Less Is More - Edward Weston's Darkroom

[Gerald C Koch]

I recently watched a documentary about Edward Weston. In it he shows a student how he makes a print. Once again I was struck by just how Spartan that darkroom was. Even the commentator remarked that everything in it could have been found in a darkroom of the previous 50 years, Weston died in 1958. I saw no timing device not even a wall clock. Indeed even when making that print he seemed to be timing it in his mind. I have heard that he did sometimes use a metronome when dodging or burning a print. The only concession to technology I saw was a dial thermometer. I think there is a lesson here that some concentrate too much on things to the detriment of good darkroom practice. The endless pursuit of the new appears to lead only to mediocrity.

 

[John Koehrer]

That's the same way he timed exposures in camera. Don't need no steenkin' clock.

 

[bdial]

The simplicity of his darkroom is pretty humbling. Lens Work did one of their DVD "extras" with Kim Weston a few years ago, and in it, Kim does a little tour of the darkroom and the equipment, a light bulb, a print frame, sink and trays + a retouching stand.
A far cry from what so many of us consider essential, although only doing contact prints with 35mm would be a bit too spare.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

That's the same way he timed exposures in camera. Don't need no steenkin' clock.

Worth noting is that his camera exposures often ran for hours and hours. Sometimes so long that his arrangements might topple over.

I seem to remember reading of one case where after a long period of exposure he heard a crash, only to discover that the entire Thing Itself had collapsed into a heap. Not to worry, he simply closed the shutter and used the negative anyway.

If one minute in a five hour exposure means nothing, then the momentary crash-and-burn of a pepper doesn't even register. Easy to accurately time exposures measured in hours without a clock. A sundial would be an extravagance.

Ken

 

[eddie]

I always appreciated the simplicity of his darkroom. Mine looks more like W. Eugene Smith's, most of the time.

 

[Europan]

Friends, let’s not melt with admiration for the common. We all know that also Mr. Weston needed a balance to weigh out chemicals, if he did so.* Thermometer was there. The time factor can be handled easiest of all, I think you all agree.
_______________

*One can omit a scale when one keeps a constant procedure. “The same procedure as always, James!”

 

[analoguey]

I always appreciated the simplicity of his darkroom. Mine looks more like W. Eugene Smith's, most of the time.

How did Smith's darkroom look like? :-/

 

[MDR]

Although I do like EW work I think this simplicty thing is a bit of comparing apples with avocados. EW made contact prints and used lf cameras he also had a very different style than todays photographers. In fact I believe that today no gallery would take on work by EW he printed too small, his work isn't in color etc... Photographers using cameras smaller than 6x6cm (can be beautiful contact prints) have to use an enlarger and the assorted paraphernilia required for enlargements so their darkroom is more complex than EW. Contact printing papers except for homemade stuff or Michael Smith paper are also no longer made and if you want mat paper your only choice is handmade emulsions which again require more tools. Alt photo practioners are pretty much the only ones who can work like EW and have such a simple darkroom.

 

[Rudeofus]

Let's also not forget that EW used is darkroom throughout the week, whereas I am lucky if I can get there once a week. A cab driver can probably tell you his speed without a speedometer. There is a profound difference between hobbyists and seasoned professionals, and I, for one, welcome our new cheap crystal timer overlords ...

 

[msage]

How did Smith's darkroom look like? :-/

Search Eugene Smith darkroom, very interesting.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Although I do like EW work I think this simplicty thing is a bit of comparing apples with avocados. EW made contact prints and used lf cameras he also had a very different style than todays photographers. In fact I believe that today no gallery would take on work by EW he printed too small, his work isn't in color etc... Photographers using cameras smaller than 6x6cm (can be beautiful contact prints) have to use an enlarger and the assorted paraphernilia required for enlargements so their darkroom is more complex than EW. Contact printing papers except for homemade stuff or Michael Smith paper are also no longer made and if you want mat paper your only choice is handmade emulsions which again require more tools. Alt photo practioners are pretty much the only ones who can work like EW and have such a simple darkroom.

Your comments are appreciated. However to prevent the thread from veering off topic let me restate that the intent of the thread was simplicity and not "do as Edward Weston did." What we can take from his work and methods is just how much can be accomplished with very little.

 

[David Brown]

The only concession to technology I saw was a dial thermometer.

I've been in this darkroom. Kim Weston (Edward's grandson) lives there now and maintains it for visitors. However, Kim has a much larger and differently equipped darkroom elsewhere on the property for his own use. Other than an enlarger, which Edward would not have needed, and perhaps a mechanical timer or clock, I'm not sure what other concessions to technology he could have had in the 1930s and 40s when he was actively using this darkroom. Also, his sons did use the darkroom during Edward's later years (1950s) and after, and I would venture to guess that it was probably not maintained in the pristine state of decades prior. Another factor to consider is that in spite of his "fame", Weston was poor. He would not have been able to afford much more than the bare essentials.

 

[MDR]

Gerald I agree one can still accomplish a lot with very little but to put the whole thing in contex as a previous poster how much could he have added to his darkroom. Also I wouldn't call it simplicty it's only simple on the surface and rather difficult in reality. Shooting with a holga/diana/box camera and contact printing the negs would be the most basic form of photography and would be what I would refer to as simple using an LF camera with movement and several lenses is far from simple. A good photographer no matter what tool he chooses has to create a good Picture/neg first that what EW teaches us if you have a good neg you don't need a lot of tools in the darkroom. EW did most work at the picture taking stage and less in the darkroom. One also shouldn't forget that until the late 1950's most photographs were contact prints made from 6x9cm or even smaller negs so EWs simplicity was also common once upon time. Generations of photographer did great work using simple methods until color came along photography was pretty simple, still is if you want to.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald I agree one can still accomplish a lot with very little but to put the whole thing in contex as a previous poster how much could he have added to his darkroom. Also I wouldn't call it simplicty it's only simple on the surface and rather difficult in reality. Shooting with a holga/diana/box camera and contact printing the negs would be the most basic form of photography and would be what I would refer to as simple using an LF camera with movement and several lenses is far from simple. A good photographer no matter what tool he chooses has to create a good Picture/neg first that what EW teaches us if you have a good neg you don't need a lot of tools in the darkroom. EW did most work at the picture taking stage and less in the darkroom. One also shouldn't forget that until the late 1950's most photographs were contact prints made from 6x9cm or even smaller negs so EWs simplicity was also common once upon time. Generations of photographer did great work using simple methods until color came along photography was pretty simple, still is if you want to.

I suppose that in the end it matters what one has to say. Darkrooms vary from the simplicity of Weston's to the complexity of Jerry Uelsmann's which contained 6 identical Durst enlargers. Ueslsmann is known for his surrealistic photos that required multiple exposures from multiple negatives.

However, all the technology available cannot transmogrify a bad photographer into a good one. It can only make him a more prolific one to the consternation of society.

As another example of a photographer that I admire I would include the portraitist G. Paul Bishop, Sr. His portraits do not include any props and present the subject as simply as possible. He also used a film developer of his own devising. Only 3 ingredients metol sulfite, and acetone mixed up without a scale.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Remember that EW mostly contact printed form large format negatives. If those same images were enlarged, most of them wouldn't look
very good. Take a lesson from his son, Cole, who treated himself to some modern equipment and even could enlarge color proficiently. Or in reply to Gerald, all the simplification in the world won't turn a hack into a good photographer either.

 

[dpurdy]

I was of the impression that EW enlarged his 4x5 negs into 8x10 negs. Now I have to go dig out the day books again..

 

[DannL.]

The Weston Documentary . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4aE2f07ON4

I have always been intrigued by the likes of the civil war photographers. Producing images without the aid of modern conveniences. Producing images in a horse-drawn darkroom, or in a tent pitched upon the ground. In contrast, I get a chuckle out of seeing pictures of modern darkrooms, with all of the equipment. Though seen as necessary by those who manage and use them, it is far from necessary to produce a lasting and memorable image.

. . . Some LOC images
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.32800/?co=cwp
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.33170/?co=cwp
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.01729/?co=cwp
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.03518/?co=cwp

 

[Paul Howell]

The Weston Documentary . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4aE2f07ON4

I have always been intrigued by the likes of the civil war photographers. Producing images without the aid of modern conveniences. Producing images in a horse-drawn darkroom, or in a tent pitched upon the ground. In contrast, I get a chuckle out of seeing pictures of modern darkrooms, with all of the equipment. Though seen as necessary by those who manage and use them, it is far from necessary to produce a lasting and memorable image.

. . . Some LOC images
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.32800/?co=cwp
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.33170/?co=cwp
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.01729/?co=cwp
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.03518/?co=cwp

Although I admire period photographs, comparing those images with modern combat photography, well they are in the same league, technically or emotionally. Not to say that Brady and Sullivan were not gifted photographers, they were. I wonder what they would have produced if I could go back in time give them a Leica F, 3 or 4 lens, TriX and a modern darkroom?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Carleton Watkins was given an entire rail car plus a staff for his portable darkroom. Get real. These guys would have only the best today.
What the hell is Tri-X? Wasn't some of that found alongside the Lucy fossil?

 

[Jim Jones]

While we now consider photography of the 1800s to be primative, it was far more complex than most of us suspect. One handbook of the time, The Silver Sunbeam by Dr. J. Towler, can be downloaded as a PDF or other formats https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23332502M/The_silver_sunbeam. It also has been reprinted. It is illuminating to us who rely on today's cameras and supplies. Photographers had to maintain and repair their equipment, prepare chemicals and glass plates in the field, and often set up bulky cameras and darkroom tents in hazardous locations. In addition there was often travel without roads or wheeled vehicles, survival far from sources of supplies, and perhaps mule skinning. That alone can be quite an art with its own unique vocabulary. Some of William Henry Jackson's autobiographical writings illuminate photography on the frontier.

 

[removed account4]

That's the same way he timed exposures in camera. Don't need no steenkin' clock.

i never use a clock either, neither for printing or exposures ..
and my timer just makes a click when i process film, usually can't see it or hear it ..
its nice to developer print and expose just by mumbling incantations to oneself ..
my darkroom isn't sparce though, its filled with lots of junk i should probably sell or give away ..
a light bulb is really all i ever use anyways ...

 

[DannL.]

My darkroom as it looks today. I didn't take the time to clean up, so it looks like a shipwreck. Modest would be a good name for it, considering the mess that this replaced. I'm very proud of my dual timer configuration. Missing from the scene is the 5x7 Seneca No. 9 camera that doubles as an enlarger. There are three holes in the table-top to insert the tripod leg tips. I think this would fit in a covered wagon.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Contact printing papers except for homemade stuff or Michael Smith paper are also no longer made and if you want mat paper your only choice is handmade emulsions which again require more tools. Alt photo practioners are pretty much the only ones who can work like EW and have such a simple darkroom.

Slow chloride papers for contact printing are still being made. For example Foma's Fomalux paper. Although this paper is RC rather than FB.

 

[DREW WILEY]

These old timers weren't as simple as people think. Matthew Brady was basically a business manager who had numerous photographers in his
employ, who had to have a standardized methodology under difficult conditions. There had to be a fine line between alchemy and some kind
of hard science of chemistry if predictable results were to be obtained. This often involved apprenticeship and very fussy technique. Not a casual game by any means. They needed state of the art workflow, in terms of what that meant in their own era. It amazes me when people try to replicate some kind of nineteenth-century look and just end up with some artsy-craftsy wannabee brown print. Sure, there were lots and lots of photographers back then too, but if some of them could outright run rings around most darkroom workers today using what were and still are relatively convoluted techniques, what kind of work do you think they could do if they were alive today, and what kind of equipment do you think they'd choose, since they were basically big-budget types back then? Look at who financed some of these
guys. They wanted the best and got it.

 

[pdeeh]

Photographers had to maintain and repair their equipment, prepare chemicals and glass plates in the field, and often set up bulky cameras and darkroom tents in hazardous locations. In addition there was often travel without roads or wheeled vehicles, survival far from sources of supplies, and perhaps mule skinning.

This struck me fairly recently when I posted somewhere moaning a bit about how hard it was to transport my foamcore 10x8

And it was realising the ludicrousness of that complaint in the face of what early photographers all over the world actually had done that tripped me over to realise it was perfectly possible for me to carry a field camera, tripod and a few holders (as well as my lunch) for a few miles now and again ...

Back on topic, though ... I've loved that movie of Weston in his darkroom since I first saw it only a couple of years ago, especially as his (and Brett's) pictures were my earliest conscious photographic inspiration.

Still and all, though there's virtue in simplicity sometimes, that does not itself make complexity a vice. It's only a hobby for most people, and has only ever been a hobby for most people. Those who tell others that they're "doing it wrong" and that there's only one way to make pictures "correctly" need to get a grip on themselves.