Brush development (?!)

I stumbled upon one photographer on instagram (https://www.instagram.com/xavier_vanlaere/) and he seems to be using some kind of brush development technique. I tried asking him but got no reply and this has been bugging me what kind of technique he is using.

For example:


or


The second one you can see sprocket holes of 35mm film. So I believe the film is being manipulated. Maybe the technique contains brush developing the film to get uneven development. But that doesn't explain the type of grain (I think he is using HP5), the color shifts and the overall blurriness. The photos are probably shot with large aperture but could there be some kind of filter also involved?

Any ideas how this is done?

Made few tests using Foma 400 and Rodinal 1+25 warm developer:

5 minutes time, brushing the developer on the film from start to beginning. Result: pretty decent developing in terms of tank developing. Seriously amazed. But no sign of uneven development like in previous examples.

Second test: same developer+film. Single brushing over film and let it sit 30 minutes. Mostly underdeveloped and not a suprise at all. Not usable negatives, really thin.

Now I'm looking at the instagram photos, each of the photos have uneven borders, symmetrical to the actual frame. So could it be that the brushed developing means brushing when developing the paper? I've done some plays with the developer but maybe need to do that with accurate brushing.

But how is that haziness and softness done?

Might be brush applied alt-process medium, like van Dyke brown, or albumen, etc. That's pretty common.

Donald Qualls said:

Might be brush applied alt-process medium, like van Dyke brown, or albumen, etc. That's pretty common.

Click to expand...

I'm still puzzled about the streaks on sprocket holes. Somehow the uneven development shows on the film too?

This thread seems strangely silent, I though this is some trivial process which has been known for years etc

More often than not when we see these kinds of images some form of digital manipulation has occurred. Of course, all sorts of mechanical and chemical means are also available to achieve similar effects. Partial development of the negatives and/or prints either using brush development or otherwise and/or reduced/no agitation during print development, scratching negatives, using overlays/patterned screens, burning & dodging obviously, bleaching & partial redevelopment, variations with exposure + development (lith, or quasi-lith using regular paper developer), in-camera manipulations with objects held before the lens or intentional light leaks + flare (scratched lens elements) - the list is really virtually endless.

The images in the first post suggest a combination of methods and it's impossible to tell for sure what exactly the maker did. A quick glance at them would lead me to believe that most of the manipulations were in fact made in the printing process and not during negative exposure or development - assuming it's physical darkroom work and not just a photoshop exercise we're looking at. Again, that last option cannot be excluded.

If you want something in particular, I would suggest isolating that aspect and then determining how you can achieve it.

koraks said:

If you want something in particular, I would suggest isolating that aspect and then determining how you can achieve it.

Click to expand...

Yes, the technique he is using is probably a mix of something. I'm so blue eyed that I think all is done analog, no photoshop involved. But you never know.

Ok, let's try to isolate. This frame doesn't have anything else going on than some optical. The front is pretty sharp but the unsharp figure has some strange bokeh going on. Could this be a bad lens? Tilt shift?

Honestly that example just looks like any run-off-the-mill 50mm lens set at its widest aperture and the focus chosen on a point pretty close to the lens. Nothing more, nothing less. Then just smacked the negative into the enlarger or onto the scanner platen and Bob's your uncle. Yes it could be done with tilt, but it doesn't look like it in this instance. I also don't see anything special about the out of focus areas (bokeh). Just pretty overexposed since exposure was based on the darker foreground.

That's a fascinating effect on the Instagram page, reminding me of Miroslav Tichy's work. I wonder if there are videos of Tichy working?

koraks said:

Honestly that example just looks like any run-off-the-mill 50mm lens set at its widest aperture and the focus chosen on a point pretty close to the lens. Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

Ok, I have to try myself. Maybe it is the overexpose of dark figure on bright makes the blur a bit "special". He has some other photos that have some similar "thin" blurs and that is why I asked.

jawarden said:

That's a fascinating effect on the Instagram page, reminding me of Miroslav Tichy's work. I wonder if there are videos of Tichy working?

Click to expand...

Miroslav's style is probably 100% based on crappy equipment Oh boy what a peeper he was..