How to achieve the look?

[panastasia]

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...

Some time ago I read an article about this (I'm sorry I can't recall the source). It made me aware that Japanese and German lens designers perceive lens resolving power differently, therefore, the difference is intended. For this reason, I believe, modern lenses from these two countries will still be different in the way you mention.

Although, I hear that Leica lenses are contrasty.

Paul

 

[Roger Pellegrini]

The Elliot Erwitt Look

Does anyone have any thoughts on Elliot Erwitt's technique. I like the dark tone of his photographs and am wondering what film and processing he favored.

Roger Pellegrini

 

[jmal]

Do you have Erwitt's book Personal Exposures? It has an essay by him in which he mentions some of his materials. If I recall, he uses Tri-X, and a 50mm lens on his Leica. I believe it is an older lens from the photos I have seen of his main camera. Also, check out the Contacts dvd. I'll have to watch again and pay attention to the film on the contact sheets.

 

[Roger Pellegrini]

Okay. Just ordered the book. Thanks. What is the "Contacts" dvd?

 

[GraemeMitchell]

Brilliant list, Roger, on "the glow" and "the look", thanks for that. I wish I could find the book now to post a scan, can't, but the photograph that glows the most to my eye was made by Horst P Horst in the late 30s -- for an advertisement, a corsette. Even reproduced in a book with middling print quality, this picture glows forth with great vitality. Famous picture, fabulous blonde model (Grace Kelly-like) seen from behind wearing the corsette, half-reclining on a phony balustrade, light falling from upper right-hand quadrant across her shoulders, strongly defining her shoulder blades and spine in a most delicious fashion. To think that such pictures were once actually made for advertisements. Definitely not made with a Leica.

Maybe the first picture on this page is what your thinking of?

 

[JBrunner]

It seems to me that in many cases the "look" in question is simply bad ink based reproduction of black and white photography.

 

[Harry Lime]

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.
Murray

I agree with Murray. The reproduction quality of a lot of these vintage books is pretty lousy by today standards and often does not resemble a real print. I've seen this difference for myself on several occasions.

Of you want your shots to look like the 60's or 70's use period gear, film and developers. Think vintage Nikon, Leica and Tri-X in D76 or similar.

Nikon:
Nikkor-H.C 2/50
Nikkor-S.C 1.4/50
Nikkor-H.C 1.8/85
Nikkor-P 2.5/105

Leica:
2.8/35 or 3.5/35 Summaron
2/35 Summicron (version 1 $$$)
Summicron 2/50 Collapsible
Summicron 2/50 Dual Range / Rigid
2.8/90 Elmarit

Leica gear was expensive and there was a lot of 'vintage' gear still in use.

Most fashion was shot with a Hasselblad (Chrome C lenses) or Rolleiflex.
Some people shot fashion with the Nikkor-H.C 1.8/85

Most photojournalists shot Nikon and or Leica. Also Rolleiflex, the occasional Hasselblad
and a few diehards still shot Speed Graphic.

Eugene Smith shot with anything that held film and could make a picture.

Tri-X has changed, but the character and grain is still very much the same.
Also try Adox 50 and 100 ART. These are the same as the original 1950's formulas.

Use hot lights or electronic flashguns. Most of these didn't tilt for bounce, so you just blasted everything straight on with hard light (although large bulbs produce a different look than our modern pin point guns). I'm not sure when someone decided to use an index card to bounce the flash off the ceiling. Some electronic flash guns were open faced and used a large bulb. I think actual flashbulbs fell out of favor at the end of the 1950's.

D76, D23, 777, Acufine, Rodinal
Diafine for pushing

Printing paper is a problem. I don't think there are any left that do not have brighteners.
Again try ADOX or some of the eastern European stuff with thick emulsions and tons of silver content.
Agfa papers had a real vintage look, even their variable contrast MCC classic, which I believe Adox is making again.


Use a good vintage enlarger lens and a period developer.

 

[Shelly Grimson]

These were taken in 1970 with my leica M2 and my 35 and 50 summicrons. They were developed mostly in D-76 and were printed three years ago (after digging out the negs from shoe-boxes) on Agfa MCC. They are from a Canadian writers series I did for Oxford. When I shot them I was totally slipshod technically and my prints in 1970 were feeble. So I waited 30 years and went back for a look.I first printed them on Ilford MGIV but couldn't get the 'look' I wanted so I moved to the Agfa for the slightly warmer base. It felt right. I have both the focomat and the later V35 diffusion type enlargers and I couldn't really see a difference in the prints. I printed them after being inspired by Les MacLean who wrote in his excellent book how the split printing method could rescue the blown out photos that he had avoided printing for years. So I went back and tackled them. It was slow and painful at times but rewarding. These scans don't do them justice, they were done from photos taken through the glass of the framed pictures.
Recently I looked back through my collection of Pop Photog and Modern Photo Annuals and saw the 'look'. Most of the photos were, in my opinion just high in impact and lousy in printing craft. With flashing, split-grade printing and toning you can do wonders. The photos of today seem infinitely better when I look at magazine and photojournalism. It must have reflected the liberating craziness of getting away from large neg, slow cameras. Heck, it was the 60's! Just my opinion though...
I'm a dunce with computers so if the following doesn't get you there then just google Prime Gallery Toronto and go to Artists for my pictures.

Dead Link Removed

 

[jmal]

Roger--Contacts is a short series of DVDs featuring a number of photographers discussing their contact sheets.

Jason--I grew up in the DC area and went to the Smithsonian regularly for about 20 years. I have seen plenty prints in person, so the look that prompted this thread last year is not a result of poor reproduction. I truly think it is a matter of different/old materials across the board.

 

[JBrunner]

Roger--Contacts is a short series of DVDs featuring a number of photographers discussing their contact sheets.

Jason--I grew up in the DC area and went to the Smithsonian regularly for about 20 years. I have seen plenty prints in person, so the look that prompted this thread last year is not a result of poor reproduction. I truly think it is a matter of different/old materials across the board.

Roger that. The old "looks" to me seem to be pushed and/or old style emulsions, much like Efke delivers. Seems to me more important, but not exclusive from the camera/lenses.