How to emulate the look and feel of pictures by Helmut Newton

Ever since being a schoolboy, the look and feel of Helmut Newton’s pictures has been fascinating me, especially the later ones with the classy tones in large prints. Now that I started to develop B&W (produced more than 100 rolls since January) I began to learn something about Tri-X 400, TMax 400 & 100, Neopan 400, RPX400 and Pan F 50. Developers used: Xtol, HC110, D-76, TMax, Emofin and Rodinal (Here in Berlin I can only get Adonal and R09 one shot).

My question: To get the look of his late work (especially the skin tones) - what film-/developer-combination do I have to use? My guess is Tri-X 400. Then I found two quote in flickr of Mr. Jeff Bürger who said he was assistant of Newton.

I like to give two quotes on flickr (I hope that’s okay) - two replies by Jeff Bürger in discussions of the group Tri-X/5063

No. 1:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/tri-x/discuss/72157600390673936/72157600528108212/

(Thread: Best developer to push Tri-X)

‘Rodinal film developer. I learned that from photographer Helmut Newton when I assisted for him in the early 1980s. Rodinal is very sensitive and each photographer will need to work out his or her dillution strengths and amount of agitation as to how you meter your exposures.

What rodinal does, for me is to sharpen the grain and give better detail for large prints from 35mm. It can be even more amazing with larger formats. I pre-soak the film in water.

(Editorial note: Examples given, but the links are not working, - Devlog)

Photographer Irving penn was known to use Ethol / UFG film developer. I tried it too and it produced amazing detail. Developing times were short with this brand averaging 3.75 minutes for 35mm and 4.50 minutes for 120mm, TriX. I have no idea if Ethol / UFG is available any longer.’

Click to expand...

No. 2:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/tri-x/discuss/131786/72157600925484156/

(Thread: Developers and film ratings?)

‘Earlier I responded to the subject "BEST DEVELOPER TO PUSH TRI-X" and I have been receiving so many requests as to what my developing dilution rates, times, and etc... are. I thought I would post my darkroom notes here.
Rodinal: I found that Rodinal developer gave me sharper grain which allowed me to enlarge 35 mm film to 16x20 and larger prints as Helmut Newton did. I use different size syringes to measure out the Rodinal based on how many reels of film I am processing. Trying to measure Rodinal amounts in a beaker is too difficult since the amount of Rodinal is so small.

US liquid ounces = cc
.25 oz = 7.5cc
.50 oz = 15cc
.75 oz = 22.5cc
1.0 oz = 30cc

Here are my notes on Rodinal at 68°F/20°C:

I pre-soak my film in water at 68°F/20°C for 1 minute and I tap the tank hard to release bubbles once at the 30 sec mark. (Water temps: 65°F increase development time by 20% and for 72°F decrease development time by 20%.)

35mm film — 7cc of Rodinal per roll of film for 10.5 - 11 minutes. Agitate 6 times every 30 seconds. (Obviously you add the Rodinal to the amount of water in your beaker that fills your developing tank.)

Contrast: To increase contrast — increase the concentration of Rodinal. To decrease contrast — decrease the concentration.

We each meter our film a little differently so you will need to experiment with your dilution of Rodinal. My original information on Rodinal (1977) came these two photographers - from their notes, Helmut Newton and Ralph Gibson.’

Click to expand...

Here on APUG I learned from Pat Erson that Marc Picot (Helmut Newton's printer) himself used HC110, but it might also be that Newton preferred D-76. Marc also suggested that the Tri-X might be overexposed – to get those skin tones.

A friend of mine said, judging by the edges of the contours (edges? Borders? Sorry, no native English here), which appeal harsh to him, it should be something classic. Maybe Rodinal (here in Germany only Adonal and R09 one shot is available I suppose).

I'd really like to learn something about getting closer to that look. Of course there are parameters like printing process and light conditions etc. - but the film- / developer combination is good enough for me for a start.

What is it that *you* are you using, and what is it that you find missing about the results you're getting?

AntiLynd said:

What is it that *you* are you using, and what is it that you find missing about the results you're getting?

Click to expand...

I understand. It's just a project for me to learn. It's not that I am looking for a formula to use for lifetime.

Back to your question:

I began to learn something about Tri-X 400, TMax 400 & 100, Neopan 400, RPX400 and Pan F 50. Developers used: Xtol, HC110, D-76, TMax, Emofin and Rodinal (Here in Berlin I can only get Adonal and R09 one shot).

Click to expand...

If I could choose only two B&W-films and developers for an island: Tri-X and Neopan 400 (will be dicontinued, so I take Pan F instead) and Xtol and Emofin.

I would suggest that if you want to emulate the work of Helmut Newton, you may pay more attention to his lighting and compositions rather than his process techniques.

cliveh said:

I would suggest that if you want to emulate the work of Helmut Newton, you may pay more attention to his lighting and compositions rather than his process techniques.

Click to expand...

you can say that again !

usually it is the details of pre production that lead to what we look at as a negative and print.
and the developer, its dilution, way it is agitated &c can sometimes play second fiddle.

cliveh said:

I would suggest that if you want to emulate the work of Helmut Newton, you may pay more attention to his lighting and compositions rather than his process techniques.

Click to expand...

How can you tell that I am not paying attention to that - or not enough attention? But my question does not cover artistic matters here or specifications about lightning. Asking questions about process techniques is legitimate.

Besides, the title here doesn't say that I want to emulate his work like you say, but the look and feel of the pictures. This is meant technically - and this should be crystal clear with my post. I just asked for a film-/developer combination.

Devlog said:

How can you tell that I am not paying attention to that - or not enough attention? But my question does not cover artistic matters here or specifications about lightning. Asking questions about process techniques is legitimate.

Besides, the title here doesn't say that I want to emulate his work like you say, but the look and feel of the pictures. This is meant technically - and this should be crystal clear with my post. I just asked for a film-/developer combination.

Click to expand...

So can you define what you mean by the look and feel?

I doesn't seem like you are going to answer my question - all the specifications you need are given in my first post of this thread. I don't need an application for asking. If you can't help me with my question - no prob.

Then sorry, I can't help you.

As long as you believe that there is a "magic film/developer combination that you have to use then I doubt if anyone here can help you.

If you think about it there are a limited amount of film developer combinations available and give how many APUGers there are, many must have used the same combination without producing the Helmut Newton look so I think there must be other aspects required and lighting and composition are more likely to be responsible than film and developer. It may even be that the Helmut Newton look is unique to Helmut Newton and the secret is that you have to be him to produce it.

I fear that if you remain convinced that there is a film and developer combination that will give you the Helmut Newton look then the end result will be frustration for you. It becomes the search for the "magic bullet".

Actually I do know the exact combination of film and developer that produces the Helmut Newton look but I am keeping this secret. The world isn't big enough for both you,me and the whole of APUG to be able to produce that special look.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

As long as you believe that there is a "magic film/developer combination that you have to use then I doubt if anyone here can help you.

If you think about it there are a limited amount of film developer combinations available and give how many APUGers there are, many must have used the same combination without producing the Helmut Newton look so I think there must be other aspects required and lighting and composition are more likely to be responsible than film and developer. It may even be that the Helmut Newton look is unique to Helmut Newton and the secret is that you have to be him to produce it.

I fear that if you remain convinced that there is a film and developer combination that will give you the Helmut Newton look then the end result will be frustration for you. It becomes the search for the "magic bullet".

Actually I do know the exact combination of film and developer that produces the Helmut Newton look but I am keeping this secret. The world isn't big enough for both you,me and the whole of APUG to be able to produce that special look.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I am not talking about magic, I am talking about material, but I get tired to react to all this emptiness. Why do only people answer who are either not willing to help, not able to help or giving useless advice or misled interpretation instead of information?

If you don't like to share your information (which you say would be useless for me anyway), why wasting my time?

I am regarding this as a lack of respect and I wonder if you are able to talk to people like this in public face to face.

Newton had a career spanning decades. He shot every format and film-type you can think of at different times. Your question is clearly obvious to you, but not to everyone else - can you give an example of a photo with the 'look' that you wish to emulate?

It sounds as though you are fairly certain that it was shot on Tri-X and this is indeed very possible. When was it made (Tri-X has changed over the decades, occasionally with several versions/speeds/contrasts available at the same time)? What format was used -- 35mm (quite likely), 120, 8x10?

