Duotone and Neo-Noir

Anouilh

Thinking I was making a pasiche of one of Atget's duotonal colour schemes, I uploaded this photo last year:

[IMG][/img]



It turns out the the world of cinema is currently thinking in "colour noir" and that this style is quite fashionable. It reflects black and white photography, but with a colour tint.

A thread for duotones?

trooney

smelltheglove

I've been leaning to this sort of idea lately although I do it fairly strong gernerally using a few different effects to get the below result. It has had a great response from my clients.

Initially some people thought this may be sepiabut in fact it is a mixture of high contrasts and colourising and more.

Fajitas!

Well done. It works very well as a book cover.

STG, that photo would still be regarded as a sepia image, rather than split toning - just to be anal. Split toning is where highlights and shadows are toned differently, rather than different variations of contrast of the 'sepia-ish' colour range.

Handy tip; Easy to do split-toning, buy some C41 monochromatic film, I like Ilford's XP2, shoot, and scan in colour. Blue/Yellow split toning is done for you.

Example;

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well done. It works very well as a book cover.

STG, that photo would still be regarded as a sepia image, rather than split toning - just to be anal. Split toning is where highlights and shadows are toned differently, rather than different variations of contrast of the 'sepia-ish' colour range.

It is not actually sepia at all, it is colourised, clarified and contrasted amongst other things, sepia didnt come into it at all anywhere, not trying to be anal either.

Chochese

Show that to any Joe in the street and it's gonna be labelled as sepia, STG.

I don't think there's enough of a split tone 'effect'

eas

there's a difference between split tones and duatones. In order to achieve a true duatone you use two haltones. usually black and another colour. If you choose a reddish tone as your second tone you'll end up with a duatone with a sepia look, but not a true sepia. Sepia is not a colour as such, but the result of a process.

this is a duatone >

Anouilh

smelltheglove wrote: »

It is not actually sepia at all, it is colourised, clarified and contrasted amongst other things, sepia didnt come into it at all anywhere, not trying to be anal either.

As Eas then said, the process defines how the end result is described, perhaps. Since you did not use a sepia processing, the desaturation in your beautiful photo is probably best described as not a sepia effect, even if it is similar to many of the softer sepia vintage effects one finds on the net.

It is not duotone, either, as there is the absence of a second colour. I find the image remarkable because it sparkles so clearly and has not the flatness of many sepia processed photos. Without revealing trade secrets, it would be helpful to all of us if you gave some guidelines on achieving such delicate toning, STG.

I've just found this useful tutorial for PS users:

http://digital-photography-school.com/convert-duotones-photoshop

My duotone photo was originally made with the "recipe" system in the Canon Digital Professional software.

smelltheglove

From above

It reflects black and white photography, but with a colour tint.

hence my adding, the same effect is here but with different tones

As far as my little mind sees, two tones = duo tones or colour noir = colour and black

If you focus too much on the technicalities you lose the art so if my technicalities are wrong I'm afraid I will not apologise as this is my own take on the art!

Anouilh

I'm genuinely interested in how you arrive at these magical effects, STG, and it is misfortunate that technical hair splitting might get in the way of knowledge.

It could have been beneficial to add Tritones to this thread's title, as some very subtle effects are achieved:

http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/duotone,tritone

I've started looking closely at movie posters as they are often very finely toned.

smelltheglove

I have a script and use seperate programs, although I wont let everything out as I want this to be my style that seperates me from everyone but some of the process used here I have been using seperately for years. My husband lost his job which means I have more time now to work without worrying about the kids and I just started linking them all together and came up with this.

Initially it would have taken quite a while to do but now I have it down to a t it takes 2 minutes max and I generally know the second I see the picture if the process will work.

elven

I really thought there was a difference between duo or split tone when you have the highlights tinted with one colour and the shadows tinted with another, and colourised where everything is tinted with one tone.

It's so easily done in lightroom these days that it's overused, a bit like the whole vignette thing. It's poor to rely on a method of processing to define your style though, because even if you don't share your 'secret recipe', it's not difficult for a hundred others to come along and figure out how to do it themselves. Subtlety ftw...

smelltheglove

All I can say is lol.

We all have our styles, our tastes etc etc so who are we to deny anyone else the right to theirs or to demean their choices????

I certainly will not be belittled by keyboard heros who think their view is better than mine.

Fajitas!

Er, STG, I don't think that that process is going to seperate you from any large grouping of photographers - It's an easy process to recreate, both in darkroom and digitally, and has been done for many many years. If you're going to make it unique, you're really going to have to seperate it from looking like a sepia/selenium toned image, or in the case of the image above, an iron toner.

None of the above makes sense to me

I like the pictures though.

Fajitas!

smelltheglove wrote: »

All I can say is lol.

We all have our styles, our tastes etc etc so who are we to deny anyone else the right to theirs or to demean their choices????

I certainly will not be belittled by keyboard heros who think their view is better than mine.

People are trying to help you, give advice, rather than be 'keyboard heros'. If you're not interested in discussion, then maybe a discussion forum isn't the place for you.

Nobody's been demeaning or belittling you.

smelltheglove

Fajitas did I ask you for advice???? what makes you think you are in a position to give me advice on a style that my clients are loving and just now I received an email from someone based upon that style....?

To be honestr the style has laready benefited me as I have taken two bookings through it, if I ask for your advice by all means give it but there is no request here!

rymus

smelltheglove wrote: »

, if I ask for your advice by all means give it but there is no request here!

use your indoor voice.. chill out ffs, nobodies trying to emulate 'your style' or suggest that your clearly sepia photos are anything but marvellous.

smelltheglove

That quoted text was in reply to Fajitas claiming he is giving me advice, hence me saying I am not requesting advice I was just attempting to join in the discussion rather than be made the centrepoint of the discussion.

you're really going to have to seperate it from looking like a sepia/selenium toned image, or in the case of the image above, an iron toner.

to me this is belittling.

Fajitas!

Ah here. Talk about lashing out. I'm in plenty of position to give advice on toning, shur haven't I been doing it for years. Digital, darkroom, even digital prints in the darkroom. I quite enjoy it, even if it does leave some nasty stains.

I'm a helpful kinda guy, indeed, I'll go out of my way to be helpful. If I saw someone doing something wrong, I'd stop them, tell them what they need to know, and try better their ways. You're on a forum where people help each other out, it's great like that.

smelltheglove wrote: »

to me this is belittling.

If that's belittling, you're growing to have to grow much thicker skin. I'd hate to tell you a photo is out of focus.

Anouilh

Please... if we stick to posting photos that excel in this technique it may bring some harmony.

Speilberg's film "AI" has some very fine use of tonality and is incredibly beautiful towards the end, when the story is set very far into the future.

http://filmforthesoul.blogspot.com/2009/05/year-2001-artificial-intelligence-ai.html

It does not have the claustrophobia of the Batman films, the latest to be released tomorrow, I think.

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

I'm a helpful kinda guy, indeed, I'll go out of my way to be helpful. If I saw someone doing something wrong, I'd stop them, tell them what they need to know, and try better their ways.

If that's belittling, you're growing to have to grow much thicker skin. I'd hate to tell you a photo is out of focus.

Fajitas, you may see it as being wrong others may not, this is the point, who are you to say that my style is wrong???? Have we all lost the art side of photography and decided we are going to base ourselves purely on technicality????? I mean seriously I dont like very shot I see but I can appreciate someone elses eye, understand that what means something to me may not do anything for you but that does not mean it is wrong, art allows for huge variations, technicalities may not and if this is the way this forum is going to continue maybe it should be split into those that are in it for the art side and those that are in it for the technical side.

I know youre not a bad guy Al and many a times we have had a chat but at the end of the day you are going to have to accept the fact that not everyone sees things the way you do and sometimes you dont need to assume that you know better!

elven

i was unfortunate enough to watch Knowing with Nicholas Cage last week and noticed crazy split toning in it, to the extent that it was distracting. Seems film photographers are as guilty of overusing techniques as the rest of us...

rymus

was it split toning or sepia? cant tell the difference.

Fajitas!

When did I say your style was wrong??? I was merely giving an example of me willing to help people.

Also, the artistic side of photography is deeply rooted in the conceptual as opposed to the technical, toning, split, duo, tri, is regarded as technical/aesthetic as opposed to the artistic side. If you're going to state the toning is done for artistic reasons, you're going to be asked to state your reason.

Art allows for huge variations in thought, which would be the conceptuality behind the piece of art.

Tbh, if this forum was to be split into an art side and a technical side, it'd be fantastic, but it wouldn't last. I do believe I would be firmly planted in the 'art' side, bearing in mind I've exhibited as an artist as opposed to a photographer. But the hons. degree in Fine Art might help with that

Off topic and debate; I've chatted with you!? Did you introduce yourself as STG? I honestly don't remember meeting you! Sorry if I didn't make the connection!

Anouilh

elven wrote: »

i was unfortunate enough to watch Knowing with Nicholas Cage last week and noticed crazy split toning in it, to the extent that it was distracting. Seems film photographers are as guilty of overusing techniques as the rest of us...

Dystopia is so fashionable at the moment that films like "The War of the Worlds" and "The Lady in the Water" seem to be setting very strong trends:

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005253.html

I have seen both films on TV and would not willingly spend time in the cinema with such gloom. However, "The Lady in the Water" is so beautifully designed and the scenes around the swimming pool at the end so delicately lit that I'll probably try to see it again.

The inky blackness of some duotones really makes colours dance...

[IMG][/img]

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

...

Art allows for huge variations in thought, which would be the conceptuality behind the piece of art.
...

I thought of this as a photo upload thread, along the lines of the "Most Colourful Photos" thread that could continue quietly with examples of the best efforts of posters here.

Often the "art" is in the eye of the beholder. When approached to have the photo in the OP used for art work I was seriously alarmed by the strong reaction it seemed to inspire, as people seem to see in it what to me is just the obvious. I am an amateur and not an artist. However, the artistry within any work gains momentum as it is discussed and invited into the iconography of the tribe.

I'm always astonished at the way Eggleston's red ceiling (split toning?) took on a life of its own years after it was taken, because of the violent events that became associated with the room in question. When the photo was taken, it was just that... a white and red photo...

I was asked to bring my cogitations on the educational system to the off topic thread last week. Perhaps we could do this with the art analysis and the other ideas that have popped up this morning?

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

When did I say your style was wrong??? I was merely giving an example of me willing to help people.

If you're going to state the toning is done for artistic reasons, you're going to be asked to state your reason.

Art allows for huge variations in thought, which would be the conceptuality behind the piece of art.

Off topic and debate; I've chatted with you!? Did you introduce yourself as STG? I honestly don't remember meeting you! Sorry if I didn't make the connection!

Ok point by point

Firstly maybe you should think before you post as what you are putting across may present itself a lot more drastic than youre intentions, everything is relative and if you are in a discussion about someones shot and say if someone is doing something wrong you will point it out obviously it is going to be interrpretted that you think that particular person is doing something wrong.

Next, many artists have no degrees or education, I dont think that is the be all and end all, but to be honest the majority of artists will tell you art requires no explanation. Why did Van Gogh cut of his ear???? Because he felt like it, he wanted to paint his ear! Not comparing myself but why did I do this for artistic reasons, because I felt like it, I wanted edginess, something different.

Next. The photo was taken initially with this intention. If you looked through the full set you would see a trend in the style of the shot as well as the style of the edits, all pre planned. As soon as the style was developed and appreciated by past and future brides it was added to some of the traditional wedding shots and hugely appreciated.

Off topic, I mean online via the forum and pm.

Covey

At last a robust debate on boards. Not really interested in the subject matter, but this is rivetting stuff indeed. Just like the old days around here

Anouilh

rymus wrote: »

was it split toning or sepia? cant tell the difference.

This is all new territory to me. If you had time, Rymus, it would be very helpful to have a link to your toned portrait of Rick O'Shea, taken at the Irish Blog Awards in 2008.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/irishblogawards/interesting/?page=2

rymus

I have all the time in the world.

Which one though? Was it this one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rymus/2314775272/

RE*AC*TOR

Fajitas! wrote: »

But the hons. degree in Fine Art might help with that

I love when people start listing their qualifications.

eas

vroom...and where off!

I'm not sure how my post above came across, but I was only making a point that there is a difference between split toning and duatoning. I was certainly not trying to be nit picky.

As fajitas said, these are terms that have been around for a very long time and DO have exact definitions. It's not to cause argument or to divide technical from artistic, the names of these processes actually used to mean something and relate to an exact process for artistic results. You can add cyanotype and numerous others to the list too.

Like elven said, these effects are easily simulated now using any number of techniques that in digital terms their true definitions have more or less become meaningless.

smelltheglove

Covey wrote: »

At last a robust debate on boards. Not really interested in the subject matter, but this is rivetting stuff indeed. Just like the old days around here

lol Covey, have to laugh a bit, its true, very tame lately.:D

Anouilh

rymus wrote: »

I have all the time in the world.

Which one though? Was it this one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rymus/2314775272/

Yes. It got a lot of attention on the Internet at the time, and I think it was posted onto a page with a very compatible template as well. The Flickr background, with so much white, can often drain away the impact of more subtle colours.

rymus

Covey wrote: »

At last a robust debate on boards. Not really interested in the subject matter, but this is rivetting stuff indeed. Just like the old days around here

I thought the old days were the bad days. At least that's what I took from all those reported posts I had to ritually wade through and ignore blissfully.

Anouilh

smelltheglove wrote: »

lol Covey, have to laugh a bit, its true, very tame lately.:D

Well, we could go for the "Neo-Noir" side of the thread...

"Chinatown" meets "The Big Sleep"....

rymus

Anouilh wrote: »

It got a lot of attention on the Internet at the time

It did?!?

and I think it was posted onto a page with a very compatible template as well. The Flickr background, with so much white, can often drain away the impact of more subtle colours.

Yep, flickr's not the most gorgeous way to display photos. Can't think where I'd have posted all the blog awards shots. Maybe on pix too...

Fajitas!

smelltheglove wrote: »

Next, many artists have no degrees or education, I dont think that is the be all and end all, but to be honest the majority of artists will tell you art requires no explanation. Why did Van Gogh cut of his ear???? Because he felt like it, he wanted to paint his ear! Not comparing myself but why did I do this for artistic reasons, because I felt like it, I wanted edginess, something different.

Next. The photo was taken initially with this intention. If you looked through the full set you would see a trend in the style of the shot as well as the style of the edits, all pre planned. As soon as the style was developed and appreciated by past and future brides it was added to some of the traditional wedding shots and hugely appreciated.

Off topic, I mean online via the forum and pm.

Lol, don't worry, I definitely think before I post

Actually, these days the majority or practising artists do have an education in art (some make the branch over from craft/design too) and an explanation, including research is incredibly essential in any artists statement, never mind applying for exhibitions.

Van Gogh most likely didn't cut his own ear off, it's now thought he lost it in a fight, but regardless of newer theories (The other was he cut it off with his razor in a fit of possible epilepsy, rage and drunken stupor), it was never cut off to be painted. As far as artists go, he was unappreciated in his own time, and led quite a poor life (I'd rather make my money now :pac: ) - It was far from trying to be different or edgy! Also, comparing any art made in contemporary times to art from the 1800's is completely irrelevant, as major progressions have been made - A brief containing only 'aesthetic' (Pretty flower syndrome) will find it incredibly hard to find money/fame/exhibitions these days due to this. If it's art you're talking about, again, bringing up that C word, conceptualism is the biggest part in this, you can't just say "it works" or "it looks really nice" because it's going to need more than that.

In summary; Contemporary times mean artists need education. The majority of artists will tell you explanation is essential to art. Van Gogh isn't relevant

Aaaand... I don't know where the third paragraph comes into it.

Off topic; Ah, that explains it. \o

smelltheglove

Ah come on guys I mean a little bit of blood boiling is good for the soul and you need to laugh about it too.

We do not agree on everything, digital has changed the old technicalities and things are much broader than the used to be, we have got to move with the times and accept everyone is different. I mean sure if we were all the same producing the same work this place would be boring!!!!

Fajitas!

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

I love when people start listing their qualifications.

Ah yes, it comes in handy in the...

"you're not a surgeon, you can't do that, you might kill them!!!!"

"Actually, yes indeed I am, and have numerous years experience in this exact field, now let me do what I've been trained to do"

Debate.

:pac:

Covey

rymus wrote: »

I thought the old days were the bad days. At least that's what I took from all those reported posts I had to ritually wade through and ignore blissfully.

Ah jaysus not at all. Since the introduction of the "Pastaurized" forum it's been like a Mausaleum around here. Even some of dead have arisen, aka your good self. :cool::P

Fajitas!

Covey wrote: »

Ah jaysus not at all. Since the introduction of the "Pastaurized" forum it's been like a Mausaleum around here. Even some of dead have arisen, akka your good self. :cool::P

I lol'd

RE*AC*TOR

Fajitas! wrote: »

Debate.

:pac:

It's good alright, saves me having to read the debate, and weigh up the arguements, I just see who has the most qualifications and accept whatever they say.

This is the efficient way to do forums.











:pac:

Fajitas!

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

It's good alright, saves me having to read the debate, and weigh up the arguements, I just see who has the most qualifications and accept whatever they say.

This is the efficient way to do forums.

Not just forums; life. :pac:

rymus

Covey wrote: »

Ah jaysus not at all. Since the introduction of the "Pastaurized" forum it's been like a Mausaleum around here. Even some of dead have arisen, aka your good self. :cool::P

I just came back to eat your brains..

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

in thought, which would be the conceptuality behind the piece of art.

This is where the third paragraph comes into it, thought behind the piece........ I'll refer to the first paragraph of your most recent post should I????


Also I did state I wasnt comparing to Van Gogh purely using it as an example. Again your first paragraph.....

Anouilh

smelltheglove wrote: »

Ah come on guys I mean a little bit of blood boiling is good for the soul and you need to laugh about it too.

We do not agree on everything, digital has changed the old technicalities and things are much broader than the used to be, we have got to move with the times and accept everyone is different. I mean sure if we were all the same producing the same work this place would be boring!!!!

Rembrandt, who was always up to his neck in arguments would have loved digital toning. When I think of the number of artists whose lives were probably cut short by selenium and other art materials I'm very pleased to be living in the 21st Century. I've often wondered if Van Gogh overdid exposure to paint thinners.

Getting back to the OP, I was trying to recreate some early 20th century effects when I chose blue against chocolate sepia. I very quickly came up against my lack of technical knowledge in relation to curves and levels. I can work intuitively, tweaking until the picture looks just right to me. However, a professional photographer will know, like STG, exactly what they are doing.

Fajitas!

smelltheglove wrote: »

This is where the third paragraph comes into it, thought behind the piece........ I'll refer to the first paragraph of your most recent post should I????


Also I did state I wasnt comparing to Van Gogh purely using it as an example. Again your first paragraph.....

a)I don't see any concept in the third paragraph.

b)I was showing your use of Van Gogh was irrelevant in this argument.

Maybe I'll refer you back to your own post?

smelltheglove

Anouilh wrote: »

Rembrandt, who was always up to his neck in arguments would have loved digital toning. When I think of the number of artists whose lives were probably cut short by selenium and other art materials I'm very pleased to be living in the 21st Century. I've often wondered if Van Gogh overdid exposure to paint thinners.

QUOTE]

Anoulih getting back to the original post for a moment too here, it was a lovely picture and a great idea to start a thread for toned images, I am delighted that your image became a book cover, it does remind me of something but I cannot put my finger on it right now. Professional or ametuer or any type of photographer, none of us are better than the next, there is always more to learn, and we will never ever shoot everything, there is always somebody beside us that has done something we havent!

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

a)I don't see any concept in the third paragraph.

b)I was showing your use of Van Gogh was irrelevant in this argument.

Maybe I'll refer you back to your own post?

Look at this stage there is now need to pick. The relevance was as far as my history studies went, all of 10 years ago, it was purely because he wanted to paint it.

So refer me back if needs be but I am feeling that this argument is dead in the water.