Help reverse engineer this image

[bibowj]

Hello all- Hope everyone is having or had a great weekend! Lately Ive been studying a lot of historic images and have tried to understand how the images were created... reverse engineer them so to speak. Mostly just so I would understand the process, not at all to copy the work. Ive recently fallen in love with this Bill Brandt photo from 1937 and would love to learn to emulate this high grain, high contrast feel...and would love your thoughts on to accomplish this today (using modern emulsions and a wet darkroom). I imagine I could get close with tri x pushed and printed grade 5 ish... but Id love to hear your thoughts..


http://www.pinterest.com/pin/146930006568184047/

THanks!

 

[summicron1]

tri-x doesn't have that much grain any more. You might try shooting it with a half frame using tri-x and rate it at about 3200 and process accordingly.

or just use some ilford 3200 -- that stuff has grain like no tomorrow.

 

[tkamiya]

I'm guessing the film was pushed quite far and developed accordingly (meaning long).

Lack of any detail n deep shadow and very prominent grain is probably from both.

 

[bibowj]

Interesting that you mention 1/2 frame because Ive been shooting with some Pens lately with Tri x and I was wondering if this was possible with a 1/2..

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've seen a print of this image, and I don't recall the sky as so muddy. Mainly I remember the sharpness of the cobblestones. Of course there are likely prints of this image from different eras, and they may emphasize different things. I'd think Tri-X pushed in Rodinal for the sharp grain/high contrast effect, but not necessarily half frame.

 

[David Allen]

When looking at the work of Bill Brandt, you have to remember that he worked very heavily on his prints (not just burning and dodging but also bleaching, etc) and, when he got the result that he wanted, would often make a copy negative. All of this, together with the polluted air, his later reworking of images at higher contrast, older materials all contribute to the look of the image.

A film like Fomapan 400 over souped in an aggressive developer plus making the image on a grey miserable day will combine to give you something of the 'feel' of this image. Add to this printing the sky down to a dark grey on a high grade and you will get close.

By the way, do people really have the right to post copies of Brandt's, or anyone else's for that matter, images like this?

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Or HP5, or Kentmere 400. Both seem grainier than TX and in the way this image is. I think the grainy sky is from high density in that area, since not much elsewhere. The light is a lot of it too. Presumably very low light, long exposure, reciprocity failure hitting the shadows pretty hard and boosting the contast. Plus a much higher brightness range than you might expect just looking at the actual scene. Deep shadows, skylight reflecting on windows and glaring on the cobbles, plus a relatively bright sky that was probably burnt down considerably.

I don't think anything exotic, but a good eye for light plus an understanding of the materials and/or good luck.

PS Good info on the printing techniques. Appeared while I was posting.

 

[David Allen]

I do not know if you are aware of the 1983 BBC Master Photographers series. This is the one on Brandt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3KuY0quBsk

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Chris Livsey]

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/working-methods-bill-brandt/
Dead Link Removed
http://collectordaily.com/bill-brandt-shadow-light-moma/

"If you look closely at Brandt’s prints, they are heavily retouched, covered in ink blots, scrapes, highlights, and scrawls that enhance the visual effect. I always used to chalk this up to Brandt being a poor or messy printer, who required all kinds of post-production modifications to make his prints even workable. I have now come to see Brandt’s tuning as something more consciously and controllingly artistic, a physical process of reinterpreting the negative again and again. Three prints of his famous nude with her elbow bent (unhelpfully entitled London, but iconic nonetheless) show how he was experimenting with size and contrast over the decades, moving between curved, nuanced depth and rough flatness. Lee Ann Daffner’s text in the catalog is truly fascinating, showing thumbnails of each additive and reductive technique, a kind of parade of obsessive hidden craftsmanship."

 

[cliveh]

Hello all- Hope everyone is having or had a great weekend! Lately Ive been studying a lot of historic images and have tried to understand how the images were created... reverse engineer them so to speak. Mostly just so I would understand the process, not at all to copy the work. Ive recently fallen in love with this Bill Brandt photo from 1937 and would love to learn to emulate this high grain, high contrast feel...and would love your thoughts on to accomplish this today (using modern emulsions and a wet darkroom). I imagine I could get close with tri x pushed and printed grade 5 ish... but Id love to hear your thoughts..


http://www.pinterest.com/pin/146930006568184047/

THanks!

Forget about the high grain and contrast and observe his composition and timing.

 

[gone]

Just underexpose the heck out of the film and develop it in Rodinol at 1:25 w/ lots of agitations if that photo is the way you like things.