I want to print like Lillian Bassman. How?

[applesanity]

Even if the O.P has all the details of Lillian Bassman's techniques equipment and materials ( she is still alive, and lives in New York in the same apartment she has lived in for more than fifty years ) he's wasting his time because the best he can hope to achieve is plagiarism, what he lacks and can't emulate is her vision and talent.

Actually, this is my style of photography (flickr). Not very similar to Lillian Bassman's. Although it seems we both really like strong directional lighting.

I don't plan on doing fashion photography, much less high-end haute couture photography with swan-like models. I just want to know how she did the things she did to see if the techniques she used can enhance my own work, which obviously pales in comparison with regards to technical ability, resources, vision, and talent. But even if I wanted to be exactly like her, so what? When you go to art museums, the paintings are all separated into styles - the Impressionists, the Expressionists, etc. If you didn't recognize the work by name and artist, can you really tell the difference between a Michelangelo, Bottichelli, or Perugino piece? Nope, the works of these three guys pretty look the same to anyone who isn't an aficionado. Apparently every generation of painters were copying each other. So what?

A film like Tri-X might have been exposed at an equivalent ASA of 3200 or so, and developed in something like Acufine or FG7/sulfite to keep the grain sharp.

Back on subject, I check the DigitalTruth Massive Dev Chart and they only had Tri-X + Acufine development times up to EI 1600 (1+3, 18.5 minutes, at 21C), but also had EI 1000 (stock, 5 Minutes at 21C). I read the Acufine techical data and it only goes as far as EI 1000. Can anyone verify the EI 1600 dilution and time? Also, what is a good dilution, time, and temperature for pushing Tri-X in Acufine to 3200?

 

[cbphoto]

Andrew Jeri company still sells photo maskoid frisket.

Thanks!

 

[cbphoto]

Crocein Scarlet can still be purchased at:

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog...O|BRAND_KEY&N4=C8822|SIGMA&N25=0&QS=ON&F=SPEC

Interesting technique. I guess practice, practice and more practice would be the order of the day to master this technique.

Thanks. Can you point me to any references on how to apply and remove it? It has acid in the name, so I assume it needs to be thoroughly washed afterwards.

 

[greybeard]

Back on subject, I check the DigitalTruth Massive Dev Chart and they only had Tri-X + Acufine development times up to EI 1600 (1+3, 18.5 minutes, at 21C), but also had EI 1000 (stock, 5 Minutes at 21C). I read the Acufine techical data and it only goes as far as EI 1000. Can anyone verify the EI 1600 dilution and time? Also, what is a good dilution, time, and temperature for pushing Tri-X in Acufine to 3200?

I haven't used Acufine in thirty years, and am a bit surprised that it is still on the market. As I noted, the light meters of the day (1960s) were mostly not up to the task of metering really dim light, and even fewer of the photographers really understood the implications of a film speed number; advertisements for the Gossen Lunasix (the hottest thing on the market) emphasized the low light levels that it could "measure", but didn't point out that reciprocity effects made this mostly pointless. So, the bottom line was (and still is) that you pretty much have to experiment to find out what works.

As I understand it, the pictures that you would like to emulate were made in the 1950s, when the fastest films on the market would be considered moderate-speed by modern standards. I suspect that if you use any modern medium-speed film, underexpose, and push development really hard, you can come fairly close to the effects that you want by printing at high contrast. Because of the resulting response curve shape, ordinary lighting will look much more directional, although you won't have shadows quite as sharp as you would with a truly hard light. If I can dig up a couple of old examples, I'll scan them and either post or email them for you.

On a purely personal note: don't be afraid to try to reproduce the style of a master; until you learn to do it at least as well, wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous to think that you will somehow do it even better?

 

[ruilourosa]

hello

this seems a lot like irving penn´s work done a few years earier, this contrast and the appeal of the images is obvious a mix of factors, and i think it´s better not to judge printing in your monitor screen, if you want to understand printing you should print a lot and see the masters work, trying always to get better, a good negative is the best starting point, as is consistency and method.

and remember the Ctein advice: Save a tree! Learn how to print.

 

[greybeard]

A couple of examples of vintage available-light photography, scanned from thirty year old prints, to show the qualitative similarity to the Lillian Bassman images.


The "portrait" was made on 35mm, almost certainly Tri-X, at f/2 and 1/30, in a motel room. The overall lighting was about what you would expect in a motel, and nowhere near as dramatic as it looks in the picture. Development of the film was probably in Acufine or Diafine, and the print would have been on #3 or #4 Kodabromide developed in Dektol 1:1 (it was for newspaper publication, and the darkroom was set up for minimum throughput time, but this makes for a really contrasty print).

The interior was made on 120 film, either Plus-X or Tri-X, and most likely developed in Edwal FG-7/sulfite. The print has faded (it spent most of its life in the attic of a barn in Alabama, and probably wasn't fixed all that well to start with) so some of the highlights have lost detail. In particular, the paneling directly behind the lamp probably still had detail in the original.

The nature of the exposure and processing was to put most of the shadows below threshold and into the filmbase+fog region, holding the midtones on the first reasonably straight part of the curve, and letting the highlights blow out. This requires both underexposure (the low values of a "normal" exposure become deep, featureless shadows) and high contrast (so that the desired midtones are preserved but isolated by the blown-out highlights).

I hope that this helps; in any event, good luck to you!

 

[applesanity]

On a purely personal note: don't be afraid to try to reproduce the style of a master; until you learn to do it at least as well, wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous to think that you will somehow do it even better?

Oh, I'm not presuming anything. My real goal is to be half as good. Then we'll see where I can go from there. I just did a bunch of studio shooting and ordered some Acufine, so I'm going to see what comes up.

I've gotten Lillian Bassman's book on Amazon.com and the prints in that book, while not fiber, are still mind-blowing amazing.

A couple of examples of vintage available-light photography, scanned from thirty year old prints, to show the qualitative similarity to the Lillian Bassman images.

Thanks for these images. They are definitely getting me in the right direction. After I figure out or get close to approximating Lillian Bassman's printing, I'll be looking at Ralph Gibson next.

 

[billbretz]

http://www.latimes.com/features/image/la-ig-bassman7-2010feb07,0,5346416.story

 

[rmolson]

The LA Times Feb 5 has an extensive article about Lillian 'Bassman.She is back at work at 93 and doing great work again Only now she uses photoshop better than the new kids!

 

[rmolson]

Post script

Lillian Battman had a vision of what she wanted, which was femininity and elegance. All the greats do. First comes the vision of what they want and the rest is details Too many of us get hung up on the details, I know I am guilty of it.

 

[phritz phantom]

i haven't heard of the woman before and i'm definitely impressed. i love what i've seen of her work so far.

but,
are we sure that she used large format cameras? is there any proof for that? (i maybe extrapolated that from the talk about retouching large negatives) also possibly she could have used large internegs. i read in a short gallery text about her that she used "gauze and bleach" (taken from the german text from the link mentioned below) to get the desired effects in the darkroom.
i'm just asking because in one portrait of her with her husband, she's holding a 35mm camera. and apart from that, to me her whole style just screams 35mm photography.

link to a lot of pictures (click on one of the pics and you can click through about 50 images):
f56,net

 

[removed account4]

bill and phritz thanks for the links!

i hadn't heard her name before, but i recognize some of the images,
not sure it matters what format she used,
she was able to see what she wanted before hand
and work with the print, afterwards to coax what she saw from it.

retouchers work on the negatives and do a lot of work on the print.
it seems ( from the article link ) that she used bleaches and other chemicals on the prints to make
them dreamlike . ...

contrast. lighting, working the film is just part of the equation it seems ...

i wonder what her work looks like now using current technology.

applesanity -
maybe you should "friend" her on facebook, the newspaper article suggests
that she keeps intouch with her friends and fans through FB ... maybe she will
help you learn ... or at least point you in the right direction.

have fun!
john

 

[phritz phantom]

not sure it matters what format she used,
she was able to see what she wanted before hand
and work with the print, afterwards to coax what she saw from it.

usually i would agree, but in this case i'm curious. because many of her images feel like taken very quickly, in a moment. and somewhat using "creative accidents" - like movement blurs and such. (NOT a bad thing - just a description!).
this is rather easy to do with 35mm, but (i think) extremely difficult with large format. if she had used large format, she would have to anticipate, compose and direct all those things.
i think what i want to say here is: taking a snapshot is rather easy, but composing and staging a believable snapshot can be extremely difficult.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I believe she used large format film with very large budgets.

usually i would agree, but in this case i'm curious. because many of her images feel like taken very quickly, in a moment. and somewhat using "creative accidents" - like movement blurs and such. (NOT a bad thing - just a description!).
this is rather easy to do with 35mm, but (i think) extremely difficult with large format. if she had used large format, she would have to anticipate, compose and direct all those things.
i think what i want to say here is: taking a snapshot is rather easy, but composing and staging a believable snapshot can be extremely difficult.

 

[jpberger]

Not really the same thing, but specifically in terms of printing a lith print-- which give dark shadows but subtle highlight detail-- might work very well with these types of images.

 

[phritz phantom]

I believe she used large format film with very large budgets.

well, that's a possibility too.

 

[Iwagoshi]

Great thread!!
Jimmy thanks for introducing Lillian Bassman, never heard of her but now unforgettable. She went from Analog Goddess to digital heretic in less then 4 pages. Thanks to the group for filling in the gaps, key words for me; Crocein Scarlet and retouching (big) negatives. To benji boy, art feeds on art, things are not created in a vacuum but built up from past techniques.

 

[lxdude]

http://www.latimes.com/features/image/la-ig-bassman7-2010feb07,0,5346416.story

 

[Rinthe]

What an inspiration! Wow!

Even if the O.P has all the details of Lillian Bassman's techniques equipment and materials ( she is still alive, and lives in New York in the same apartment she has lived in for more than fifty years ) he's wasting his time because the best he can hope to achieve is plagiarism, what he lacks and can't emulate is her vision and talent.

Bad artists copy. Good artists steal. —Pablo Picasso

 

[wogster]

in the description here are some hints:
http://www.staleywise.com/collection/bassman/bassman_exhibition.html

Perhaps the solution is to contact the gallery that is showing her work, and ask them to pass a letter to the photographer. Apparently in her 90's Ms. Bassman is still with us. Would probably love to discuss her older work, with someone who is interested in the techniques used.

 

[benjiboy]

Ms Bassman is a legend, was a mentor and friend of Richard Avedon and taught him a lot of what he knew in the days when he worked for Vogue, and she was at Harpers Bazaar , she is one the best fashion photographers in the business, and I hope she continues to be for many more years

 

[applesanity]

Field Report:



Getting there, huh?

This is Tri-X pushed to EI 1000, developed in ACU-1 1+5 at 70 degrees F, for 14 minutes (that is the times given for the Acufine spec sheets). 2 inversions lasting 5 seconds, every 30 seconds.

I used a #25 filter and assumed 3-stop loss, or basically, I was working with ISO 125. I had to learn lots about studio portrait lighting. There is a main light to the left, a fill light to the right at 2 stop less, and a softbox behind the model. I haven't printed this yet, but I'm thinking split filter.

Also, I've had to learn how to love Potassium ferricyanide, or Farmer's Reducer. The trick I found is to soak the print in sodium thiosulfate fixer, then lay on a flat surface, squeegee, then paint the bleach on top of it. A professor who used to do this stuff suggested combining the Potassium Ferricyanide with some talc or chalk powder so it's not as runny. When done, dunk the print again into the fixer.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Jimmy

I believe you do not have to increase the contrast as much as you are.

Ms Bassman's prints do have a full range with incredible blacks with white areas retouched on the negative to go to white.
There was a show here in Toronto of her work and the prints were full tone but I think one of her secret's is large negative and a steady hand on the brush with the red dye.

regards
Bob

Getting there, huh?

This is Tri-X pushed to EI 1000, developed in ACU-1 1+5 at 70 degrees F, for 14 minutes (that is the times given for the Acufine spec sheets). 2 inversions lasting 5 seconds, every 30 seconds.

I used a #25 filter and assumed 3-stop loss, or basically, I was working with ISO 125. I had to learn lots about studio portrait lighting. There is a main light to the left, a fill light to the right at 2 stop less, and a softbox behind the model. I haven't printed this yet, but I'm thinking split filter.

Also, I've had to learn how to love Potassium ferricyanide, or Farmer's Reducer. The trick I found is to soak the print in sodium thiosulfate fixer, then lay on a flat surface, squeegee, then paint the bleach on top of it. A professor who used to do this stuff suggested combining the Potassium Ferricyanide with some talc or chalk powder so it's not as runny. When done, dunk the print again into the fixer.

 

[michaelbsc]

Getting there, huh?

Please keep us informed about this. I've been watching this thread, and I'm very interested in your results here.

And yes, it seems that you're getting there. I do think that the lighting may be more important than pushing the film.

 

[greybeard]

You definitely seem to be on the right track, but bear in mind that the extreme "push" techniques are usually intended to boost contrast, simply because the entire scene is down on the toe of the H&D curve where the slope (i.e., contrast) is low. I notice that you have the clean midtones (the subject's face and the area just below) that are in evidence in the original Bassman example; I presume that this is what you are after, with the full blacks and toasted highlights. You might try a neutral density filter instead of the #25 to get a better approximation to low light; another option is to use studio strobes, but expose only by the modeling lights.

Good luck, and keep us posted!