light.
 

Jeff

I think you are contradicting yourself a little bit, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. First you say that the zone system does not reflect the quality of your B&W work and then you say photography is all about interpreting light, which is where the zone system is useful to determine that.

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

I think you are contradicting yourself a little bit, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. First you say that the zone system does not reflect the quality of your B&W work and then you say photography is all about interpreting light, which is where the zone system is useful to determine that.

What I mean is that the most important tools are between the ears, not via some technique or gear. I don’t practice the zone system in the digital world as I did in film days. Digital metering devices, and editing techniques, make the technical aspects easy.  Seeing light is not synonymous with the zone system, which is a prescribed series of actions and techniques.  There is no substitute for judgment and vision, film or digital, regardless of technique or method.

Jeff

[nico4444]

11 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

There is no substitute for judgment and vision

That is entirely subjective, which is why I am refering to the zone system in B&W images in the first place, as it does not take into account which techniques or methods you are using at all, but looks at the complete gradation from white to black, which I find harder to capture in a longer focal length compared to a wider lens.

[Chips]

I have the M 10 Monochrome system and use multiple lenses (24, 35, 50, 90) my favorite has been the 35mm. For portraiture the 75 or 90 is considered optimal  but many folks can use the 35 and 28 to good effects. 

Re: the zone system I used it for my 4x5 and 8x10 large format film and It gave me better photographs. However, with digital I just check the live view and make reasonable adjustments and keep the highlights from blowing out. The M10Monochrome really does amazing detail in the shadows. So the zone system is no longer essential for me. Hope this helps. Let us know what you decide and how its works.

CHIPS

 

[Likaleica]

19 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

which I find harder to capture in a longer focal length compared to a wider lens.

Why?  Is it a limitation of the meter in an M camera?  When I used the zone system I usually used a hand-held spotmeter.  I don't know how else you could practically do it.  If you're using really long lenses I guess that could be a problem in separating out the tones.  Just not sure what the problem is that you are describing.

[Jeff S]

23 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

That is entirely subjective, which is why I am refering to the zone system in B&W images in the first place, as it does not take into account which techniques or methods you are using at all, but looks at the complete gradation from white to black, which I find harder to capture in a longer focal length compared to a wider lens.

It’s called the zone SYSTEM for a reason, built around specific analysis and methods. The best b/w photographers, and printers, don’t necessarily follow the zone system per se, but they understand light and form, and how to translate that to print. 
 

Focal length doesn’t fundamentally change my thought process or workflow.  

Jeff

[nico4444]

1 hour ago, Likaleica said:

Why?  Is it a limitation of the meter in an M camera?  When I used the zone system I usually used a hand-held spotmeter.  I don't know how else you could practically do it.  If you're using really long lenses I guess that could be a problem in separating out the tones.  Just not sure what the problem is that you are describing.

Because you get a tighter frame, so unless you can control your foreground and background, it is much harder to handle the zone system in a non-studio environment. I am talking an hypothetical and I believe it to be the case, so I was asking for opinions based on users' experience.

[nico4444]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

It’s called the zone SYSTEM for a reason, built around specific analysis and methods. The best b/w photographers, and printers, don’t necessarily follow the zone system per se, but they understand light and form, and how to translate that to print. 
 

Focal length doesn’t fundamentally change my thought process or workflow.  

Jeff

I think we have two completely ideas of what the zone system consists of. I don't care what it is called or what people refer to it as long as we all agree of what it means in B&W photography. I am talking about it as a reference for B&W, because in my opinion, B&W photography means nothing when the frame includes only one big ol' shade of gray, no matter how interesting the actual frame is. That is why I am inclining towards Leica glass -  for its intertonal details, which translates to clean, differentiable tones of gray and in turn, outputs a B&W image that establishes a good representation of colour gradation. Having a wider field of view in street photography allows for "better" B&W images simply because it captures more elements in a frame. On the other hand, a tighter frame in street/portrait allows for less objects in the image, so one needs to think in advance on how to include enough shades of gray towards the zone system.

[nico4444]

2 hours ago, Chips said:

I have the M 10 Monochrome system and use multiple lenses (24, 35, 50, 90) my favorite has been the 35mm. For portraiture the 75 or 90 is considered optimal  but many folks can use the 35 and 28 to good effects. 

Re: the zone system I used it for my 4x5 and 8x10 large format film and It gave me better photographs. However, with digital I just check the live view and make reasonable adjustments and keep the highlights from blowing out. The M10Monochrome really does amazing detail in the shadows. So the zone system is no longer essential for me. Hope this helps. Let us know what you decide and how its works.

CHIPS

 

I am leaning towards a Q2M if I am convinced that I won't be using longer focal lengths at all with an M Monochrom, because from my experience and capabilities, I've never achieved a satisfactory result of a portrait in B&W using longer focal lengths ever since I first started photography. For the zone system, when shooting in B&W, I always try to visualize which gray tone I'm missing and change my composition accordingly. It is a good point that the M10M/Q2M's raw files can assist you with it in post, but it can't add missing gray tones if they are not there.

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

I think we have two completely ideas of what the zone system consists of. I don't care what it is called or what people refer to it as long as we all agree of what it means in B&W photography. I am talking about it as a reference for B&W, because in my opinion, B&W photography means nothing when the frame includes only one big ol' shade of gray, no matter how interesting the actual frame is. That is why I am inclining towards Leica glass -  for its intertonal details, which translates to clean, differentiable tones of gray and in turn, outputs a B&W image that establishes a good representation of colour gradation. Having a wider field of view in street photography allows for "better" B&W images simply because it captures more elements in a frame. On the other hand, a tighter frame in street/portrait allows for less objects in the image, so one needs to think in advance on how to include enough shades of gray towards the zone system.

Better B&W?  Maybe you should look at more prints at galleries, museums, fairs, workshops, dealers, in books, etc...covering the span of photo history.  There are wonderfully rendered b/w works of al kinds: high key, low key and everything in between.  Gorgeous print tonality, luminance, texture and feel comes from things other than focal length, including tight portraiture. Filling a frame competently requires much of the same judgment, whether the subject is an inch wide or a mile wide.  I’ve been collecting vintage silver prints for 35 years, so I’ve seen plenty of both wonderful and mediocre prints regardless of focal length or width of scene.  Less is often more.
 

As for the zone system, there are entire books dedicated to the subject.  I’ve read enough of them, and put the techniques into film and darkroom practice, to have a good clue. 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nico4444]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Better B&W?  Maybe you should look at more prints at galleries, museums, fairs, workshops, dealers, in books, etc...covering the span of photo history.  There are wonderfully rendered b/w works of al kinds: high key, low key and everything in between.  Gorgeous print tonality, luminance, texture and feel comes from things other than focal length, including tight portraiture. Filling a frame competently requires much of the same judgment, whether the subject is an inch wide or a mile wide.  I’ve been collecting vintage silver prints for 35 years, so I’ve seen plenty of both wonderful and mediocre prints regardless of focal length or width of scene.  Less is often more.
 

As for the zone system, there are entire books dedicated to the subject.  I’ve read enough of them, and put the techniques into film and darkroom practice, to have a good clue. 

Jeff

I wrote "better" for lack of more fitting words. Maybe "easier" would have suited my point? I have plenty of books of B&W photography and, actually, I have only B&W photography books, and in each one of them, the photographer takes into account the zone system whether intentionally or not.

I am not debating which focal lengths yields better B&W images, because that's arbitrary - I am asking whether longer focal lengths are harder to use to achieve a consistent result in B&W photography with the zone system in mind.

Lastly, how is your experience in film and darkroom having any relevance in modern day digital B&W and to my post in general? I understand the zone system was a pain to deal with in the past, but I think you are overestimating its difficulty for current applications and overcomplicating what it actually is, because nowadays, with information found everywhere on the internet, one does not need to read entire books to comprehend it.