Individual intention of using a special bw film

trendland · Feb 5, 2018

An example : A director of photography
(the best friend of a colleague) uses bw still film in following workflow :
He bought the most expired ORWO scratch he was able to find. He underexposed it massive and pushed it more than maximum. If that wasn't enough he used Rodinal 1:400 with
stand developement (I guess he did not any agitation also no at the beginning) - the results from tonals and grain were absolute horrible.
That weren't "Fine Art Prints" - just the opposite.But with this photography
he reached highest reputation beside his reputation as a D.O.P.....So he is a real "modern" artist. And he definitifly knows how "shitty" his photographs are and he stated : "PEOPLE NEED THIS"

So what is your point? Do you use
a special bw film because of it's look
or lets say because of it's reputation
as a "cool" trendy film ?
Or do your focus is much to close to the technical side ?
Remember the so called "retro look"
of these days.

with regards

PS : Perhaps the technical side is not
"The" most important issue -
sometimes?
PPS : Because I am confused - this guy
has filmed Motion Pictures you probably know from cinema. But I can't give an example - you'll soon know who it is about . ...and he definitifly is knowing what he is doing. ..

trendland · Feb 5, 2018

But pls. don't have thought's like : Trendland's results must be from same horrible workflow and are more worst - because he is knowing such "bad collegues"
It isn't that way - (hope)....

with regards

Gerald C Koch · Feb 5, 2018

Lisette Model once said "Dahling, if you think my prints are bad you should see my negatives. So nothing new here. BTW she called everyone dhling so she didn't have to remember names. I really don't see the point in abusing the process!!!

Sirius Glass · Feb 5, 2018

+1

I use the film as it was designed to be used. What the OP is doing is film and development is like taking a high performance car that is in good shape and driving it into a wall just to destroy it because one can. He should now try cordless bungee jumping because it makes a great impact and gets great coverage.

trendland · Feb 5, 2018

Gerald C Koch said:
Lisette Model once said "Dahling, if you think my prints are bad you should see my negatives. So nothing new here. BTW she called everyone dhling so she didn't have to remember names. I really don't see the point in abusing the process!!!

I didn't saw the prints - I was just reported about the workflow. It has gone
more worst (with bad lenses) because the prints obviously were much to sharp - best should be if the observer can't see what is shot - from more worst workflow.

Well I would nothing to say about stand developement and ORWO films.
But we all may have no idea how worst the prints are. Next sunday we'll meet - I will ask about aproach. ...

with regards

PS : But it seems to be a little advice to be not most correct? Not to expect too much from best emulsion characteristics,
state of the art developer - because there is a guy who crashes sportcars against walls (like Sirius Glass described)?

with regards

ic-racer · Feb 5, 2018

I think the misunderstanding is somehow the tools make the photograph. The photographer makes the photograph using the tools (film, camera, paper, lenses, etc) at his or her disposal.

removed account4 · Feb 5, 2018

OP
i don't get it,
whats wrong with your colleague doing
what he wants without being judged ?
i agree with him people DO need what he is doing.
if he is having a good time, why not.
special intentions? i use it to use it ..
and film or paper can be used many ways.
its as if one isn't allowed to use a coffee grinder to grind
spices or peppercorns. or a cast iron skillet to roast coffee
or a "bad" lens, expired film and a different exposure/processing
recipe to make a specific kind of photographs. not everyone
wishes they were ansel adams ...

trendland · Feb 6, 2018

jnanian said:
OP
i don't get it,
whats wrong with your colleague doing
what he wants without being judged ?
i agree with him people DO need what he is doing.
if he is having a good time, why not.
special intentions? i use it to use it ..
and film or paper can be used many ways.
its as if one isn't allowed to use a coffee grinder to grind
spices or peppercorns. or a cast iron skillet to roast coffee
or a "bad" lens, expired film and a different exposure/processing
recipe to make a specific kind of photographs. not everyone
wishes they were ansel adams ...

I can´t say because I wonder about a workflow with the intention to destroy all fine characteristics from film ( therefore most expired/scratchy).
A developement witch increasing grain very much, underexposure of films ( wich is possible OK in sw) but it seems to be most extensive I was reported about.
At last the approach with more unsharp lenses ( like Holga). But I did not saw the prints - next week I may have a look at - up to now I wonder about workfow.
Perhaps he reached the aesthetics of Robert Capa on Omaha Beach :

I was told in comparison - Capas iconic photographs are fine art prints ( much better from the technical side )...?

with regards

PS : The statement : " People need this" seems to be the key of intended bad quality - like : "People do not get anything better".... strange intention - but this sometimes leads to success ??

PPS : The look of Robert Capa is iconic in historical context - but I beliefe Capa did his very best. And this aesthetics dokumented the dramatic condtitions.

trendland · Feb 6, 2018

ic-racer said:
I think the misunderstanding is somehow the tools make the photograph. The photographer makes the photograph using the tools (film, camera, paper, lenses, etc) at his or her disposal.

Quite right because good tools make no good photograph allways - sometimes it will help a bit. On the other side bad tools make no good photograph also - but sometimes ....???
Ic-racer let me say I bought a 500ft roll of a film most people state : worst bw film ever ( POLYPAN F) My intention was to have a cheap film wich can´t be soo bad.
But I would not value something on a special characteristic of this film for example.

with regards

removed account4 · Feb 6, 2018

trendland said:
I can´t say because I wonder about a workflow with the intention to destroy all fine characteristics from film ( therefore most expired/scratchy).
A developement witch increasing grain very much, underexposure of films ( wich is possible OK in sw) but it seems to be most extensive I was reported about.
At last the approach with more unsharp lenses ( like Holga). But I did not saw the prints - next week I may have a look at - up to now I wonder about workfow.
Perhaps he reached the aesthetics of Robert Capa on Omaha Beach :
View attachment 194973
I was told in comparison - Capas iconic photographs are fine art prints ( much better from the technical side )...?

with regards

PS : The statement : " People need this" seems to be the key of intended bad quality - like : "People do not get anything better".... strange intention - but this sometimes leads to success ??

PPS : The look of Robert Capa is iconic in historical context - but I beliefe Capa did his very best. And this aesthetics dokumented the dramatic condtitions.

pusing things to their limits is how new things are made,
maybe your colleague is tired of all the pretty landscapes and portraits
and pretty post card pictures and he wants to do something the opposite?
i can completely understand where he is coming from, and why.
most photographs are about as interesting as watchng grass grow...
you should look at the work of emil schildt ( gandolfi here on photrio ) he
he also pushes his materials to their limits.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/kill-your-darlings.17/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/users/gandolfi.4853/

removed account4 · Feb 6, 2018

michael_r said:
That applies equally to photographs made by pushing things to limits.

yup

Sirius Glass · Feb 6, 2018

michael_r said:
That applies equally to photographs made by pushing things to limits.

jnanian said:
yup

+1

faberryman · Feb 6, 2018

trendland said:
An example : A director of photography
(the best friend of a colleague) uses bw still film in following workflow :
He bought the most expired ORWO scratch he was able to find. He underexposed it massive and pushed it more than maximum. If that wasn't enough he used Rodinal 1:400 with
stand developement (I guess he did not any agitation also no at the beginning) - the results from tonals and grain were absolute horrible.
That weren't "Fine Art Prints" - just the opposite.But with this photography
he reached highest reputation beside his reputation as a D.O.P.....So he is a real "modern" artist. And he definitifly knows how "shitty" his photographs are and he stated : "PEOPLE NEED THIS"

So what is your point? Do you use
a special bw film because of it's look
or lets say because of it's reputation
as a "cool" trendy film ?
Or do your focus is much to close to the technical side ?
Remember the so called "retro look"
of these days.

with regards

PS : Perhaps the technical side is not
"The" most important issue -
sometimes?
PPS : Because I am confused - this guy
has filmed Motion Pictures you probably know from cinema. But I can't give an example - you'll soon know who it is about . ...and he definitifly is knowing what he is doing. ..

As usual, your post is so disjointed it is difficult to decipher what you are trying to say, and without seeing the photographs in question, it is impossible to comment on their merits, irrespective of process.

voceumana · Feb 6, 2018

Many motion pictures these days seem to have under saturated color, extremely high contrast, and excessive grain. I avoid such movies as much as possible. Perhaps the intent to to have a look closer to realism than that of, say, the early Technicolor movies, but I don't see that realism has to mean ugly or unrealistic imagery.

I also avoid movies with sound tracks where the effects sound level is so loud as to be painful and the dialog is so low in sound level I can't hear it.

trendland · Feb 6, 2018

faberryman said:
As usual, your post is so disjointed it is difficult to decipher what you are trying to say, and without seeing the photographs in question, it is impossible to comment on their merits, irrespective of process.

What is your intention of using a special bw film? I gave an example of most unusual individual intention.

with regards

trendland · Feb 6, 2018

voceumana said:
Many motion pictures these days seem to have under saturated color, extremely high contrast, and excessive grain. I avoid such movies as much as possible. Perhaps the intent to to have a look closer to realism than that of, say, the early Technicolor movies, but I don't see that realism has to mean ugly or unrealistic imagery.

I also avoid movies with sound tracks where the effects sound level is so loud as to be painful and the dialog is so low in sound level I can't hear it.

You are soo right voceumana. Therefore some categorized movies in type :
A-movie / B-movie / C-movie (low budget) D-movie (NO budget)

But notice here it goes about still film
in bw.....

with regards

trendland · Feb 6, 2018

voceumana said:
Many motion pictures these days seem to have under saturated color, extremely high contrast, and excessive grain. I avoid such movies as much as possible. Perhaps the intent to to have a look closer to realism than that of, say, the early Technicolor movies, but I don't see that realism has to mean ugly or unrealistic imagery.

I also avoid movies with sound tracks where the effects sound level is so loud as to be painful and the dialog is so low in sound level I can't hear it.

By the way : A good aesthetics of look in movie films you definitive see in films of "Therence Malice" (The thin red line, The tree of life) - there it is the oposite you describe. Just by the way...

with regards

Nodda Duma · Feb 6, 2018

Not necessarily to the person who took them and perhaps their circle of friends and family (which lies at the heart of the common appeal of The Photograph), but yes.. I think that's a big part of why fine art photography has shifted towards alternative processes of late. Which is fine by me.

jnanian said:
most photographs are about as interesting as watchng grass grow.

Guillaume Zuili · Feb 7, 2018

It's just a tool. Therefore you use it as you want. Following or not the rules. And you make it work first for you. Then if the other end (the audience) likes it it's even better.
If it's good, if there is an emotion, it's fine.
Like the Capa picture. Accident in the processing in London, most of the film destroyed. Despite this, or because of this, this image is a symbol of D-Day.
But you will always have people more interested by the process instead of the image. The battle between form and content.
Endless....

trendland · Feb 7, 2018

Guillaume Zuili said:
It's just a tool. Therefore you use it as you want. Following or not the rules. And you make it work first for you. Then if the other end (the audience) likes it it's even better.
If it's good, if there is an emotion, it's fine.
Like the Capa picture. Accident in the processing in London, most of the film destroyed. Despite this, or because of this, this image is a symbol of D-Day.
But you will always have people more interested by the process instead of the image. The battle between form and content.
Endless....

Nice explanation -I love it ......

with regards

Guillaume Zuili · Feb 7, 2018

michael_r said:
Guillaume - welcome back! Hope all is well with you.

Thanks Michael. Quite busy ! In France for shows, going to Cali and the warm weather soon

RauschenOderKorn · Feb 8, 2018

trendland said:
That weren't "Fine Art Prints" - just the opposite.

You are confusing "Fine Art" with good craftsmanship.

Craftsmanship follows rules to achieve - if executed properly - a clearly defined, best possible result.
Art doesn´t follow the rules, art is just art is just art is just art ....

A friend of mine says about the meaning of "Fine Art Photography": "Fine Art Photography" is when you put in a special effort to achieve the desired result."

So your friend went the extra mile to come up with a process to get the results he wants.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 8, 2018

trendland said:
An example : A director of photography
(the best friend of a colleague) uses bw still film in following workflow :
He bought the most expired ORWO scratch he was able to find. He underexposed it massive and pushed it more than maximum. If that wasn't enough he used Rodinal 1:400 with
stand developement (I guess he did not any agitation also no at the beginning) - the results from tonals and grain were absolute horrible.
That weren't "Fine Art Prints" - just the opposite.But with this photography
he reached highest reputation beside his reputation as a D.O.P.....So he is a real "modern" artist. And he definitifly knows how "shitty" his photographs are and he stated : "PEOPLE NEED THIS"

So what is your point? Do you use
a special bw film because of it's look
or lets say because of it's reputation
as a "cool" trendy film ?
Or do your focus is much to close to the technical side ?
Remember the so called "retro look"
of these days.

with regards

PS : Perhaps the technical side is not
"The" most important issue -
sometimes?
PPS : Because I am confused - this guy
has filmed Motion Pictures you probably know from cinema. But I can't give an example - you'll soon know who it is about . ...and he definitifly is knowing what he is doing. ..

I simply like the process from start to finish and it feels more organic and not as steril as digital.

trendland · Feb 8, 2018

RauschenOderKorn said:
You are confusing "Fine Art" with good craftsmanship.

Craftsmanship follows rules to achieve - if executed properly - a clearly defined, best possible result.
Art doesn´t follow the rules, art is just art is just art is just art ....

A friend of mine says about the meaning of "Fine Art Photography": "Fine Art Photography" is when you put in a special effort to achieve the desired result."

So your friend went the extra mile to come up with a process to get the results he wants.

You are possible right RauschenOderKorn. It seams to me caused from hating "Fine Art Photography" this very special workflow in bw I described is intended.
Remember : In the very past the focus with "new" bw films was in concern of smaler grain,better tonals, higher resolution, higher speed. Over the years new improvements in film manufacturing reached higher and highest quality of film characteristics. Same modern improvements like T-grain let color films AND bw look better and better.
To me there have been always photographers who shot film from other intentions as resolution/fine grain.
But to me it seams to be that a real renaisance of "grainy look" came from digital cameras. Because there, people are bored from the "clean/clear" digital characteristics. The same is with the tendency to reach smalest depth of focus.
But grainy look in general is never a guarantie of producing real art.
"You want to become an artist ? - use pocket 110".....

with regards

PS : I am no friend of fine art prints at all but I am somtimes confused about a look in oposite direction.
PPS : If your focus in bw is on real big enlargements like min. 1,00 m x 1,40m
you are forced to think about films with
extreme resolution, extreme fine grain,
extrem wide tonal range.You will never have all together.And you have to say good by to 35mm cameras.
(some special workflow would allow 35mm)

Individual intention of using a special bw film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency