Did you ever hear about 'LJ'?

cmo · Feb 3, 2011

I have no clue who he is, but I stand in awe:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16536699@N07/sets/72157622905229717/

Lee L · Feb 3, 2011

LJ shoots with a Canon 5D as in digital + photoshop + overdone HDR and contrast stretching. Look at the image metadata. Off-topic for APUG. Try DPUG or hybridphoto.com.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 3, 2011

Yup. Metadata indeed says Canon 5D. I'm sure we'll be slapped across the fingers by moderators soon.

cmo · Feb 3, 2011

If you look at my scans they say "EOS 5D Mark II" because I use such a camera with a bellows and macro lens to "scan" my negatives. So, that does not say too much. And how a photographer works is circumstantial for me when I like his photos, and that was the only reason why I showed this.

Or, if that should be digital work: how would you do this on film?

MaximusM3 · Feb 3, 2011

cmo said:
If you look at my scans they say "EOS 5D Mark II" because I use such a camera with a bellows and macro lens to "scan" my negatives. So, that does not say too much. And how a photographer works is circumstantial for me when I like his photos, and that was the only reason why I showed this.

Or, if that should be digital work: how would you do this on film?

Find people with lots of wrinkles and use a blue filter. That is certainly digital work, no doubt. Over-sharpened to death and likely with the use of a blue filter plug in Silver EFX. Thread zapped soon...

Impressive at first, but then everybody starts looking like they just came out of a screening for Resident Evil. I certainly wouldn't want to stare at one of those for too long or hang on my wall. Aside for a few shots, most are downright frightening.

cmo · Feb 4, 2011

Well, the effect is too strong, you are right. Half of that would be enough.

I think I might achieve a good look with a blue filter, a low-speed film, developed to a high contrast and then printed on paper grade 4 might do the trick. How would you do it?

BTW, I have to photograph some people that are perfect for this kind of pictures.

Tom Kershaw · Feb 4, 2011

These images are rather over-baked; to a certain extent the dramatics distort any artistic or documentary meaning.

Tom

Q.G. · Feb 4, 2011

Opinions differ apparently. No surprise there.

I don't think they're over the top at all.

I'm curious though, how much of the dislike expressed above stems from (a percieved) digital origin and ditto post processing?

cmo · Feb 4, 2011

Well, maybe. Are these overdone?

http://www.nationalgalleries.org/media_collection/6/PGP 254.2.jpg

http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/39786-large.jpg

http://www.adhikara.com/maestri-della-fotografia/4-bill-brandt.jpg

http://www.abefoto.com/images/Bill Brandt.jpg

Moopheus · Feb 4, 2011

cmo said:
Well, maybe. Are these overdone?

http://www.nationalgalleries.org/media_collection/6/PGP 254.2.jpg

http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/39786-large.jpg

http://www.adhikara.com/maestri-della-fotografia/4-bill-brandt.jpg

http://www.abefoto.com/images/Bill Brandt.jpg

no, no, yes, yes

yeknom02 · Feb 4, 2011

While the original post is referencing digital shots, I'm left wondering how I'd recreate the effect on black and white, which is no doubt possible.

Suggestions listed already area blue filter (great, now there's another filter I gotta buy...), high-contrast developing (I'm guessing more frequent agitation?) and high-contrast paper grade. Do you think 35mm is too small for such detailed shots, or does it have to be bumped up to MF or higher?

cmo · Feb 4, 2011

Apart from the filter and printing, I consider using something like a Pan F, in 35mm or better 120, and push it 2 stops in XTol. That might keep the grain small but create a lot of contrast. In 120 size Microphen might be an even better choice because I remember it creating very high contrast when pushing HP5.

MaximusM3 · Feb 4, 2011

Q.G. said:
Opinions differ apparently. No surprise there.

I don't think they're over the top at all.

I'm curious though, how much of the dislike expressed above stems from (a percieved) digital origin and ditto post processing?

I personally would find them just as frightening if they were on film.
I am not implying that they are bad, because they are not, but I simply could not look at the majority of them for long or buy them to hang them on my living room walls
They are certainly powerful though, no doubt, and extremely well executed.

removed account4 · Feb 4, 2011

it is the "ortho" look
karsh was a master of character studies
using this sort of technique.
it is lighting as well as the emulsion though.
i worked with someone trained in this technique when i
was starting out ... and you need to really know how
to use light and emphasize highlights and shadow like
rembrandt ... the blue filter is just the beginning ...

MaximusM3 · Feb 4, 2011

cmo said:
Apart from the filter and printing, I consider using something like a Pan F, in 35mm or better 120, and push it 2 stops in XTol. That might keep the grain small but create a lot of contrast. In 120 size Microphen might be an even better choice because I remember it creating very high contrast when pushing HP5.

You could also play with Rollei Pan 25 or Rollei Ortho to create a high contrast, dramatic look. If you are not afraid of grain, you could also try Tri-X @ 200 and overdevelop in Rodinal 1:25. With a blue filter, you may get what you're looking for, plus the grain. Looking at those pics though, it looks like he doctored most if not all of the subjects eyes to make them look lighter (and more zombie-like frightening), and that is something you won't be able to play with on film, unless you can get your model to wear blue contact lenses while you're using the blue filter, which in turn would make their eyes look like that (or close to it anyway).

TheFlyingCamera · Feb 4, 2011

Actually, if you look at a lot of those, they're quite "Grainy"/noisy. I'd go for the high contrast development/underexposure with Tri-X on 120, and add the blue filter. Try it at 400, then add 20-30% to your development time.

You can get the light eyes thing in film without the contact lenses- it's called localized bleaching of the print. You'd just have to work with a very dilute ferricyanate bleach and a stash of q-tips.

michaelbsc · Feb 4, 2011

Actually, his compositional skill is very good regardless of technique to achieve the effect. I think lighting is important, as well. I really believe that many of us are so stuck in the "ambient light" frame of mind that we don't pay enough attention to this. I've been reading a few of the "old" portrait books from the '40s and '50s, and all of them talk about judicious use of lights for studio work.

I am interested in how one would duplicate this however. Might make an interesting set of contrast juxtapositions to shoot folks with the blue filter and with a deep red filter to display side by side.

removed account4 · Feb 4, 2011

if you have some photo paper, you can make
similar character portraits with paper negatives ...
lipstick goes black .. be careful though ... with women, this kind
of emulsion might make women upset.
" men look manly " ... women well ... you might need to learn how to retouch the negative ..
unless you are able to have your subject sit for really long soft light exposure ...

colinlane · Feb 4, 2011

if you're interested in these, you might consider Oscar Lozoya's portraits too

http://www.lozoya.com/homeless.htm

his book details the lighting he uses

http://catalog.nypl.org/iii/encore/...::|P0,17|Orightresult|X1?lang=eng&suite=pearl

Did you ever hear about 'LJ'?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency