How'd He Do It?

ColColt · Oct 2, 2015

Back to the original post. Super XX was grainy, but it had a longer straight line than any typical current film.

I don't really remember Super XX film. I didn't get into photography(1977) till way past it's demise but it must have been a great film.

I like the M2 because I can use a 35mm lens without any attachments. Maybe I still need to add the M3 to my working cameras and give it a try. Somehow, I doubt that's the problem, me thinks.

ColColt · Oct 2, 2015

Speaking of Eugene Smith, this is the photo I mentioned about it reminding me of a Rembrandt painting. Look at the expressions on the people's faces...reminiscent of the way Rembrandt would have done it.

http://weblogs.larazon.com.ar/data/fototeca/archives/smith44.jpg

DannL. · Oct 2, 2015

ColColt said:
Speaking of Eugene Smith, this is the photo I mentioned about it reminding me of a Rembrandt painting. Look at the expressions on the people's faces...reminiscent of the way Rembrandt would have done it.

http://weblogs.larazon.com.ar/data/fototeca/archives/smith44.jpg

Isn't this one of the photographs that Smith manipulated in the darkroom so the mother and daughter appeared to not be looking at the photographer. Another plus for printing your own work.

ColColt · Oct 2, 2015

The only manipulation I know of about that photo is the fact this is one of the rare cases where he used flash. The scene was only lit by a single candle and not enough light. He had someone, possibly an assistant, to place a bare bulb where the candle was as not to disturb what he obviously saw as the lighting he wanted as not to change it, just give the ability to take the shot. Other than that, I know of no manipulation unless he burned in some areas.

jimjm · Oct 2, 2015

DannL. said:
Isn't this one of the photographs that Smith manipulated in the darkroom so the mother and daughter appeared to not be looking at the photographer. Another plus for printing your own work.

Curiously enough, I own the original Life press print for this image from 1951. Bought it from a local gallery here a few years ago who were licensed by Life to help them sell much of their old print archives after everything had been digitized. It was a steal for me, as it's got about a dozen stamps and markings on the back from each time it was taken from the file over the decades to print in another issue of Life or for a book. It's got some creases and scuffs from beings handled so much, but that makes it more interesting and valuable to me.

I read that Smith used bleach to alter the whites of their eyes and divert their gaze to where he wanted it. Also, his famous print of Albert Schweitzer was a sandwich of 2 negatives. Doesn't change my opinion of him as a great photographer and artist in any way.

ColColt · Oct 2, 2015

What a prize that must be. I'd love to have an 11x14 of it. It's among my top five favorites from him. I'd dare say there's few of us that don't alter in some form or fashion most of our prints. I've used Potassium Ferricyanide on some prints to bleach areas and I've dodged and burned more prints than I can remember. Regardless of how he finally did that print, it remains one of my favorites.

pentaxuser · Oct 2, 2015

DannL. said:
Isn't this one of the photographs that Smith manipulated in the darkroom so the mother and daughter appeared to not be looking at the photographer.

jimjm said:
I read that Smith used bleach to alter the whites of their eyes and divert their gaze to where he wanted it. Also, his famous print of Albert Schweitzer was a sandwich of 2 negatives. Doesn't change my opinion of him as a great photographer and artist in any way.

I am at a loss to work out how bleach or any other manipulation in the darkroom are able to alter the apparent gaze of the eyes?

Anyone care to explain. Thanks

pentaxuser

ColColt · Oct 2, 2015

I wondered about that as well but let it pass.

Sirius Glass · Oct 2, 2015

The pupils had them looking elsewhere. Bleach was used to make the eyes appearing to look in the direction the photographer wanted them to be looking.

DannL. · Oct 2, 2015

pentaxuser said:
I am at a loss to work out how bleach or any other manipulation in the darkroom are able to alter the apparent gaze of the eyes?

Anyone care to explain. Thanks

pentaxuser

The bottom of this article explains . . .

http://www.smith.edu/artmuseum/Coll...g-paper-people/W.-Eugene-Smith-s-Spanish-Wake

ColColt · Oct 2, 2015

I have three of his books and while they explained how he took that photo and with what light source there was no mention about further manipulation. I find all that hard to believe. What's the source of that information?

ColColt · Oct 2, 2015

I guess we typed at the same time. That's a new one on me.

darkosaric · Oct 2, 2015

DannL. said:
The bottom of this article explains . . .

http://www.smith.edu/artmuseum/Coll...g-paper-people/W.-Eugene-Smith-s-Spanish-Wake

After seeing this and reading - now I see that actually old woman still looks at the camera.

flavio81 · Oct 2, 2015

ColColt said:
I recently received a superb book on Henri Cartier-Bresson entitled, "The Modern Century". Those photos were excellent and there were quite a few in this near four pound book. As I began to study the composition, tonal range and sharpness of those photos I had to wonder why I(and maybe you) can't get that look with todays better optics and film. There was detail in most all the highlights of the photos and the shadows were at least what one would call Zone III-IV. None of my photos look as those do in that book. I saw one or two contact sheets and he used Super XX film on many occasions which would, I imagine, pale in comparison to todays FP-4, Delta 400, etc. yet, they seemed nearly grain free, sharp and a superb tonal range. All he had back in the 40's-60's was his Leica M3(probably) and the latest film.

I can't post any photos but you can see the cover and several of the others to get an idea of what I mean. I have an M2, use FP-4 and Tri-X mostly but can't attain the quality he did.

"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870707787?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=od_aui_detailpages00

I have the huge "Magnum Contact Prints" book and sometime wonder the same. But many of these photos are reproduced "slightly out of focus" so the grain is masked. And i guess there are other kind of masking applied there.

OTOH i have some 8x10" prints made using Delta 100 (35mm) that blow away the reproductions i have in my Magnum book.

cliveh · Oct 2, 2015

How'd He Do It?

Because his images were about seeing the composition and moment within the dynamic frame of 3:2 ratio. There after you can manipulate ad infinitum, but only improve the presentation, but the original vision shines through.

pentaxuser · Oct 2, 2015

cliveh said:
How'd He Do It?

Because his images were about seeing the composition and moment within the dynamic frame of 3:2 ratio. There after you can manipulate ad infinitum, but only improve the presentation, but the original vision shines through.

Can you expand on this in as simple a way as possible. I am still puzzled. Would HCB's pictures fail if he hadn't used the dynamic( why is 3:2 dynamic?) 3:2 and had used 6:45, 6:7, 5:4 or 6x6. Is 3:2 essential of the vision to shine through?

I take it that your reply is not a direct answer to the OP's question which seemed to be about "look" in the loosest sense of the word. I think your reply is that the OP needs to be HCB to reproduce his kind of prints? Have I got this right?

Thanks

pentauser

ColColt · Oct 2, 2015

I have the huge "Magnum Contact Prints" book and sometime wonder the same.

I was going to get that book but after reading quite a few reports about binding problems I decided not to. I don't know if the quality has improved in that area more recently or not.

Bill Burk · Oct 2, 2015

cliveh said:
How'd He Do It?

Because his images were about seeing the composition and moment within the dynamic frame of 3:2 ratio. There after you can manipulate ad infinitum, but only improve the presentation, but the original vision shines through.

pentaxuser said:
Can you expand on this in as simple a way as possible. I am still puzzled. Would HCB's pictures fail if he hadn't used the dynamic( why is 3:2 dynamic?) 3:2 and had used 6:45, 6:7, 5:4 or 6x6. Is 3:2 essential of the vision to shine through?

I take it that your reply is not a direct answer to the OP's question which seemed to be about "look" in the loosest sense of the word. I think your reply is that the OP needs to be HCB to reproduce his kind of prints? Have I got this right?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I think the emphasis of cliveh's message should be on "composition" and "moment".

I think cliveh is saying that getting the image on film is where the majority of a photographer's talent is applied. When a photographer of HCB's caliber sends his film in, it's already been made.

My personal feeling is that various talents go into being a photographer, and while the emphasis on taking may be where some focus their attention most effectively... there is also infinite room for self-expression in the darkroom.

But I sure like it when I put a well-conceived negative in the carrier.

cliveh · Oct 3, 2015

pentaxuser said:
Can you expand on this in as simple a way as possible. I am still puzzled. Would HCB's pictures fail if he hadn't used the dynamic( why is 3:2 dynamic?) 3:2 and had used 6:45, 6:7, 5:4 or 6x6. Is 3:2 essential of the vision to shine through?

I take it that your reply is not a direct answer to the OP's question which seemed to be about "look" in the loosest sense of the word. I think your reply is that the OP needs to be HCB to reproduce his kind of prints? Have I got this right?

Thanks

pentauser

Bill was correct in what I meant (thanks Bill). With regard to the format ratio, I'm not suggesting any are better, but it is what you get use to. If you use only one format for most or all of the time, you get to know how a scene you are viewing would fit into that shape (be it landscape or portrait and what you could exclude/include). This becomes even easier if you are also only using one lens of fixed focus length, as you also have a better idea of where to stand before you look through the viewfinder. In other words that 3:2 ratio becomes dynamic to you, as you find it easier to compose within that format.

RalphLambrecht · Oct 3, 2015

Ko.Fe. said:
Easy, he exposed it right and it was printed, not scanned, by professional printers with all masks and D&B Jazz.
Are you printing now or still wasting film for scans?

+1:wizard::wizard:

RalphLambrecht · Oct 3, 2015

ColColt said:
Still having to scan in order to post on the Internet. I think I've nearly forgotten what a print looks like. I haven't fired up my old dark room since 1998.

It's about time then

RalphLambrecht · Oct 3, 2015

jnanian said:
i read that as well, he used an drum scanner and the 1940s plug in

keep on dreaming

RalphLambrecht · Oct 3, 2015

jimjm said:
Here's a great article at TOP about HCB's longtime printer, Voja Mitrovic. Very insightful about the challenges of printing for HCB and others like Josef Koudelka.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/08/voya-mitrovic-part-i.html

Taking the photo is just half of the process. Learning how to print effectively adds a whole other dimension to achieving a good image.

very true!

RalphLambrecht · Oct 3, 2015

darkosaric said:
In documentary "The Salt of the Earth" you can see that Salgado was broke and his wife was supporting him during start of his photo carrier. He was using the same Picto lab in Paris as HCB. It is not about being rich.

Thank God;It's simply a combination of luck and expert craftsmenship

removed account4 · Oct 3, 2015

cliveh said:
How'd He Do It?

Because his images were about seeing the composition and moment within the dynamic frame of 3:2 ratio. There after you can manipulate ad infinitum, but only improve the presentation, but the original vision shines through.

thank you clive !

How'd He Do It?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency