How does Sarah Moon do it?

[holggger]

There's something I have been trying to understand all weekend, but I just don't seem to find the solution: How does Sarah Moon achieve the blurry/unfocused look of her photographs?

In case you are not familiar with her work, or need some refreshing, here is a small collection: https://jp.pinterest.com/holgerferoudj/sarah-moon/ (alternatively any Google image search would do)

What is confusing me most is that many/most of her images (at least those I am interested in) are not merely blurred by low shutter speeds, but they have very obviously "two silhouettes" of the same person/animal that overlay very closely – at least that's what it looks like.

Shouldn't merely using a slow shutter blur the image more evenly? I guess using slow shutter speed plus a strobe that fires two times in short succession could achieve a similar look, but apparently she is not using strobes (from the little information I could find online). Is this done in post production? Are these double exposures?

If anyone of you has an idea – please let me know. Let's discuss

 

[Bob Carnie]

Sarah Moon is probably IMO one of our greatest contemporary photographers. I absolutely love her work.
What you see with her work is a subtle pallet of colours, I believe a lot of her prints are tri colour carbons, others look to be gum bichromate, and combination gum bichromate over pt pd.
These types of prints can give you layered impressions, and I work this way and after three hits of colour a normal black and white image takes on a complete different look.

I cannot speak to her camera work style but certainly she has found a very beautiful colour palette and style.
I am thinking she has Lillian Bassman as a mentor , Some of Brassai portraits move me as well like Sarah's

 

[Bob Carnie]

Todd Gangler out of Seattle , before maybe Fresson Prints from France.

 

[MattKing]

Todd Gangler's carbon prints in colour are absolutely amazing.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you like Sarah Moon, you will probably also like Shiela Metzner, especially her older work.

Moon might have combined Softars with a little motion blur. Quite of few of her images have obvious motion blur. I seem to recall Softars do something to depth of field, so the images may be slightly out of focus, but still look sort of in focus because of that. Pure conjecture since I haven't used a Softar since the 90s. I might go fish mine out just to check...

 

[Bob Carnie]

If you like Sarah Moon, you will probably also like Shiela Metzner, especially her older work.

Moon might have combined Softars with a little motion blur. Quite of few of her images have obvious motion blur. I seem to recall Softars do something to depth of field, so the images may be slightly out of focus, but still look sort of in focus because of that. Pure conjecture since I haven't used a Softar since the 90s. I might go fish mine out just to check...

Yes indeed I have seen Shiela Metzner prints (Fresson) and I really like them,
in fact I feel the prints I am making right now are somewhere between Fresson and Colour Carbon... luckily I have a good friend John Bentley who does very
lovely Carbon Prints so I can see where the Gum Bichromate layering fits in.

I always like the look of dye transfers, colour on matt or rag paper is nice and IMHO the way to go.

 

[removed account4]

here's a older thread that might be of some help
if interested in the fresson process
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
towards the end stephen frizza posts some information and soon after sandy king chimes in
its an interesting thread to say the least ...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I think the Fresson process might have something to do with the look in color images, but the look also carries over to her black and white silver gelatin prints, so she must be doing it in camera.

 

[removed account4]

i had never heard of sarah moon, thank you for giving me a clue !
i knew about shiela metzner, my roomate from college used to be her assistant ...

ontop of the other things said .. if you make really long exposures .. really long can be 1/2 or 10 or 40 seconds
the subject breathes/gives life to the portrait. i can't speak for sarah moon, but i have taken long exposures sometimes
portraits where the subject sits for 45 seconds while the image is being exposed ... and they can sometimes have that softness to them ..

not sure if i have added anything or thrown in a read herring ..

john

 

[Lachlan Young]

I remember something to the effect that she used Type 665 Polaroid, both in the 250/350 type camera & possibly via a Speed Magny or similar on a 35mm camera. 665 in a Polaroid 190/250/350 is one of the few materials I wish I had had a chance to try before it disappeared - largely due to Moon's masterful use of the medium.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I remember something to the effect that she used Type 665 Polaroid, both in the 250/350 type camera & possibly via a Speed Magny or similar on a 35mm camera. 665 in a Polaroid 190/250/350 is one of the few materials I wish I had had a chance to try before it disappeared - largely due to Moon's masterful use of the medium.

I would tend to agree here, a lot of the colour palette reminds me of polaroids.

 

[holggger]

Thanks for your replies! Yes, the printing part seems to be very special indeed. Although, to be honest, my knowledge with carbon, gum bichromate and the like is very minimal at best. I was lucky enough to see a wide range of Sarah Moon's prints at an exhibition (Now and Then) a year or two ago and that is what got me hooked in the first place. Will have to do some studying on these processes.

As for the in camera part, I am still trying to wrap my head around how the double silhouettes appear in so many of her photographs.

sarah moon

old interview with much tech talk
http://www.artline.com/essay_monograph/moon_sarah_essay.php

That is a nice interview, Richard, and I haven't considered that she might be using soft focus filters and/or lenses, which explains some of the "glow" – but not really these double silhouettes.

Starting to think it might be something about the way her models move, or maybe she moves her camera ever so slightly (on a tripod, that she claims she is always using?)

If you like Sarah Moon, you will probably also like Shiela Metzner, especially her older work.

Moon might have combined Softars with a little motion blur. Quite of few of her images have obvious motion blur. I seem to recall Softars do something to depth of field, so the images may be slightly out of focus, but still look sort of in focus because of that. Pure conjecture since I haven't used a Softar since the 90s. I might go fish mine out just to check...

Thanks for the tip! I have checked out some of Sheila Metzner's photographs and there certainly is a similarity to Sarah Moon's.
Might have to get a Softar and play around with it to see if that explains some of the effects I am seeing

 

[Lachlan Young]

I would tend to agree here, a lot of the colour palette reminds me of polaroids.

Was meaning the B&W recoverable neg packfilm - but some of her colour work does have some quite distinctive colours - & I'm not sure how much of that is Fresson alone, or if there's more going on. Some of her colour work has really desaturated skintones, yet strong colours in the clothes - almost like a handcoloured B&W rather than a colour original.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Was meaning the B&W recoverable neg packfilm - but some of her colour work does have some quite distinctive colours - & I'm not sure how much of that is Fresson alone, or if there's more going on. Some of her colour work has really desaturated skintones, yet strong colours in the clothes - almost like a handcoloured B&W rather than a colour original.

Whatever it is I love it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Whatever it is I love it.

Absolutely - & I've just remembered that Fresson does either duotone or 4-colour & a duotone with a little hand retouch/ colouring would land you in that sort of place. Either way, pretty much the sort of stuff you do with gum etc.

Also found this - www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTejJJjjG00 which you might find interesting - shows the infamous carbon arc enlarger etc - apparently it takes 40 min exposures to expose each enlarged separation (Componon lens I notice!) and the assembly order seems to run C,Y,M,K interestingly.

 

[holggger]

are you actively trying this style, or was this just an idle question... in other words, quest or just another question

Oh, I've been trying to get something that looks like what she is doing. And every now and then I modify things a bit and try to get closer. However, I will not buy all the equipment needed to make carbon prints, nor Polaroid (ha ha), and I don't have a Softar lying around here (although I am looking on eBay and might snatch one if I find a good offer).

So, to answer your question: Yes and no. I am letting myself be influenced by this style without setting my highest priority on imitating it 1:1, but am still very curious by how exactly she is getting that look (partly because I failed at imitating it, especially without a strobe).

... and this all runs parallel to simply appreciating her work without all this technical dingading

 

[Bob Carnie]

Oh, I've been trying to get something that looks like what she is doing. And every now and then I modify things a bit and try to get closer. However, I will not buy all the equipment needed to make carbon prints, nor Polaroid (ha ha), and I don't have a Softar lying around here (although I am looking on eBay and might snatch one if I find a good offer).

So, to answer your question: Yes and no. I am letting myself be influenced by this style without setting my highest priority on imitating it 1:1, but am still very curious by how exactly she is getting that look (partly because I failed at imitating it, especially without a strobe).

... and this all runs parallel to simply appreciating her work without all this technical dingading

This is an interesting question you have answered.

I have done nothing but solarization for the last 15 years... I was adamant not to copy Man Ray (hero) with my work, in fact I worked extremely hard to make sure what I did was quite different. My Media Page here has a good selection of my beginnings,
and now I am in the stage of this project where I feel I have found my groove, nothing I print looks like his work but for sure I was influenced.

I think Sara Moon would be pleased to know many find her work compelling and want to follow in her steps.. I think this is a very good thing.
I have a young fashion shooter on the West Coast who is following her way of thinking and I am printing in a somewhat cohesive style that could hang together with her. I feel that you should go for it , I think Sara vary rarely sweats the equipment issue.

 

[holggger]

my bet is it is just small camera movements ... ala Daido ..
SHE is doing the dance,now, with her camera. in quarter second movements

Thank you Richard, that must be it because it is really the only other way besides from strobes and double exposures.
Maybe she's moving the camera a bit on her tripod, which she claims she always uses, which would make it easier to get two that clear (relatively) silhouettes.

simpler way of saying it: do it simpler, try more with what you have. shoot more, rather than buy more

Couldn't agree more!

 

[holggger]

I have done nothing but solarization for the last 15 years... I was adamant not to copy Man Ray (hero) with my work, in fact I worked extremely hard to make sure what I did was quite different. My Media Page here has a good selection of my beginnings,
and now I am in the stage of this project where I feel I have found my groove, nothing I print looks like his work but for sure I was influenced.

Very intriguing solarizations of yours – love the baseball.
On the topic of imitation, I'd say it usually is the first step to learning something new. No shame in that. And then you can take what you've learnt and found out by doing it yourself as a starting point to whatever you want to do. The "good" thing about imitation with analogue media is that there is a much wider bandwidth in how whatever you are doing might turn out (go wrong in unpredictable ways). This in turn, makes you actually learn a good deal about what happens when you don't get it right (and maybe you like that more than what's "right"). Compared to digital imitation, where all you might have to do is press a button to apply a "filter" you have downloaded and get exactly the same effect like someone you are trying to imitate.
Of course there are two sides to it, because the instant feedback of digital also allows you to try out many more treatments in the same amount of time… Oh well, I will stop here before I fall into the proverbial rabbit hole!

 

[holggger]

Hello everyone,
it has been a while, but I recently saw this photograph by Sarah Moon in a book and had to think about this thread here again.

What I found interesting this time is that this is an original polaroid (at least so the caption says) – meaning that all aesthetics are a result of in-camera manipulation plus polaroid colors.
Again, no idea how she achieved the silhouette around the leaf – is there a filter that doubles bright areas? Press the shutter, wait, move camera away, wait, close the shutter?