Michael Kenna reverse engineering

chuck94022 · Mar 7, 2016

I think a lot more of this was done in camera than you're giving Kenna credit for. The smoothness and haziness of the water tells me pretty immediately that it was done by long exposure. Living in the Bay Area myself, I'm confident that's pretty much how the roiling bay water will look when done with long exposure.

The fact that the clouds above are blurred but not nearly as softened as the water suggests that he may have done an in-camera dodge. In a night-time shot, this is done by using a dark card in front of the lens to only expose part of the scene. I've done this myself on a night shot to smooth the water while not blowing out lights on shore and stars, and while tedious, it works great. You use the same technique as in the darkroom - wave it a bit so you don't get a sharp line.

In the darkroom, it's quite likely he further dodged the water to keep it light, but burned the rocks carefully to darken them. I doubt he used high contrast for the water, because he'd lose the gentle textures there.

Not seeing the negative, I don't know what he did on the upper portion of that print.

For the second print, also this looks like a fundamentally in-camera technique. I think he chose a dark night, opened the lens, and did light painting of the posts with a flash or some other light, using a card to keep the light off the ground. At least that was the starting point. He probably did further work in the darkroom to ensure that the ground stayed totally black, eg, burning as necessary. But I bet he started with a negative that was made carefully as described.

Ai Print · Mar 7, 2016

Regardless of how he technically did it, his work is a product of talent, time in the field and expertise in the darkroom, so I don't really understand what the purpose is of "reverse Engineering" it.

Live and let live, walk your own path.

Also, unless I am mistaken, these photos were lifted in order to post on this site, not linked. That is copyright infringement, FYI...

Peter Schrager · Mar 8, 2016

my understanding is that he purchased a large amount of of one of the last kodak papers that is no longer available
that is called having your materials at hand which also forms your signature... regardless he does what he does well!
best, peter

RobC · Mar 8, 2016

I talked one of my clients into buying some kenna images for his website years ago. He sent low res scans which were very grainy. I suspect he was using tri-x or hp5 film. Most of his prints are really quite small from what I understand. Good job too because from the grain in the scans we received they would look pretty bad if enlarged much past 12 inches I rekon. I think the scans were from negs but I could be wrong. I still have them as they were used again on the 2nd generation website for my client.

DREW WILEY · Mar 8, 2016

Distinct sharp conspicuous grain was part of his "look". He was basically a miniaturist, creating little make-believe alternative Hobbit worlds, for lack of a better mode of explanation. This kind of treatment got him on the map. He might have shifted this strategy somewhat over the years; but
most of his prints work in specifically small scale. They lose their charm big. I don't think someone like that has any problem with newer papers unless heavy bleaching is involved. I've never run into him, and if I did, would have little interest in shop talk.

RobC · Mar 8, 2016

I didn't deal with him direct except he emailed the scans. We went through his london agent at the time. As it happened it was the week Helmut Newton died who used the same london agent and they kept telling us they were so busy with the phone ringing off the hook as all the vultures were buying any of his work they could lay their hands on.

mexipike · Mar 8, 2016

Somewhere I found a great article where Michael Kenna discussed his technique. He said he standardized years ago on Tri-x I believe in d76, a hassleblad and ilford mgiv with slight selenium toning. He also prints square on 8 x 10 paper always and often pretty are square so they are quite small.

mexipike · Mar 8, 2016

I think most of it I found in this interview: http://procameraman.jp/Interview/overseas_file08_201207.html#English
Looks like I was wrong, he sepia tones! No mention of ilford paper here but I swear I read it somewhere else.

I love his work and his simple outlook on equipment/materials!

RobC · Mar 8, 2016

people go on about which film and which paper and technique as though thats what makes his images. But it isn't. Its his subject matter and composition that make his images look the way they do. The printing, I think, is fairly simple for the most part.

Eric Rose · Mar 8, 2016

I enjoy Kenna's images and his style is probably one of the most copied out there.

mooseontheloose · Mar 9, 2016

Eric Rose said:
I enjoy Kenna's images and his style is probably one of the most copied out there.

Which is why a lot of galleries won't even look at your work if it emulates him in any way. Too overdone.

mooseontheloose · Mar 9, 2016

mexipike said:
Somewhere I found a great article where Michael Kenna discussed his technique. He said he standardized years ago on Tri-x I believe in d76, a hassleblad and ilford mgiv with slight selenium toning. He also prints square on 8 x 10 paper always and often pretty are square so they are quite small.

The prints are small, 7.5 or 7.75 inches squared. I went to a gallery in Tokyo this past weekend for his latest book signing and you can see by the images behind him how small they are. You may also notice that he has his own "hanko" (Japanese name stamp) that he also used to sign the book.

goros · Mar 9, 2016

I think I heard him, in one of those interviews that could be find on line, saying he uses whatever film was available at the country he was at the moment. And regarding print size, I read somewhere it is always 20 cm x 20 cm.

goros · Mar 9, 2016

Well, here it is: http://procameraman.jp/Interview/overseas_file08_201207.html#English

Q. What kind of film do you use?

I use B & W film. For the most part, I use Kodak Tri-X. 400asa film . One of the nice things about this film is that it hasn’t changed much since I first started 40 years ago. It’s like an old friend; It’s flexible and forgiving, and easy to work with. That’s why I still use it. I also use other films depending on which country I am in and where I can buy the films. Tri-X is my old stand by.

Q. When you are in darkroom, what’s size do you usually print?

All my prints are sepia toned silver gelatin, made by me in a traditional darkroom from negatives (i.e. non digital), in limited editions of 45 and 4 artist proofs. My print size is always about 7 3/4 inches square, and prints are dry-mounted and matted on 16 x 20 inch vertical white museum board (4 ply backing, 2 ply matt). There is no variation in this presentation. I have been doing this for a long time. I’ve experimented with smaller prints and bigger prints, but I’ve decided this is the size that I prefer, the optimum size for me. My images are quite intimate. They are not there to impress or awe people. They don’t describe details. There are there for intimate engagement. I want my viewers to be very close to the print.

shoot6x7 · Mar 9, 2016

Is there a possibility that he uses 6 -10 stop ND filters to get long exposures ?

RobC · Mar 9, 2016

theres all sorts of possibilities. Why don't you just try it and see what you get. You'll learn a lot more that way.

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2016

I've seen small rectangular prints. Doesn't matter. He has a way of looking at things which is fairly unique. The only other person who seems similar
to me is Bill Brandt; I don't count the wannabees. I enjoy his work, quite possibly because it is so different from mine, even given the same subject matter. Have no interest in emulating him.

shoot6x7 · Mar 9, 2016

RobC said:
theres all sorts of possibilities. Why don't you just try it and see what you get. You'll learn a lot more that way.

That's the thing, I don't have any full ND's, just soft graduated, so it's something that will need purchasing

RobC · Mar 9, 2016

well purchase one. Particularly good with moving water if you want to make water look like fluffy mist on the ground instead of water.
Paarticularly good with moving clouds (water again) if you want them to be blurred or misty looking.
Engage brain and get creative instead of focussing on elementary technique such as which film, development and paper which are no substitute for creative input from the photographer. Develop your own style and/or experiment to find out which style floats your boat.

shoot6x7 · Mar 9, 2016

RobC said:
well purchase one. Particularly good with moving water if you want to make water look like fluffy mist on the ground instead of water.
Paarticularly good with moving clouds (water gain) if you want them to be blurred or misty looking.
Engage brain and get creative instead of focussing on elementary technique such as which film, development and paper which are no substitute for creative input from the photographer. Develop your own style and/or experiment to find out which style floats your boat.

Ouch ...

Early Riser · Mar 9, 2016

RobC said:
well purchase one. Particularly good with moving water if you want to make water look like fluffy mist on the ground instead of water.
Paarticularly good with moving clouds (water again) if you want them to be blurred or misty looking.
Engage brain and get creative instead of focussing on elementary technique such as which film, development and paper which are no substitute for creative input from the photographer. Develop your own style and/or experiment to find out which style floats your boat.

Mastering your tools and techniques is not mutually exclusive from being creative. When you master your tools and methods you now have the ability to make what you imagine into a reality. Not mastering your tools and technique means that your creativity will be held back by your ability.

Eric Rose · Mar 9, 2016

If you are shooting b&w buy two polarizers and stack them on your lens. Dial in whatever ND you want.

Ai Print · Mar 11, 2016

You can use whatever you want to get whatever effect you want and not "worry" about copying other shooters, just roll with it and try to be your own deal. Like Early Riser said above, master your medium and tools, then the lyrical attributes of having a visual identity will have a much better chance to materialize.

People have been trying to emulate Kenna for years, it's nothing new and his use of long exposures does not stop me from using the effect for my own work in select cases, I just try to not shoot nuclear power plant cooling towers or water bound pilings covered in bird poop using hours long exposures..

Consider how many large format exposures have been really long just to be able to work in specific light with enough depth of field, lots.

I think I shot the attached with a polarizing filter and a 10 stop ND with my Hasselblad, it was in full sunlight for 2 minutes I believe. The last thing I was thinking about when making it was if it were a "Michael Kenna" or not.

bfor3108 · Apr 11, 2020

Forgive the dust!
Heliopan ND3 + Red 29, Tri-x 400, bright sunny afternoon (all if my memory is correct).
I suspect something like this for contrast with poles...and darkroom magic of course. White poles either dusk or night with full moon as others have suggested. Or, nice bright reflection from sun, maybe morning or dusk.
Yes, we don't have to all try and shoot "exactly" like Kenna. But I like trying to understand, in the spirit of original poster.
As an aside, it was upon seeing Kenna's "Hillside Fence, Study 2, Teshikaga, Hokkaido, Japan, 2002" in Henry Horenstein's "Black & White Photography" that was the spark of inspiration for starting on a film/darkroom path in an already digital world (2011). Thank you Michael Kenna! And Henry Horenstein of course - what a brilliant book!

Michael Kenna reverse engineering

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency