Accentuating skin detail

[Sibbie Song]

I’m looking for a little advice on technique. I’m planning to shoot some portraits of my father and I have a certain look in mind that I’d like to achieve. I’d like to accentuate the details of his skin (winkles, pores, etc) and really bring out his white hair and whiskers. I realize that there are probably a number of ways to go about achieving this result (I have some ideas of my own) but I’d to leave it a little open ended. I’d love to hear from some more experienced folk about how they would do it. His face just has so much character and I’d love to capture it.

 

[j-fr]

Shoot in ligth of a rather low contrast and use a combination of film, exposure and developing that gives a higher-than-normal contrast.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Use a film with reduced red sensibility like Efke 25 and 50, or ortho film, all dev'd in Rodinal. I think I've read somewhere that HP5 has a rather weak sensitivity to red, so that could be an easy way to help you achieve the effect you're looking for. A blue filter will also give you the same reduced red effect, but slow films like Efke are very sharp and contrasty, thus giving the edge for detail. Watch also the way you light his face. You want to have a lighting that grazes the surface of his skin, so that it creates micro shadows in the reliefs. If your light is too direct, it will wash out detail.

 

[Sibbie Song]

So red sensitivity will decrease the contrast of the details?

 

[c6h6o3]

Use a film with reduced red sensibility like Efke 25 and 50, or ortho film, all dev'd in Rodinal. I think I've read somewhere that HP5 has a rather weak sensitivity to red, so that could be an easy way to help you achieve the effect you're looking for. A blue filter will also give you the same reduced red effect, but slow films like Efke are very sharp and contrasty, thus giving the edge for detail. Watch also the way you light his face. You want to have a lighting that grazes the surface of his skin, so that it creates micro shadows in the reliefs. If your light is too direct, it will wash out detail.

Use semi-stand development and the orthpanchromatic Efke films. You will thereby obtain hideously enhanced detail.

 

[Sibbie Song]

What developer/dilution/time would you recommend for that?

 

[Gerald Koch]

Rather than an orthochromatic film you can use a green filter.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Use a fairly direct side/top light. Don't diffuse it. Take a look at the left-hand (from the viewer's perspective) of the photo in my gallery "Forty's Eyes". The light there was a strobe in barndoors, to the left of the subject, reflected off the white backdrop paper in part and spilling from around the barndoor in part.

If your subject's nose-camera lens axis is the Zero degree mark, position the light somewhere around 45 degrees off this axis, and if the subjects' eyes mark the horizontal plane, the light should be at around 45 degrees above horizontal. If you really want to make your subject look ugly, put the light at 45 degrees BELOW horizontal instead... that's what is known as Monster Lighting (after the old hollywood monster movies from the 1930s).

 

[Sibbie Song]

A friend just send me an email saying that Bill Jay has some portraits similar to what I'm looking for in his "Men Like Me" series. I looked that them and they are impressive. I think he's using digital though. But the look is roughly what I'm trying for.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

So red sensitivity will decrease the contrast of the details?

If we are talking specifically about skin details, yes. Skin details usually show a little of the capillaries blood, and have therefore a red color. When transposed to B&W, if a film is not sensitive to red, it will render it as pure or very dark black. On the other hand, if your film has a sensitivity to red, it will render these details as, let's say, just a bit darker than middle grey.

 

[rbarker]

"Character portraiture" is mostly about lighting control, in my view. Use harsh, strongly specular lighting, such as an Arri fresnel or a studio strobe in a small silver reflector as the "main", and place it slightly high and to one side, such that the light creates good wrinkle shadows and the little specular highlights reflect back to the lens. Then, add a bit of fill, but not as much as you normally might.

Ortho film, or the use of a green filter are also options. If your dad is willing, play around with different options, and see what you like in the final prints. Your kids will appreciate the effort in coming years.

 

[Sibbie Song]

Michel, you mention developing in Rodinal - what would you recommend for developing time and dilution?

 

[Clueless]

I am curious about the "psychological" reasons for the portrayal.

Is "it" an enhacement of the truth, an elaboration, or the plain truth? Is he to be a Moses figure, a Marlborough "man"? Is "it" to be as he struck you from your youth, or as he wished to be seen? Will he like "it" today?

 

[Sibbie Song]

The "psychological reasons for the portrayal" may be beyond even my own understanding. It is the intuitive choice. I'm at a point in my life where my father's age seems important to me. I am suddenly aware of the gravity of his years. He is an unassuming man, yet the details of his life have great drama and meaning. I want a portrait of him to show his age and carry a sense of wisdom, even if it is exaggerated. How he will receive the results, I do not know.

 

[JohnArs]

Use hard light from the sides und take a very sharp lens like a macro or your sharpest lens you have. Also use very sharp films like TMX 100 or Delta 100.
Armin Seeholzer

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michel, you mention developing in Rodinal - what would you recommend for developing time and dilution?

I think 1+25 would give you a lot of contrast, more than higher dilutions like 1+50. For each film you should check either the manufacturer's recommendations (see jandcphoto.com for data on the Efke films) or look at the Massive Development chart online.

 

[Charles Webb]

Wow, there is a ton of "hogwash" posted in this thread! I really don't know what kind of image this lady wants of her dad since there no referral to the site of images she liked.

The best way to make any portrait is not by trying something brand new and recommended on the internet. Make the picture of Dad using the same techniques you are already familiar with. Use techniques you understand and have proven themselves to you . Yes most likely you could get results using some of the suggestions listed above, but you may not get anything either. Develop in Rodinal or semi stand developer, Bull S++t! use a developer you are familiar with, if it happens to be Rodinal use it, but understand it is not the only way you can capture or achieve your image.

I have no clue how you plan to illuminate your Dad's picture, but again you don't need to reinvent the wheel to do it. Try first a standard lighting procedure, most likely it will be exactly what you want. Then if you are not happy start fussing around with harder and more directional light. What you describe can easily be achieved with hard or soft, lighting, it depends solely on your placement of the lights you choose. And how you expose and develop the film. A particular film for this type of photograph should be no different than what you normally would used for regular photographs. Ortho most likely would be my last choice, though I have used it for thousands of portraits in the last 50 years. A panchromatic film will do exactly what you want it to for this kind of portrait.

Making a "character" portrait is nearly exact to making a straight photo of someone. I would illuminate a person with a full beard exactly as I would a person without. The shadows from the main light should fall in the exact same areas as with a normal portrait, the high light and catch lights should be placed exactly the same. Watch for a white beard burning out and adjust(feather) the light evenly down towards the chest, allow no hotspots or deep unprintable shadows. No magic or tricks to do these kind of images
just expand a bit from your normal practices! Watch what each movement of a light does, place it where it does the most for your image. The drama comes from how you place the lights not the film and developer.

None of what I have posted here is heresay or in my mind debatable, it is pure fact proven over and over through the years!

Charlie..............................

 

[df cardwell]

Sibbie

It's a pretty straight ahead technique you want. Normal this, normal that.

Keep it simple. Sitting by a window and looking out is a good place to begin.

Look through the gallery here and see if you can find a picture you like as a starting place, go from there.

 

[c6h6o3]

I've created the effect you're describing with APHS ortho film, EI 12, developed in 510-Pyro 1:500, 45min/70F with one inversion/15min. That particular look was not what I was looking for, but it was impressive in its way.

Jay

Yeah, that oughta do it. I should think such a combination would turn Cary Grant into Lon Chaney as The Phantom of the Opera.

 

[c6h6o3]

Tell us how you really feel, Charles, and be sure to use lots of exclamation points!!!!

Jay

It has nothing to do with feelings, Jay. He posted only "pure fact proven over and over through the years!" Get with the program, fella.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Wow, there is a ton of "hogwash" posted in this thread! I really don't know what kind of image this lady wants of her dad since there no referral to the site of images she liked.

.....

None of what I have posted here is heresay or in my mind debatable, it is pure fact proven over and over through the years!

Well thanks for pointing it out, but why do you assume that everybody here is talking out of their asses? The original poster just asked for what other people would do. OK, maybe I don't fit the "more experienced" category. Whatever.

Following your reasoning it would be ludicrous for anyone to ask what anyone else is doing. Even if what we suggested is useless, irrelelvant, or plain backward, it's not doing a disservice to someone than share one's methods when being asked for them.

 

[Clueless]

I am honored by your shared explorations -may he understand and complete the circle.

 

[Sibbie Song]

I very much appreicate the input of the many that have responded. As Michel pointed out, it was my intention to hear how other people might go about achieving the desired result. I value what other people have to contribute. There are plenty of times that favor using time tested methods and materials; though I would hardly say that a "one size fits all" approach is prudent or ultimately interesting. Frankly, I think the beauty of Apug is that we can share ideas and methods, and in doing so we educate and inspire one another. If nothing else I can not even begin to calculate how much wasted time and money others have saved me by dropping a few helpful hints.

If anyone else has more to add, I welcome the input. Thank you!

 

[Charles Webb]

You know it is very refreshing that jdef has actually taken time to read one of my posts. His time is normally taken up with telling any one who will listen how much he knows, how good he is and that he know everything pertaining to photography. I would be happy to point out to the world what a jerk jdef really is! But I it would take up way too much space here to do so. Others seem to cut him some slack, but I will continue to tell it like I know it to be, and I don't need exclamation points to do it.

Awhile back I mentioned something about the images presented in the galleries were normally the best images a person could get from a particular negative. Meaning that the print maker would only try to submit his best work for revue. But a few members submitted images that were of such poor quality that even a beginner would have been ashamed to submit them to a gallery. A few folks even PM'd me to find out if they were the person I singled out that made the most noise, said the least of value and had no clue how to make a full scale print and post it in our gallery. Now don't take my word for it, look into his personal gallery and draw your own conclusions. There is not an image or print in the jdef gallery that does not represent and display with out a muddy tone to it.. Well this jerk (jdef) refers to his "secret sauce" as the greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread. When the facts actually prove that if his prints are a direct result of the merit of"Secret sauce" he has missed the boat on what a full scale print is. Mud is mud! And jdef, though you have some ideas of merit, your photography, negatives and prints by and large simply "suck"

jdef is so full of himself that he must keep waving his flag and shouting to anyone that will listen he is the great knowledge of all things. The Guru who will lead us from our stupidity as soon as we switch to his "secret sauce".

As soon as a question is asked about developing anything he chimes in with his nonsense attempting to turn the thread from it's intentional thought to him and his faux knowledge! Some of what he says is right on, but the majority must be swallowed with a few CC's of his "secret sauce"

When jdef reads this post, the next six lifetimes will be taken up trying to flame or get back at me for telling the truth about him and his make believe world and the crap he displays as fine photography. There are many on the list that will agree with my comments and probably the desciples of jdef will be offended. I am sorry that others he has offended have not pointed out his short commings and told him to shut the hell up and where to go. When his work improves to the point it would qualify as semi-professional I will be the first to say so and point it out to the world. Well for right now jdef and his secret sauce, cool adlibs no longer muddies up my world. I know who and what he is, I have no additional time to spend on nothing! I must point out one other thing, In my lifetime I have never said or told anyone that their work was crap, well I have now!

Charlie.....................

 

[Charles Webb]

MHV,
You missed the whole point! The majority of the post was and is hogwash. bye now

Charlie...................................