HDTDT: StreetZen "Girl in Stroller"

[jvarsoke]

HDTDT: How Did They Do That?

More are more I see images on the net where I really like the effect, but have no idea how to get it in a traditional darkroom. Several times I've found the photog used Photoshop to do things like warm up the colors, or play with the curves, that I know are derived from traditional processes, but I don't know what they are, or how they're done.

I'm hoping in this thread to post an image and have the darkroom gurus in the crowd discuss how one would reproduce the effect.

It might go along the lines of: probably used X film, with Y developer and stand development to get the Z effect (as evidenced by P). The Q effect is caused by a low dilution developer, maybe S, on R paper combined with light T toning.

Okay, first up to bat:

StreetZen: "Girl in Stroller". I'd credit the photog, but the site doesn't seem to give that info.

Any clues?

 

[jvarsoke]

Maybe instead the thread should be called How would _you_ do that? HWYDT.

 

[eric]

Maybe instead the thread should be called How would _you_ do that? HWYDT.

Not sure about your question. Is it photoshop related or how to do that in the darkroom?

 

[jvarsoke]

I'm only interested in traditional darkroom techniques (hence posting at APUG ) used to produce an image like the example.

 

[Will S]

I think that what you are asking would be very difficult to do based on looking at a digital reproduction of a picture from a website unless the effect is very pronounced.

 

[David Brown]

I'm hoping in this thread to post an image and have the darkroom gurus in the crowd discuss how one would reproduce the effect.
... Any clues?

Well, my "educated" guess is it's a contrasty, grainy negative and/or printed dark on a hard grade of paper.

But, as usual, I could be wrong ...

Cheers,

David

 

[eric]

Well, my "educated" guess is it's a contrasty, grainy negative and/or printed dark on a hard grade of paper.
David

That would be my guess too. Something like rodinol processed 400 speed film. Also, some of the street shots seem to have some catchligths on it. So perhaps, underexpoxed and fill flash. Or some type of flash that produces 2x the amount of light so when printed, the backgrounds get darker.
But a fair amount of heavy printing/burning of the extraneous element seemed (if printed in the darkroom) to have been done.

Are you looking on how to dodge/burn question? There's really no magic developer/paper/film/coffee/ that you need to make these prints. Just some darkroom time. I saw a book on Minimata once and he had some great examples on making burning in some of the extraneous elements of the print.

If that's what you are looking for, you'll need to practice. That's all. Buy lots of cheap paper, choose 1 or 2 negs, and just practice.

A lot of people practice by using different images and negatives but I think effectively, for a new person in the darkroom, is to pick just a few negatives and make a TON OF variations of it. Burn here, dodge there, change filtration, change developer, change paper....yada yada yada.

 

[laz]

Isn't this a kinda hard way around to what you can do by going to the gallery looking and reading the photo specs?

And what does it mean in the end to take a possibly digital, possibly photo-shopped pic and well, yeah what does it mean

 

[vet173]

Under expose, overdevelop, and print way too dark,you will have the effect you want. I helps if you have never did anything before so you can claim you didn't know any better.

 

[eric]

I helps if you have never did anything before so you can claim you didn't know any better.

Hey! That's usually my excuse after 20+ years I usually say "umm, I'm still just learning, I didn't mean to make it look like that"

 

[Lee L]

Under expose, overdevelop, and print way too dark.

That's what I see as well. However, the print may be the lightest it can be while still getting a solid black. I used to make 2000 B&W prints a month from unskilled photographers' negs, and would often get requests for more shadow detail when all that was present was something like what shows in this photo. My standard reply: "if you want more shadow detail, put it on the negative when you shoot. I can tell you how." When TMZ came out I had the lab manager enlarge the part of the instructions that said "This is an 800 ASA film." and put it on the bulletin board at the drop off desk.

Lee

 

[jvarsoke]

Dodging/Burning definately help this print along.

I'm curious how the warming(?) effect could be produced in a darkroom. Would you think this is a Warmtone paper (if so, which one -- Ilform doesn't seem to have much in the way of white), or a particular developer/paper combo that might produce this result.

I'm also interested in how the print gets so dark but doesn't appear muddy. Perhaps that's just the ultra-high contrast speaking.

 

[eric]

I'm curious how the warming(?) effect could be produced in a darkroom.

Could be the paper yes. But when scanned -- it is scanned cause how else would we be seing it, probably used Color mode instead of B&W mode in the scanner. He/She could have used GIMP or PHotoshop to tweak the color some more. Who knows, its a digital image now since it is on the computer so anything can happen.

I'm also interested in how the print gets so dark but doesn't appear muddy. Perhaps that's just the ultra-high contrast speaking.

Increase contrast? I _think_, IMHO, that the negs are probably okay and the person, if it was printed on paper, did some heavy dodging/burning. If I burn at 2x more the general exposure on a certain area, it won't really get muddy. It just gets darker.
If they didn't do these on paper, then he/she is purty good on photoshop/gimp or whatever tool he/she uses.

I think you need to get into the darkroom and make a print and make the highlight stand out and burn everything else. Make like 10 variations on it. You know, like in photoshop, I think there is some "variations" mode that you can do and it makes like 20 different images. Same in the darkroom, but you'll need to spend some quality time with your enlarger.

 

[jvarsoke]

But when scanned -- it is scanned cause how else would we be seing it, probably used Color mode instead of B&W mode in the scanner. He/She could have used GIMP or PHotoshop to tweak the color some more. Who knows, its a digital image now since it is on the computer so anything can happen.

Again, I'm not really interested in the Photoshop side of it. Yes we're looking at a scanned image. And maybe it was a negative scan and heavily modified in PS. But that's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking: how would one create the type of effect in the _darkroom_. That is, how can I make a print that someone would mistake for the origin of a straight-scan that produced the jpg in question?

How can I make a print that looks like this image?

wow, asking the question is almost harder than figuring out the answer.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Like vet173 said in an earlier post on this thread:

"Under expose, overdevelop, and print way too dark."

 

[eric]

I'm asking: how would one create the type of effect in the _darkroom_. That is, how can I make a print that someone would mistake for the origin of a straight-scan that produced the jpg in question?

As Vet and Tom said, underexpose and overdevelop and heavy printing. But I think, you'll need to do a lot more manipulation in the darkroom. It _could_ be underdev but I think its more heavy burning. Exposed the paper for the highlights and burn everything else in (from what I gather from the entire website)
But like I said earlier, its not going to be an easy task. Just because a bunch of us is saying underexpose and "burn the crap" out of it, you can't expect to get in there and do it in one night. Its going to take time to learn to do that. There isn't a magic button in the darkroom that you can press to get it to look like what you want. That takes lots _a_lot_of_ practice.
Its like saying "I want to play my guitar like Eric Clapton" but I want to do it tomorrow. Its not going to happen.
I like the web site link that you sent and I like a lot of those images. They are pretty nice. If I wanted to print in that style today, lets say, for a project, I'll need to burn a lot of paper to get that look. I probably need to experiment on how much underexposure and overdevelopment or overexposure and underdevelop or right exposure and fill flash or a certain combination of developer to get that grain or.....you get the idea.

wow, asking the question is almost harder than figuring out the answer.

I think because be all learn through trial and error. I don't think anyone here has a definitive answer for you and we are trying to help as best we can. Nobody here HAS THE ANSWER, only the guy who made that website has it. There are just too many variables. Perhaps you can email the photographer and just ask? Then let us know! And we'll see who got it close to his technique.

 

[Don M]

try using a chrome neg printed on a warmtone B+w paper in a warmtone developer-

that might get you in the neighborhood-then again maybe not.

 

[bjorke]

I hestitate to say it here, but a severely thin negative re-normalized by a scanner can also look like this. No analog print unless you can find a hard enough paper though.

 

[jvarsoke]

Thanks for all the help guys. This is pretty much what I'm looking for, a bunch of vets discussing what they think might lead in the correct direction. I doubted it was a "just do X and you'll get it" kinda magic-bullet. But hey, one can always hope.

I'd be surprised it if a flash was involved, since these are street-shots. EDMO does something similar, though not quite as warm. I know his are done in photoshop against the negative -- since he doesn't have access to a darkroom right now. I was just hoping to do something similar in the darkroom.

So, would the streetzen stuff be done on Warmtone and with a Warmtone developer (as someone suggested above)? And if so, could someone recommend a paper and developer. I have little experience with Warmtone (Ilford's) and I got brown-blacks and cream-whites. Not really what I'm looking for.

 

[eric]

I'd be surprised it if a flash was involved, since these are street-shots. .

I'd be surprised if these weren't done with a flash
http://www.streetzen.net/index.php?showimage=328
http://www.streetzen.net/index.php?showimage=73
http://www.streetzen.net/index.php?showimage=332
http://www.streetzen.net/index.php?showimage=336
There's catchlight in one of the eyes. You can get that result if you use your fill flash in daylight and expose it for the flash, not the ambient. Especially, the last one above cause there's light on the shoulders that look very much like a flash.

Lame family shots here with quick scans. Flash or no flash?
http://www.maquiling.org/archives/000194.php#000194

 

[jvarsoke]

Whelp, I'm surprised.

The family shots look like flash-shots to me. Then again, I really have no idea how to use a flash. Maybe I need to learn.