The likelihood, deduced from hints in your original post, is that you are talking about 35mm Tri-X. You have made a suggestion that this film was developed in Rodinal, which is also still available though under different tradenames. You have probably answered your own questions! It comes down to being curious about exposure and development. Those are variables which you can test randomly using a couple of rolls of film (rather a vague approach), or which you can make a reasonable guess at from the characteristics which you admire in those photos (which we haven't seen).

May I suggest that you look analytically at the picture(s) you want to recreate and identify, as precisely as possible, what you find attractive about them. That will help you with your choice of exposure, and with the development. The lighting, especially the hardness/softness of the sources, will be something that you have to change outside of the darkroom of course, as the contrast of the print is no substitute. Don't forget the importance of putting the negative onto paper in establishing the 'look' you are after.

As your first attempt it might not be a bad idea literally to try to recreate the picture(s) which interested you, and do this in such a way that you can try repeatedly while you are exploring the variables involved.

Note too that the same look can probably be got from other film from different manufacturers, by handling the exposure and developing in different ways. There is no unicorn-blood used in the formulation of Tri-X (so far as we know).

I worked with another photo assistant a few years back, and I asked him if he had ever worked for any of "the greats". Turns out he had assisted Helmut Newton a number of times, and every time was similar in terms of Mr. Newton's regard to the technical side of things: NOT technical (more or less). The first job he worked for him on(as a solo assistant), he arrived early, and while waiting for Mr. Newton in his hotel room(where Helmut and his wife lived(or were staying), not sure if was the Chateau Marmont here in LA or not)... Anyhow, he was looking around the room, thinking "where's all the equipment?" All he(Dan, the assistant) saw was a single 'consumer-grade' slr sitting on the bed, with a single zoom lens. Well, Helmut comes out of the bathroom, and Dan(the assistant) asks him: "where's the film?"... Get this: Helmut answers him "oh, we'll just stop by the drug store and pick some up on the way"... Needless to say, I(me) was floored. "So what film was it that you ended up using?" I asked Dan. "Kodak cheapy color negative that came in the 4 roll packs" was his answer

Now, you asked primarily about b/w film. I can't offer a story about that particular type of film, as in the (above) case they where shooting color for that particular job(it was an ad job for a European fashion client, IIRC).

Sometimes "the greats" aren't all that technical. They just use what works, and allows them the creative ability to make what they(or their client) want to see in the final pictures.
It wouldn't surprise me if it would have been Plus-X, Tri-X or some sort of Agfa film he primarily used. But as someone else mentioned, his career spanned many decades, so nailing an answer down to "this film and this developer" might not be as easy as 1,2,3...

-Dan

You can use any current film and developer. For me, his 'look' is due to subject matter and good printing.

Thanks, Martin. I tried to sum up and share all information I have before asking. The way you describe to solve the questions systematically is clear and obviously it is the one someone has to go anyway if there is no other orientation. But I find this friendly reply helpful nevertheless because it's encouraging and clear with the systematic approach.

I have to think about the details, but answers like yours are very much appreciated. Thanks.

Hi Dan, that resembles the picture of him I am imagining. Here in Berlin his equipment is exhibited, cheap SLRs - okay, the Canon A-1 is not bad, but then again, a Plaubel too and a Hasselblad, ..., then a cheap Nikon. Ergo: No fetish detected here.

What you are telling reminds me of Terry Richardson - also of Teller and Tilmanns.

On the other hand, he could get very precise with the prints. His printer Marc Picot had to suffer often, a documentary suggests. And shooting fashion he couldn't deliver the style he produced for magazines and his own books for Schirmer & Mosel.

I like the style of Sumo, his later Hotel pictures and perfume adverts, the celebs and the private portraits of June.

Devlog said:

I am not talking about magic, I am talking about material, but I get tired to react to all this emptiness. Why do only people answer who are either not willing to help, not able to help or giving useless advice or misled interpretation instead of information?

Click to expand...

devlog

i am sure you are responding to my post as well.
you already posted all the information you need in your first post
i am not sure how i am supposed to add onto what have already
learned from people who either worked with ( assistant ) or with ( printer ) him.

films change over the years, tri x from 1960 isn't the same tri x from now.
and there are like 8 different things that can be considered to be rodinal at the moment.

you ask why no one who answers your thread posts anything useful, just empty posts that are no help ..
unfortunately there really isn't much to say. developer is developer, film is film ... i am sure you can probably
get negatives that look similar to his by learning how he treated his subjects ( lighting ) and developing in pretty much any developer.
when i say any developer i don't mean just take stock d76 or rodinal or whatever and use some dilution that is on the bottle or that someone "told youto use"
but it takes shooting bricks of film in similar lighting and learning the developer ... different agitation techniques, different processing methods,
different dilutions, different iso ratings of the film ...
no one can really tell you what to do that is why they suggest vague things, like study the lighting and the details because
sometimes that is all it is /// and maybe some folks who answer these threads think that maybe you already know you need to shoot tons
and work with a developer until you are sick of it, so you know every way you can use it ...
i have 2 developers that i have been using non stop with film .. one since the late 1990s ( ansco 130 PRINT developer ) , one since maybe 7 years ago ( coffee developer ).
i know pretty much every way to use them because i have processed thousands of sheets and rolls of film.

maybe instead of suggesting you study his lighting and details, i should have suggested you notice his lighting, practice with it, and take rodinal and
develop as much film as you can with different dilutions different processing methods and different isos for your film and you might come close.

good luck
john

Devlog said:

I am not talking about magic, I am talking about material, but I get tired to react to all this emptiness. Why do only people answer who are either not willing to help, not able to help or giving useless advice or misled interpretation instead of information?

Click to expand...

The advice and questions you are dismissing are based on hard won knowledge. These people have already chased "the magic" you seem to be chasing.

Most films are very flexible/malleable and can produce the look you want. Tri-X, HP5+, Neopan in D-76, XTol, or whatever, with practice, any combo in this range can be made to produce very similar results on paper. What we understand is that there is no magic in the materials, the differences are quite minor. They will all work fine and are fully capable.

As Daniel's story suggests the film is actually a very minor concern.

Devlog said:

Why do only people answer who are either not willing to help, not able to help or giving useless advice or misled interpretation instead of information?

Click to expand...

I think it's an ideological thing, where rather than answering your question, they tell you that you shouldn't be asking in the first place!
I suggest you get your hands on the book "Nude : Theory" published in 1979 by Lustrum (fairly available second hand). There is about 15 pages on Helmut Newton discussing his technique. As well as text there are reproductions of prints and proof sheets. He liked Tri-X, orange filters, hard midday light. His film was processed at a lab, he doesn't specify what chemistry they used but says he dislikes thin negs.

I want to say, 'what an interesting thread'! I think it sums up analogue photography very well.

I wonder if you have forgotten another part of the "magic" mix - the paper. I have long admired the movie studio prints from the fifties when the tones seem to be so rich and broad. The comments about film emulsion formulas changing also applies, of course, to paper, and I guess were driven by new chemicals and driving down the cost of production, maybe to the disadvantage of the photographer.

Please continue this debate!

Russ

Michael W said:

I think it's an ideological thing, where rather than answering your question, they tell you that you shouldn't be asking in the first place!

Click to expand...

Obviously. But I wish they'd share their specific attitude with someone who is more willing to listen to them.

Michael W said:

I suggest you get your hands on the book "Nude : Theory" published in 1979 by Lustrum (fairly available second hand). There is about 15 pages on Helmut Newton discussing his technique. As well as text there are reproductions of prints and proof sheets.

Click to expand...

Great idea - added to cart.

Michael W said:

He liked Tri-X, orange filters, hard midday light. His film was processed at a lab, he doesn't specify what chemistry they used but says he dislikes thin negs.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned in the initial post, Marc Picot was his printer. Tri-X, orange filters and disliking thin negs - these are preferences of mine as well (okay, hard light is too difficult for me yet).


* * *

markbarendt said:

The advice and questions you are dismissing are based on hard won knowledge (...)

What we understand is that there is no magic in the materials, the differences are quite minor.

Click to expand...

This is a place to comminicate and sharing knowledge. If there are people around who don't want to do this: that's fine with me.

I'd rather prefer they would find others who are patient enough to listen to them, telling them everything about their attitude and how hard they won their knowlegde. But now if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way.

* * *

jnanian said:

i am sure you are responding to my post as well.

Click to expand...

Dear John, actually I didn't. But thank you very much for sharing. Your descriptions match my experience with film and developers so far. With Newton I just felt it must be Tri-X (it's not that someone told me that - but I wouldn't mind if anyone did). For more specifications I would need to know more about the vocabulary in English, for example "Unechter Feinkornentwickler", "Oberflächenentwickler", Lyth and "echter Feinkornentwickler". So I keep it short in this case.

* * *

rwhb12 said:

I want to say, 'what an interesting thread'! I think it sums up analogue photography very well.

Click to expand...

rwhb12 said:

I wonder if you have forgotten another part of the "magic" mix - the paper. I have long admired the movie studio prints from the fifties when the tones seem to be so rich and broad. The comments about film emulsion formulas changing also applies, of course, to paper, and I guess were driven by new chemicals and driving down the cost of production, maybe to the disadvantage of the photographer.

Click to expand...

I tried not to forget about this:

Devlog said:

Of course there are parameters like printing process and light conditions etc. - but the film- / developer combination is good enough for me for a start.

Click to expand...

* * *

P.S.: Richard Sintchak (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Sandro Miller: Malkovich, Malkovich, Malkovich

Devlog said:

Obviously. But I wish they'd share their specific attitude with someone who is more willing to listen to them.

Click to expand...

And therein lies the issue.

It's ok not to take our advice but forums like this one are essentially public spaces. Walk into a camera club meeting and ask a similar question and you'll get a similar cacophony of answers.

As a college art teacher for 15 +- years I can say that I not at surprised by the debate generated by your question.

I think that if you had cropped a detail section of a print that was vague and non-compositionally identifiable as to who the artist was and then asked, "How do I achieve this effect?" You might have gotten more info and less morality.

It would not be easy to misinterpret your question.

I will say that despite your specificity regarding technical aspects, I had no idea who the photographer was. I looked up the work and found that the subject matter and composition was the only thing that seemed to identify his body of work. The technical details applied to a real estate photographer or pet portrait artist would have no similarity in my mind. I think that this is why you are getting the needling.

trythis said:

I think that if you had cropped a detail section of a print that was vague and non-compositionally identifiable as to who the artist was and then asked, "How do I achieve this effect?" You might have gotten more info and less morality.

Click to expand...

Quoting the initial post:

Devlog said:

My question: To get the look of his late work (especially the skin tones) - what film-/developer-combination do I have to use? My guess is Tri-X 400 (...)

Click to expand...

I will specify the question. "To get the look of his late work (especially the skin tones like the cover shot of 'Sumo')...

Besides, I'm not surprised at all by the debate either. It's always the same with some people. But that does not mean I have to tolerate their presumptuousness.

I'd assume there are two categories of people: Some who like to share their information and like to learn from others and some who think their information is too precious to just giving it away - and like to learn from others nevertheless. In my experience there are a lot of similarities to people who like to give advice and who prefer to give answers all the time during conversations instead of asking. Also, they like to be treated with respect, but often are lacking respect towards others. And they tend to be violative.

trythis said:

I will say that despite your specificity regarding technical aspects, I had no idea who the photographer was.

Click to expand...

But I would really prefer to communicate about the subject.

trythis said:

The technical details applied to a real estate photographer or pet portrait artist would have no similarity in my mind. I think that this is why you are getting the needling.

Click to expand...

I beg your pardon, but obviously I'm missing your point. Quoting the Red Queen of Alice in Wonderland: "I need a pig here!"

* * *

markbarendt said:

What we understand is that there is no magic in the materials, the differences are quite minor.

Click to expand...

markbarendt said:

It's ok not to take our advice (...) Walk into a camera club meeting and ask a similar question and you'll get a similar cacophony of answers.

Click to expand...

Who is your 'we' and whose advice? This forum has provided me with a lot of help regarding my question already. They people with a different attitude belong to APUG as well. I took some advice already.

markbarendt said:

Walk into a camera club meeting and ask a similar question and you'll get a similar cacophony of answers.

Click to expand...

I'd expect something similar, but walking into a camera club I would prefer to talk to specific persons not to a whole bunch of people (except in a situation like a lecture). Two weeks ago I asked two professionals after a meeting with other photographing people here in Berlin and we had a very interesting conversation about this subject - the texture of Newton's pictures. And I am interested about answers regarding my question here on APUG.

trythis said:

I looked up the work and found that the subject matter and composition was the only thing that seemed to identify his body of work. The technical details applied to a real estate photographer or pet portrait artist would have no similarity in my mind. I think that this is why you are getting the needling.

Click to expand...

Yep.