How to achieve the look?

[jmal]

I have recently been looking through my photo books and really wondering how to get the look that was so common among 50's and 60's 35mm photos. Then, with the release of La Jetee on DVD recently, I really started to want that look. Most shots have little shadow detail and often ovrexposed highlights, much of which is contrary to techniques described/recommended in books or forum discussions. Is this simply a matter of underexposing and overdeveloping or were there significant differences in film and lenses that created the "classic" gritty look? And I' not referring to grain necessarily. I know how to increase grain, but there is more to it than that. Essentially, my photos usually look too clean or modern and I would like to get away from this look, if possible. Thanks.

Jmal

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Are you sure the photographs themselves looked that way, or was it the printing technology used to make the books? I have some old Ansel Adams books and the reproductions are crappy to say the least. I'd check out the actual prints from back then, just to be sure.

Then again, there's nothing wrong with making your images look like that if you want! If that's the case...I'm no help at all.

Murray

 

[tjaded]

Get a camera that takes the old style flash bulbs, shoot Kodachrome. No guarantee, but it puts you in the same playing field...

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Tri-X used to have a lot more grain than it does now. Plus, if the processing was rough (usually in D-76), then you get blocked highlights. Add a yellow filter, and say goodbye to your shadow detail.

Besides the major improvement of the early 2000s, I don't know how much Tri-X has evolved over its history, but that's surely the film most typical of gritty B&W photography.

Another thing you keep seeing is that the Nikon lenses were very contrasty, compared to their German counterparts. I however have no idea whether modern lenses are more contrasty or less.

Finally, there was just the overall gestalt of film emulsions then. The grain, tonal response, etc, that were the product of the then current technology all contributed to the look of the film. The emulsion technology has changed, and even traditional grains emulsion do not look the same they used to be.

Personally, I've seen so much badly processed tri-x shots that I'm not nostalgic for the time before the 2000s upgrade. I don't always like the slick look of TMAX/Delta/Acros, but I am definitely willing to trade the improvements in sharpness, tonality, and grain factor that were made to the expense of "the look."

 

[Arvee]

I remember back in the middle of the 20th century that the "hot setup" was shooting Tri-X at 1000-1200 and souping it in Acufine. Back then pushing film to its limits and shooting available light was the common practice. That'll pretty much get you the "look."

Fred

 

[tim rudman]

Can you give examples of whose work you mean? (I assume B&W??)
Tim

 

[Marc .]

Have a 'look' here :

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml

Marc

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I don't know if "The Glow" is the same thing as "The Look." If you're after the glow, you need to buy Leica equipment and then believe you see it.

If you're after the look, you need a Nikon F with 1967 Tri-X, and you should go to the Vietnam war to take pictures.

Like that one:http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/gallery/war/342.html

 

[jstraw]

http://www.stevenkasher.com/html/Detail.asp?WorkInvNum=101&whatpage=artist

 

[Marc .]

And there's 'the classic look'... no war intended !

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-15.shtml

Marc

 

[copake_ham]

You might want to try using some of the Eastern European films - such as Foma. Some of them make a point of noting that they provide that "classic '50's" look.

That, and the flash bulbs will probably get you there.

EDIT: If you do a search here - David Goldfarb once posted a pic he took at the Greenwhich Village Halloween Parade in the garish, tabloid-press '50's-style. PM David and he can probably guide you to the thread/post.

 

[jmal]

>Tim--Well, generally speaking, Frank, Winogrand, Klein, Erwitt (though Erwitt seems to have "better" exposure than the others), etc. However, as I mentioned in my initial post Chris Marker's film, La Jetee, has really given me the bug. If you have not seen it, I'd highly recommend it. It is a film comprised of all BW stills. About 30 minutes long. In the film you can see scratches and dust on the images, which is not what I'm after, but the look is very evocative.
>MHV--Too funny. I'm not after the glow or the war. In musical terms, I'm after the swing, as opposed to the academic, though I suppose anything can be--and has been--coopted by academia at this point.

Jmal

 

[removed account4]

>Tim--Well, generally speaking, Frank, Winogrand, Klein, Erwitt (though Erwitt seems to have "better" exposure than the others), etc. However, as I mentioned in my initial post Chris Marker's film, La Jetee, has really given me the bug. If you have not seen it, I'd highly recommend it. It is a film comprised of all BW stills. About 30 minutes long. In the film you can see scratches and dust on the images, which is not what I'm after, but the look is very evocative.

Jmal

sorry i cannot help in finding the way to the look ...
maybe something like push your film+process it in dektol
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

what a great film (the precurser of 12monkeys).
it blew my mind when i saw it ...

 

[jmal]

Yeah, I first saw it nearly ten years ago, long before I had any interest in photography, and loved it. Now that it is available on DVD, I have a copy and like even more than previously.

 

[Eric Rose]

The movie The Good German I think has some of that look as well.

 

[schroeg]

Just get to REALLY know the Zone system and you can be in charge of your images looking whatever way you please. And try to nail down a nice film/developer combo so you don't get tied up in the Mr. Wizard nonsense.

 

[jmal]

Schroeg,

I know the zone system, but in 35mm on the street it only applies loosely. I certainly understand the the ideas, but when the light moves from heavy shadow to bright sun in a matter of steps/frames, you have to sacrifice something. You may be able to meter appropriately but you can't develop for all the conditions on a roll of 36 exposures, unless you (or the conditions) remain static.

 

[tim rudman]

like Haskins maybe?
http://www.ocaiw.com/galleria_fotografi/index.php?lang=en&author=haskins
Check out his African Images book as well

 

[jmal]

Tim, I do like the look the of BW shots you linked. I like the women quite a bit regardless of the quality of the photographs. But, the photos have a look I'd be very happy with. Attached is a small, poor scan of a shot rom La Jetee. It may give a feel for what I'm after.

 

[semeuse]

Besides the suggestion of trying some of the East European films, you may want to try some other developers - glycin, stand developing, etc.
an example: Dead Link Removed

 

[juan]

I actually took photographs back then, and I think the various suggestions here suggestion the reasons for the look. Shooting contrasty Nikon lenses, shooting Tri-X at 400 and developing in D-76 or something similar (GAF Universal?), or shooting faster and developing in a speed developer. Plus, enlarge them with a condenser enlarger on Grade 3 paper.

I get something similar shooting Forte Classic Pan 400 with my Nikon F and developing in HC110b. But, of course, Forte is no more.
juan

 

[tim rudman]

Tim, I do like the look the of BW shots you linked. I like the women quite a bit regardless of the quality of the photographs. But, the photos have a look I'd be very happy with. Attached is a small, poor scan of a shot rom La Jetee. It may give a feel for what I'm after. View attachment 7946

It was rather the way we printed in the 60's (when I was learning to print) and in the 70's and the materials of the day may have been part of it but it was an approach to film dev'ing and print making that was different to today, so it was technique mainly. Printing was more graphic, high contrast and films were often (IME) given 'a little bit extra' rather than a bit under. Condenser enlargers were the norm. Paper was pretty much all graded - Multigrade was rather grey and flat and not yet come of age - Agfa even made Grade 6. Flashing was not yet common parlance (photographically speaking). It was a higher contrast world.

Haskins broke new ground with his graphic approach and was (he didn't know it of course) responsible for my involvement in photography. If you can find copies of 'African Images' and 'Cowboy Kate' I would recommend them if you like this approach to B&W. He used many cameras and formats, HP3, 500W bulb in condeser enlarger and printed on high contrast paper holding (sometimes) low tones and letting highlights bleed and enlarging small sections of the neg to get grain.
tim

 

[George Collier]

I would agree with what some here have said - a bit more development, condensor enlarger, but most important, even if you have a full range negative, I think a lot of the "look" would be in the printing, choosing the grade carefully (on the high side), and being selective about what part of the reproduction curve, or range, you allow to have tone and value. And not controlling consistent temperature through film processing might add a bit of "roughness" to the grain structure, maybe 5-10 degrees (not sure how much here, I don't do this) but not enough to reticulate the emulsion. Rodinal might be a good developer choice also.

 

[copake_ham]

So, if "The Look" is to return film photography to a past time, discarding all of the advances in the science and art that has occurred since the 1950's and '60's, does this mean we are now consigning it to the ash heap of history? :confused:

 

[jmal]

>Tim--Much of what you (and others) describe I already use when printing. Others who see my prints think they look "retro," but I still think they look current. Perhaps it's a case of not being able to get past one's own work, of never being satisfied.
>Copake--Not sure exactly what you mean, but I'm not suggesting throwing anything away. I simply have certain aesthetic goals and technology, or a lack thereof, only acts as a means to an end. I'm not concerned with advances. I appreciate many styles/approaches, but in the end I'm not after the technically perfect "fine art" print, whatever that may be. I still prefer the sound of 50's recordings to those produced today, though the fidelity is not as good. Finally, I think part of the appeal of photography is fantasy. I live through the world of my favorite photos. While I often want to show something as it "is," I still find that I present it in a way that is consistent with my idea of what the world looks like or should look like. My camera lies.

Jmal