No worries I was only joking, but you're right and the problem tho' is that as much as I'd like to talk about about printing techniques - I just don't have the set up or materials to really go in to it too deeply, so "what film" has way more bearing on my images than printing at the moment...Sorry about that line. It's just that I wish there was as much discussion on APUG about printing as there is about which film to use!!
Try:
- A brightly lit diffuse-shiny subject, such as the wet leaves posted earlier. If you start with something silvery then the job is half over. A picture of silverware works well...
- High-key lighting or very diffuse lighting - the center of interest should consist of mostly highlight to mid-grey tones. Try natural light with a clear sky about 10 minutes after sunset.
- A long-toe film such as Plus-X sheet film [which isn't made anymore [actually, I think all Plus-X has been discontinued]]. TXP 320 in D-76 or HC-110 is another choice. Be generous with exposure and parsimonious with development.
- Selenium toning, warm-tone paper and dilutish paper developer.
- Slight dodging in the broad highlight areas.
Often called the "Hurrell" look http://www.hurrellphotography.com/Hurrell/photos3.html. Note Hurrell depended on makeup and lots of retouching.
While I was living in Croatia I used efke films quite often: efke 100 is panchromatic, but efke 25 and 50 are orthochromatic and they will give more "silvery" look that is asked here.
Actually Efke 25 and 50 are panchromatic it's just that they have a reduced red sensitivity compared to other films, this is why their ISO rating which is also reflected in the name 25/50/100 is given for artificial light, their daylight speed is about a stop higher.
Ian
Often called the "Hurrell" look http://www.hurrellphotography.com/Hurrell/photos3.html. Note Hurrell depended on makeup and lots of retouching.
Lighting and the objects natural luminosity (silk, etc..)play a big part...
I think there's also some bleach in action here.
Portrait and celebrity photographers of days of yore had all kinds of tricks up their sleeves. You should look at some of Hurrel's work. Classic portrait lenses, large format film (sometimes specially
retouched), lighting skill, special developers at times. I talked to an older gentleman a few months
ago who did a lot of Hurrell's darkroom work many years ago. There are also all kinds of tricks which
can be done with modern films and printing papers to achieve a certain "silvery" look. One way is
to expand the midtones a highlights with "plus" development, reign in the extremes with pyro or
masking, then "snatch" develop on a high silver content paper. When I have done this sort of thing
I preferred to use a traditional dagor lens on an 8x10. Long-toe films like Delta 100 or the discontinued Plus-X help too, though I don't generally like how they handle the shadows.
Yes and no. I sometimes look at the older movies just to admire the lighting skills (versus all the
zippy but sloppy digitizing prevalent today). They made a lot of use of tungsten hot lights like
Arri fresnels. I also prefer this kind of old-school lighting for still portraits. It can be used either direct and harsh (like Karsh, excuse the rhyme!), or in conjunction with diffusers. Seems to have
an effect a little different than the typical flash softbox work one sees today. I particularly like just
a hint of diffusion with a thin silk or polyester diffusion panel, then depend upon film and print development techniques to home in on the exact look I want.
Watching cine film has a slightly more sparkly effect as you are viewing repeated positives at speed they pass through the gate of the projector and are reflected off the screen surface (itself sometimes treated to give higher luminance at narrow angles). I dont think this is comparable to viewing a print, or am I missing the original point?
but would this still be true when watching it on DVD, digital file or even a cheap black and white tv?
Yes, to a certain extent.
Television screens emit light, rather than just reflecting it, so they are more similar to a highly reflective projection screen than the paper backing of a print.
What about projecting the image onto a sparkly cine screen and re-photographing it? If that slightly diffused, sparkly look is really what you want...
I mentioned it earlier but just a reminder, not to overlook the slightly diffuse quality of these glam shots, which often gives the tonal separations a bit of a "glow". I think this has a lot to do with what you're seeing in these old pictures.
It's interesting to summarize this post:
Lighting techniques with a mix of diffuse and spotlight.
Diffusion in printing.
Older portrait lenses.
Different film development with higher density and photo papers designed for it.
Darkroom skill.
Retouching.
Make-up.
To me this just highlights that it takes masters of the craft to accomplish portraiture of that type and class.
Moral of story: keep on working hard in the darkroom, with lighting, and with finding an appropriate lens to capture the silver quality.
yeah, no - I mean that's a pretty good summary... but would those techniques (more lighting and pre-shot stuff) be transferable out of the studio?
Get out there and experiment!
I'm not sure you could light up a field/tree/whatever the same way or I suppose on the run
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?