c6h6o3 said:He used a great many different papers and got a great many different tones. The best tones, to my eye, are an almost golden color, just about impossible to describe. Truly unique. I also think that the look of his prints had a lot to do with the cadmium which was put in the paper back then, and that we'll never duplicate that look. Would we really want to do so?
Why not strive for your own tone? When I hit one just right I'm thrilled. Certain prints of mine have a unique tone which is quite distinctive and which brand them as my own.
avandesande said:I believe that by learning to duplicate what the masters I admire did I will more quickly find my own look.
noseoil said:Anyone who gets to Tucson can see some of his prints at the Center for Creative Photography (the University of Arizona). Call in advace and they will allow a private viewing of a small selection of his prints. Well worth the effort in time if you will be here. Please let me know if you will be in town, as I am always ready to see his prints. Most of his negatives are at the CCP, along with many of his prints. tim
rhphoto said:When Cole Weston was printing his dad's negatives in the 70s and 80s, he was using Ilford Ilfobrom, and later Ilford Galerie.
You are probably right. I think I confused EW with Brett, who did sometimes tone Ilfobrom, before he switched to Seagull. One other thing about EW's use of amidol is that he developed the prints with an egg timer, which would be three minutes. Development time is part of determining print color, and I think some amidol users develop for less time. Anyway, just thought I would mention that.Wayne said:Are you sure about the toning? The article on Cole Weston's EW prints in the book Darkroom 2 (1978) says no toner is used. Cole mentioned Ilfobrom as being closest to Haloid in tone.
avandesande said:Weston mentions chlorbromide papers at one time in his daybooks. The only thing really constant with EW's printing was amidol. I would think that this would be the place to start.
Wayne said:unless tone is the only thing you are looking to replicate.
avandesande said:That's pretty much what this thread is about.
In my experience, the peculiarity of a given negative affects the tone, even with the same paper/developer. I suppose it has to do with the characteristic curve you create, and how the scale of tones and range of densities is perceived visually, not just sensitometrically. I wonder what would happen if you could actually print the original "Pepper #30" negative, using a high quality modern bromide paper, and then see what kind of tones you got compared to your own negatives using the same paper.Wayne said:unless tone is the only thing you are looking to replicate.
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?