Can you identify film, ISO and dev process?

[hiroh]

I found these photos of filmmaker David Lynch and I really like the dark tonality, lack of details in the shadows, yet not completely deep blacks.

I’m not an expert in analog photography, still learning, but I’d guess this could be HP5 or Tri-X pushed 2 stops. Not sure what developer, I really used only Xtol and D-76.

Of course these must be darkroom prints scanned, rather than negatives converted digitally, what I do at the moment, so this probably adds to the tonality.

I found that these photos were made in 90s and early 2000s.

 

[hiroh]

For example, this is one of my photos that I shot with digital camera and edited the way I like it. I just don't know how to achieve this on film. I get too much details in the background that I found quite distracting in this particular case.

 

[Pieter12]

You could try contacting his gallery, Pace Gallery in Los Angeles. Or David Lynch himself.

 

[hiroh]

You could try contacting his gallery, Pace Gallery in Los Angeles. Or David Lynch himself.

Oh thanks. Totally forgot that.

 

[koraks]

I’d guess this could be HP5 or Tri-X pushed 2 stops. Not sure what developer, I really used only Xtol and D-76.

Don't stare yourself blind on these things. It doesn't really matter which film or developer he used.

I really like the dark tonality, lack of details in the shadows, yet not completely deep blacks.

That's much more pertinent.

Also, even more so important is his sense of composition and how he manages to evoke a certain atmosphere or feeling in his images through his choice of subject matter and composition. Choices in printing/post processing are kept in line with what he apparently wanted to achieve.

The magic really isn't in the question whether it was HP5+ or TriX. Don't forget Lynch trained as a painter and his trade is that of a visual storyteller. I suspect he couldn't care less which developer was used and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even remember.

 

[hiroh]

Koraks, I understand that Lynch is a genius and nobody thinks that the film choice makes an image, but my question was really just about how to achieve the tonality like this with film. I edit my digital photos like this (dark tones, not much detail in the shadow, a bit faded blacks) for a long time, much before I discovered that Lynch does photography. However, whenever I shoot film, the results are not really what I wanted. I tried underexposing and pushing film, and it's somewhat better, but not as close as what I really want. So, I'm really asking for help, just to guide me what next should I experiment with. I'm open for everything.

 

[MattKing]

It probably has more to do with his (or his printer's) decisions made at the printing or post-processing stage.

 

[MattKing]

Although I note that the David Lynch results look fairly grainy, so something like 35mm Tri-X in Rodinal would help with that.

 

[Craig]

I wouldn't be surprised of a lot of that image was done in the darkroom or the computer equivalent.

 

[MarkS]

I'd say just expose/develop normally, and print dark and with low contrast.

 

[grain elevator]

For example, this is one of my photos that I shot with digital camera and edited the way I like it. I just don't know how to achieve this on film. I get too much details in the background that I found quite distracting in this particular case.

Wait, do you scan your negatives? After that, they're digital images and you can edit them like the digital ones. Just keep in mind that if the grain is somewhat resolved and you edit by histogram, you may need to make adjustments that seem heavy handed if you come from digital captures. That is because e.g. a uniform dark gray in the film scan is comprised of brighter and darker pixels, and you will have to push some of them to pure back for the whole area to appear as dark as a grainless area of the same overall darkness would appear, where no pixels would be pure black. Same applies to highlights.

 

[MattKing]

Although I note that the David Lynch results look fairly grainy, so something like 35mm Tri-X in Rodinal would help with that.

I wouldn't be surprised of a lot of that image was done in the darkroom or the computer equivalent.

Here is a quick, off the cuff illustration of the same negative shot and processed about ten years ago. IIRC, this is 35mm T-Max 400 developed in HC-110 dil E - probably replenished - with increased development, in order to give me some expansion, due to low contrast lighting. The only difference between these two is the post-processing.
The first is post-processed the way that I prefer it. It has some slight similarities to the David Lynch approach you have linked to. I've done a darkroom print which is similar.

The second has additional post processing, and more closely represents my usual printing preferences - just not for this image:

This may not be the clearest way of indicating what I'm trying to communicate, but it should give you some idea.

 

[koraks]

my question was really just about how to achieve the tonality like this with film

Okay, thanks for clarifying this. There have been numerous threads along the lines of "I'd like to be the second Ansel Adams so please tell me how to develop double X and I'll be there", hence my response. Sorry about that.

I agree with the others that it seems mostly a matter of choices during printing than film/development. As to the somewhat anemic blacks that aren't quite black - I'd put this down to choices in digitization/scanning. I bet the prints give a different impression. What I see most in those images is printing down pretty heavily, basically truncating the curve to leave out the upper 1/3 or so. There are no or very little true highlights in those images. There's also some burning going on, e.g. in the Lodz image, top left. Overall there seems to be a very heavy vignette applied to the images, which is undoubtedly done by quite heavy-handed burning of the corners and edges and not due to lens vignetting (you'd be hard pressed to find a lens that does it this strongly!)

 

[jimjm]

Choice of film type and whether it was pushed/pulled would not have as much an impact on the final image as what was done during the printing stage. It doesn't appear that the film was pushed, due to the subtle transitions in the mid and dark tones, plus the lack of much apparent grain. These seem to be printed fairly dark with much of the highlight areas having been burned in also. The examples shown have a lack of bright highlights, so this could be done by flashing the paper or burning selected areas in with different contrast filters.
The straight prints from the negatives may have been very low-contrast with lots of detail in the shadows, and looked nothing like these final images. A good printer can interpret a negative in many different ways to give the image a specific look and feel.
As far as holding back unwanted details, I can sometimes do this with selective burning in those areas. Other techniques like toning can have an effect as well.
This shot was on 35mm TMax film, printed fairly dark with a lot of burning and some selective dodging. The mood is a lot different from a straight "normal print".

 

[Pieter12]

Koraks, I understand that Lynch is a genius and nobody thinks that the film choice makes an image, but my question was really just about how to achieve the tonality like this with film. I edit my digital photos like this (dark tones, not much detail in the shadow, a bit faded blacks) for a long time, much before I discovered that Lynch does photography. However, whenever I shoot film, the results are not really what I wanted. I tried underexposing and pushing film, and it's somewhat better, but not as close as what I really want. So, I'm really asking for help, just to guide me what next should I experiment with. I'm open for everything.

I do think Lynch made a conscious choice of film and developer as well as printing. Check out "Eraserhead."

Also, maybe more research on the internet about him and his methods vs here.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I found these photos of filmmaker David Lynch and I really like the dark tonality, lack of details in the shadows, yet not completely deep blacks.

I’m not an expert in analog photography, still learning, but I’d guess this could be HP5 or Tri-X pushed 2 stops. Not sure what developer, I really used only Xtol and D-76.

Of course these must be darkroom prints scanned, rather than negatives converted digitally, what I do at the moment, so this probably adds to the tonality.

I found that these photos were made in 90s and early 2000s.

There is nothing special or unusual about them. They are slightly underexposed.

 

[ic-racer]

Can you identify film, ISO and dev process?​

No.

 

[foc]

I think asking the question (film/ISO/ Dev) is a bit like asking what brush & paint Picasso used.

The combination may have a small effect on the overall image and IMO is immaterial.

The images the OP referred to, have more to do with artistic interpretation and lighting/exposure of the subject.

My opinion is to view these images to help inspire yourself to create but not copy or mimic.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I found these photos of filmmaker David Lynch and I really like the dark tonality, lack of details in the shadows, yet not completely deep blacks.

I’m not an expert in analog photography, still learning, but I’d guess this could be HP5 or Tri-X pushed 2 stops. Not sure what developer, I really used only Xtol and D-76.

Of course these must be darkroom prints scanned, rather than negatives converted digitally, what I do at the moment, so this probably adds to the tonality.

I found that these photos were made in 90s and early 2000

If you like this type of work (David Lynch's work) there's an apuger here @Ivo Stunga whose work is much alike. He's reversing b&w films.
Find him on Flickr...

 

[Pieter12]

Also be aware that if you are looking at those images online, they necessarily don’t reflect the originals with any fidelity.

 

[markbau]

A print like that is all about how it was lit. Great photos are not made because a particular film/developer were used, they are made because the subject was exquisitely lit.

 

[koraks]

If you like this type of work (David Lynch's work) there's an apuger here @Ivo Stunga whose work is much alike.

I think Ivo is going to be honored with that compliment! I get what you're saying, though. He sets a very similar mood in his images - at least the ones I've seen so far.

 

[250swb]

For example, this is one of my photos that I shot with digital camera and edited the way I like it. I just don't know how to achieve this on film. I get too much details in the background that I found quite distracting in this particular case.

It's all about exposure, try under exposing the film.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Awww, what an unexpected compliment - just might've made my day


My journey in photography actually was (and probably still is - to a degree) very much inspired by Silent Hill - a high quality Japanese psychological (and sometimes visceral) horror videogame series set in US. it is immersing you into darkest depths of our consciousness where less shown and more is implied... and heavily drenched in twisted/bloody/rusty atmosphere where hardly anything can be taken at face value. Dark Ambient/Industrial music emanates from speakers with occasional dark Trip-Hop to take the edge off.
As I found out later exploring this universe of Silent Hill - it is massively inspired by grand horror masters like King, Koontz, Lynch and movies like Jacob's Ladder to name a few inspirations - all dealing with the unknown dark.
I wanted to emulate the visual style and started digital, but found myself unknowingly emulating film grain with digital noise. Then my point and shoot died and I found and switched to what I was emulating - film. Later in my physical URBEX adventures at abandoned places, I found some forgotten slides and acquired a slide projector: first to enjoy my findings, then to do and to enjoy my own work.

So here I am, enjoying things dark.
In slide shooting one is metering highlights to mids and is letting shadows go to hell (...where they belong).
PLUS I'm often pushing ISO 100 films two stops to be able to shoot stuff handheld. Then I scan my slides and lift some shadows, adjust some curves and sharpen a bit...


Soo the recipe is: meter for highlights or underexpose and push your film 6 stops to Black Metal

 

[markbau]

After looking at a lot of Annie Leibowitz photos I figured out that she seems to "underexpose", that is, most of us take a flash reading and use it but she seems to take a reading and close down a stop or two. I started doing that and definitely started getting her look. The midtones are what make a photo. In the photo by the OP, the midtones are what make the photo, many of us would have given more exposure and the top of the vase would have been much lighter. It is a beautiful image.