How to achieve this look?

avidfilmuser10 · Feb 4, 2015

hello,

I'm not sure if this is the right thread but I am wondering how to achieve the look in this photo.

Richard S. (rich815) · Feb 4, 2015

Can you tell us what is it about this look that you like in particular? What aspects of this photograph are you after?

trythis · Feb 5, 2015

http://sashaveber.tumblr.com/post/102475449862

Looks like you can ask them?

Welcome to Apug.

You will find that trying to copy someones work or style is controversial especially when it comes to a professional photographer's work.

Bill Burk · Feb 5, 2015

This appears to be reticulation.

It's something you used to have to be careful to avoid by keeping developer temperatures reasonably close to 68-degrees F and keeping wash and fix temperatures within 5 degrees of that.

And if you messed up the temperatures this was supposed to happen.

But I've always been too careful to get this to happen, and I also think the film you can get now doesn't do this easily.

So exaggerated hot water and then chill, maybe even freeze while the film is wet "might" give you this kind of look.

summicron1 · Feb 5, 2015

i got something like that look when i developed some Minox negatives in Rodinol and then blew them up to 8 by 10.

Grain? Wow. But very sharp.

You used to be able to buy screens to put over the negative when you enlarged it to produce this sort of look, or many other looks.

RobC · Feb 5, 2015

Its quite high contrast with loads of grain. I would suggest using small format camera (35mm), old style film like HP5 and develop in Ilford Microphen which will give you plenty of grain. It is a high activity developer which gives approx 1 stop increased film speed and a lot of grain.
You could even use Ilford Delta 3200 which also gives loads of grain, especialy when developed in microphen.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 5, 2015

I agree with Bill Burk. It looks like reticulation. I've had it happen once or twice, many years ago. Try a hot developer and cool acid stop, and that should get it there. I suppose you could try to refine it with different developers. I'd guess something like Dektol would give you a very pronounced effect, and a solvent developer, like D-76 1:1 would be a little softer.

Roger Cole · Feb 5, 2015

Get yourself a floppy but formal-ish shirt, a bad haircut, practice a disdainful expression and throwing that over your left shoulder...

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Yeah, probably reticulated. It's hard to get modern films to reticulate even on purpose. I've never tried it but if I wanted to do that I'd shoot Foma film. It's not as pre-hardened as other films and the wet emulsion is softer, which makes it scratch easier and should, I think anyway, maybe, make it more prone to reticulation. It's also fairly grainy if you shoot the 400 and develop generously (but be careful, it responds with big contrast increases) so that might help with this too.

For grain, I'd try Delta 3200 and maybe develop in Rodinal. That ought to give you a bumper crop of grain.

Xmas · Feb 5, 2015

Bill Burk said:
This appears to be reticulation.

It's something you used to have to be careful to avoid by keeping developer temperatures reasonably close to 68-degrees F and keeping wash and fix temperatures within 5 degrees of that.

And if you messed up the temperatures this was supposed to happen.

But I've always been too careful to get this to happen, and I also think the film you can get now doesn't do this easily.

So exaggerated hot water and then chill, maybe even freeze while the film is wet "might" give you this kind of look.

Closest signature

Foma 400 in Rodinal 1:25 at 800 ISO.
If you want to take risks neat wine vinegar stop.

Microphen is a fine grain developer comparable with D76.

darkosaric · Feb 5, 2015

Maybe this look can be imitated in some degree with some special paper surface, like pearl? So: Foma 400 in warm Rodinal, agitate like crazy and then print on pearl paper?

ozphoto · Feb 5, 2015

Have inadvertently managed to do this with Agfapan 100 back in 1998; was processing in a hotel bathroom and seems the cold (wash) water was indeed "cold" - I just didn't realise how cold.

One and only time I've ever had this happen - has nice effect on some of the images on the film, but not all. Was pretty devastated at the time as it was a couple of rolls from a world trip, however I at least learned to check the temp for the next batch I processed. (Perfect temp, so must have been a glitch at the then new, hotel.)

MDR · Feb 5, 2015

Classic reticulation paired with bad focus and some camera shake voila. As previous poster said use a warmer dev and throw in a cold stop bath or use a colder developer and use a hotter stop bath. Reticulation was most often the result of temperature shock but there are chemical means to achieve it as well. Most modern films a la t-max etc are more immune to it so use something along the line of Fomapan.

snapguy · Feb 5, 2015

I think I would pass on trying to replicate THAT.

gone · Feb 5, 2015

Good shot Roger. Very funny (and true).

I concur, it's a great look, and 99% of it is the subject himself, who looks very familiar. He appears to be from another era. People don't look like that anymore, and then there's the clothes and the hair. The reticulation is probably true too. It's a photographic look that I would love to emulate myself, but today's films make it quite difficult. It looks like the stuff I looked at in old photo magazines, newspapers and books ages ago. Darkosaric's idea might get you in the ballpark. Maybe use a Leica lens and do something to accentuate the grain. Tri-X? But today's Tri-X is not the same, so maybe a film that is more of an old school emulsion.

mdarnton · Feb 5, 2015

Based on the lack of detail and generally bad quality, I'd say it's simply a crop from a tiny bit of a larger neg made with a fast and relatively grainy film, but nothing special, with the soft clumpiness coming from having scanned the neg with a flatbed scanner.

smieglitz · Feb 5, 2015

mdarnton said:
Based on the lack of detail and generally bad quality, I'd say it's simply a crop from a tiny bit of a larger neg made with a fast and relatively grainy film, but nothing special, with the soft clumpiness coming from having scanned the neg with a flatbed scanner.

You forgot about being out-of-focus and suffering from some sort of motion blur or camera shake, then being enlarged too much.

removedacct1 · Feb 5, 2015

trythis said:
http://sashaveber.tumblr.com/post/102475449862

Looks like you can ask them?

Welcome to Apug.

You will find that trying to copy someones work or style is controversial especially when it comes to a professional photographer's work.

I would also add that its bad form to take copies of someone else's work and post them onto a forum's servers, no matter how benign your intention. Technically, that is a copyright infringement. (I doubt you sought the photographers permission to save and re-publish a copy?)

That said, this isn't any great mystery: its fast film (400 ASA or greater), probably 35mm and its been cropped a lot to emphasize grain and lack of sharpness. I suspect it was also shot at twice (or more) the rated speed and pushed, since you can see where some of the shadowy face details quickly rush off to detail-less black. So, buy some 400 ASA film for your 35mm camera, shoot it as 1600 ASA and push it a bunch, then crop out 3/4 of the frame and voila!

trythis · Feb 5, 2015

Or is it all photoshop filters ?

pentaxuser · Feb 5, 2015

Roger Cole said:
Get yourself a floppy but formal-ish shirt, a bad haircut, practice a disdainful expression and throwing that over your left shoulder...

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

How about adding a fast foreign sports car and turning the clock back to 1955 as well. I had exactly the same kind thoughts as you, Roger, when I first saw the picture.

pentaxuser

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 5, 2015

I think reticulation too, but don't forget the film is under exposed with motion blur too. I think the highlights look dirty so I would think it's printed on fogged paper.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 5, 2015

Reticulation produces a very distinctive pattern sort of like looking at a pan of worms. There is an excellent example in Grant Haist's Monobath Manual. It is the photograph of the seagull. Hard to tell in the example given as the enlarged example was also printed out of focus. So maybe yes, maybe no. Seems to me that if you have bad technique like that of the represented photographer you should be getting results like this all the time.

Randalcav · Feb 5, 2015

I agree that reticulation has a very distinct pattern, unlike a grainy pushed negative. I had this happen at photography school 30+ years ago using Tri-X and D-76 1:1. My instructor made an example out of my print, launching into a tirade about process temperature control, not using contaminated development tanks, mixing chemicals as suggested by the manufacturer, ect, ect. There was no artsy interpretation of my image at all. Just a second rant concerning the topic of "what if you were on assignment and produced this crap for your editor?" I guess he was right, back then.

cliveh · Feb 5, 2015

Roger Cole said:
Get yourself a floppy but formal-ish shirt, a bad haircut, practice a disdainful expression and throwing that over your left shoulder...

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Yeah, probably reticulated. It's hard to get modern films to reticulate even on purpose. I've never tried it but if I wanted to do that I'd shoot Foma film. It's not as pre-hardened as other films and the wet emulsion is softer, which makes it scratch easier and should, I think anyway, maybe, make it more prone to reticulation. It's also fairly grainy if you shoot the 400 and develop generously (but be careful, it responds with big contrast increases) so that might help with this too.

For grain, I'd try Delta 3200 and maybe develop in Rodinal. That ought to give you a bumper crop of grain.

You beat me to it as your initial comment was my first thought and I would also agree with the rest of your post.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Feb 5, 2015

avidfilmuser10 said:
hello,

I'm not sure if this is the right thread but I am wondering how to achieve the look in this photo.

Looks like about 1/30 second, flat light, then max out the contrast and add a butt load of grain on a soft light layer. Yeah, it's digital. Not complicated at all. I don't see the reticulation.

Sirius Glass · Feb 5, 2015

Welcome to APUG

How to achieve this look?

avidfilmuser10

Attachments

Richard S. (rich815)

trythis

Bill Burk

summicron1

RobC

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Roger Cole

Xmas

darkosaric

ozphoto

MDR

snapguy

gone

mdarnton

smieglitz

removedacct1

trythis

pentaxuser

Mainecoonmaniac

Gerald C Koch

Randalcav

cliveh

ParkerSmithPhoto

Sirius Glass

How to achieve this look?

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency