Michael Kenna reverse engineering

[amellice]

Q1: How would achieve the light tone of the water? Is it done only by dodging?

Q2: how to achieve this high contrast? It seems that the light is only on the poles. In my Michael Kenna's Retrospective book the reproduction is even higher in contrast. Was this done by careful masking to burn everything except the poles?

 

[spijker]

Are you sure that these are optically enlarged darkroom prints and not digital prints (lambda, inkjet) from scanned negatives? I suspect it is the latter and in that case the answer is digital editing.
If they are true darkroom prints, dodging first (sea, poles) and then burning with high grade might do it.

 

[RobC]

kenna is known to use very long exposures at night or before/after sunrise/sunset.

Now imagine some moonlight on white posts. But just to throw you off the trail, they could be posts shot on IR film. Or to confuse you even more how about its the negative inverted, the book printers made a mistake and the proof readers missed it, or maybe decided it looked cool like that. Posts in snow.

 

[MDR]

Dodging, Burning and some Bleach followed by toning with selenium toner. For the second image if the poles were painted with bright white paint like a greek house and the ground is not white sand but dark volcanic sand or dark soil moonlight (especially full moon) with some contrast enhancement like bleach might give you the look. The light of the full or almost fool moon is very unique and this Image seems to be the result of it.

 

[Barry S]

The best bit of information regarding Michael Kenna's technique comes from Rolfe Horn, one of his former assistants that works in a similar style. Seee this page-- http://rolfehorn.com/html/mainfram.html and look under Technique.

 

[amellice]

maybe he light painted the poles in the second one?

 

[amellice]

The best bit of information regarding Michael Kenna's technique come from Rolfe Horn, one of his former assistants that works in a similar style. Seee this page-- http://rolfehorn.com/html/mainfram.html and look under Technique.

thanks for the link, good info

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nothing exotic in the notes. Just things like red filtration, plus dev of the neg, lots of dodging and burning. But the devil is in the details. Everybody
knows the ingredients of a Caesar Salad, but they sure don't all taste the same. Some films will plus develop better than others. Some papers bleach
highlights nicely, some don't. I have a hunch what Kenna might be doing, but really don't know or care. Why not just ask him? Won't make much
difference. It's the sense of taste that counts. Just getting high contrast images like that post and snow scene is easy: underexpose and overdevelop.
TMY is a good film for that purpose, though Tri-X was probably once Kenna's choice.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... and yeah, I also think it's an inverted image.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I am pretty sure he uses Ilford matt paper which sepia tones quite lovely...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There is nothing special about his materials. I believe he uses Tri-X and prints on MGIV glossy last I heard or saw (sorry Bob!). I have never seen a print of his on matt paper. He does do a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom though.

The first photograph is pretty much all dodging and burning from what i can tell. The post photograph is probably pretty straight.

I don't know why people are saying he uses digital.

 

[Bob Carnie]

You may be right, Bill Schwab prints have been talked about in the same manner and he uses Matt.
I use matt for sepia and it is much nicer than gloss IMO.

There is nothing special about his materials. I believe he uses Tri-X and prints on MGIV glossy last I heard or saw (sorry Bob!). I have never seen a print of his on matt paper. He does do a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom though.

The first photograph is pretty much all dodging and burning from what i can tell. The post photograph is probably pretty straight.

I don't know why people are saying he uses digital.

 

[amellice]

kenna is known to use very long exposures at night or before/after sunrise/sunset.

Now imagine some moonlight on white posts. But just to throw you off the trail, they could be posts shot on IR film. Or to confuse you even more how about its the negative inverted, the book printers made a mistake and the proof readers missed it, or maybe decided it looked cool like that. Posts in snow.
View attachment 151809

yeah this looks about right i guess, thanks

 

[mooseontheloose]

There is nothing special about his materials. I believe he uses Tri-X and prints on MGIV glossy last I heard or saw (sorry Bob!). I have never seen a print of his on matt paper. He does do a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom though.
The first photograph is pretty much all dodging and burning from what i can tell. The post photograph is probably pretty straight.

I don't know why people are saying he uses digital.

Agreed. Very insulting to one of the greatest darkroom printers.
As far as I know he doesn't (and maybe never has) shot with infrared film. His standards are Tri-X and Ilford MGIV paper. He's known for his long exposure work, making day look like night and night look like day.
_____
From his website:
In 1979 I began to print for Ruth Bernhard here in San Francisco which was really an eye opener! I had never before witnessed such a radical subjective transition from negative to final print. Ruth gave me the freedom to think of the negative as a starting point with immense potential for further creativity. She also showed me how much persistence is needed to realize a finished print from a raw negative.
...
I find it so much easier to use a multi grade paper. One major reason is that I can use different contrast filters on different parts of the image. Before using Multigrade I had to use different chemicals and developers, like Selectol Soft, to get half grades. Now I can just change the filter, which is great. I will often print deep shadows with a grade 4 1/2 or 5 and burn in skies with a grade 1.
...
Do you do much burning and dodging?

Yes, on pretty much every print. It’s a great luxury if I have an image that doesn’t need any burning and dodging. Actually I don’t think I have any negative that I print “straight.” The world doesn’t conform to the way that I see it, so I change it in my prints. As I mentioned above it’s usually a question of playing with space and directing viewers attention into areas where I want them to go. When I photograph, I look for what is significant to me, what resonates with me, touches me. When I print, it’s exactly the same process. I edit, direct and visually point to areas of the print that I feel are important and that I want others to look at. I try to eliminate as many distractions as possible. I often think of my work as visual haiku. It is an attempt to evoke and suggest through as few elements as possible rather than to describe with tremendous detail.
_____

I imagine being an extremely skilled printer, who knows how to get the best out of his materials (which, in addition to dodging and burning, might also include other things like masking, bleaching, split grade printing, etc) would be how he gets the images the way he does. I would love to see him talk about how he has printed certain images. I'm going to meet him this weekend (he has a couple of book signings here in Tokyo) - I'd like to ask him, but of course there won't be time for that.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You may be right, Bill Schwab prints have been talked about in the same manner and he uses Matt.
I use matt for sepia and it is much nicer than gloss IMO.

I have unfortunately never seen any of Bill's prints in person. I have never really regarded Ilford's papers as easily toned, but it is good to know that you like the matt. I haven't used MGIV matt in like forever. Might have to pick some up to give it a go, although I have moved away from Ilford because of their lack of "malleability". I have been using FOMA papers lately and have grown to really like them.

 

[spijker]

Agreed. Very insulting to one of the greatest darkroom printers.

Well, since I'm the supposedly insulting person, I'll clarify myself. I admit that I don't know much about Michael Kenna. I've seen a video on him a long time ago where he plows through a snow field. Before I wrote my post, I did search, found his website and had a quick look for any technical info. I couldn't find any. I scanned over the most recent (german) interviews but couldn't find anything about his printing technique. Rachelle, the interview that you quote from is from 1997. Things could have change in the last 19 years. More art photographers have converted to digital prints and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I've seen very nice digital black & white prints that could easily have passed for a darkroom print. So I find it a bit funny that the suggestion of digital printing is considered insulting. Anyway, an interview from 2012 in ProCameraman confirms that (in 2012) he still prints in the darkroom and not digital.

Menno

PS Please, let's not get into a digital vs darkroom print quality debate.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Menno, I didn't mean to be so blunt (a bad habit of mine, sometimes, especially when I'm in a rush). As your last line says, I'm not interested in any kind of digital vs darkroom print debate*. However, I do find it a problem that here, on APUG, that some of the first answers to a solution is, well, it maybe its a digital print. Digital hasn't been around that long in the history of printing, and yet that's the first assumption? Kenna is a masterful printer - why couldn't he have done it in a darkroom? A little research will show that the white pole image was made in 1984. So no, not digital, and unlikely to be one, even though he has been known to revisit old negs. In fact, here's a more recent article about his thoughts on digital. I think if he had gone digital (as a few old die-hard photographers have) someone would probably know about that here on APUG.

There isn't a lot of technical information about Kenna's printing techniques because he doesn't really share them online or go into specific details. We only know about some things because of what he's said in interviews, or possibly to people who see him at his exhibitions, plus what others have said who have printed for him. The Rolf Horne link given above is another good source. But for specific photographs? IDK.

What I've always liked about him is that he is living proof that you don't need any magic bullets to do magic in the darkroom. He mostly uses Tri-X in his Hassy or occasionally a Holga, has a lab develop the film for him, and prints on Ilford MGIV, and prints small (especially in today's world of mural-sized prints). I think his work is a great blend of technical know-how combined with vision and the openness to play and experiment in the darkroom. Almost like jazz.



*FWIW, I have no problems with hybrid (and/or purely digital) techniques at all, and can't wait for APUG and DPUG to finally get hitched. That said, I'm in awe of printers like Kenna and Moersch and Rudman and Lambrecht and Carnie and so many others - I wish I had a fraction of the knowledge and skills that they have (as photographers but especially as darkroom printers), but since I'm pretty isolated here in Japan I try my best to learn what I can.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I use this matt (Ilford) paper for all my solarization work and love the way it tones, for a long time I used gloss Ilford Warmtone and for my eyes I go to the Matt.

I am really open now to Bergger and other papers that have nice matt emulsions.

I have unfortunately never seen any of Bill's prints in person. I have never really regarded Ilford's papers as easily toned, but it is good to know that you like the matt. I haven't used MGIV matt in like forever. Might have to pick some up to give it a go, although I have moved away from Ilford because of their lack of "malleability". I have been using FOMA papers lately and have grown to really like them.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Thanks Rachelle for putting me in nice company... There are many great analogue printers that have chosen to stick to enlargers only , and there are others who have embraced the dark side as well.

For me I started my personal business 15 years too late to achieve the financial success others before me saw.. in 2002 we saw our business dwindle in film to enlarger by about 80%. I have a family and was not
ready to retire .

Moving to a small community where I could print silver by enlarger was one option.

Another option was to bite the bullet , go on a 15 year learning curve and embrace hybrid...

I chose the second option as one of my Mentors kept telling me two things.. Printing for others is an Urban operation, also never fight on the internet as it will come back to bite you.

Today I feel as competent in both worlds and like you Rachelle I am hoping APUG and DPUG do get hitched.. I like sharing knowledge about how I print and I think over the next 10 years I can add a lot
of help to young and old fart printers here.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Thanks Bob. I wish I had known what you were doing back when I was living in Toronto but I barely knew what I was doing myself! One of these days I'm going to go back for one of your workshops, in the meantime, I always learn a lot from your posts.

 

[gone]

In the first shot, it's done by blowing out the highlights (whether intentionally or unintentionally, who knows?). If you get the right light, which will last maybe 10-20 seconds at most, you should be able to get similar results on that second shot. But that's theoretical. In all likelihood, it will be very hard to duplicate either, so I wouldn't worry about it, and move on to your own stuff. It's all about getting that fleeting light just right.

 

[Early Riser]

I think that there's a lot more complexity being assumed regarding these images than really was the case.

In the Golden Gate image he might have simply dodged the bottom and then done a high contrast filter burn on the bottom. Pretty rudimentary.

On the image of the posts it just looks like it was shot at night. Either illuminated by some moonlight or even something as simple as a light on a nearby path. The image then being printed high contrast. Again nothing complicated.

There are usually multiple ways to achieve a certain look. The more skilled and experienced photographers can usually find the easiest or more direct route.

 

[RobC]

yeah this looks about right i guess, thanks

More than anything else it is about seeing the subject and how it will look in print before you've actually taken it. Learning to spot/see subjects like that is tough but once you begin to get it then realising the print isn't so difficult. Without the neg to do it with makes it very hard.

So in short, learn to see. Easy said but its something which most never achieve or rather never actually try and those that do still find it hard at first but then it gets a bit easier. But having said that, you can get trapped in a single vision and breaking out of that into being able see many styles of image that really work is tough in the extreme. At least it is for me, others may find it easier.
The mind needs to be very alert to the possibilities of how a subject could look when abstracted into B&W.

 

[spijker]

Menno, I didn't mean to be so blunt (a bad habit of mine, sometimes, especially when I'm in a rush). As your last line says, I'm not interested in any kind of digital vs darkroom print debate*. However, I do find it a problem that here, on APUG, that some of the first answers to a solution is, well, it maybe its a digital print. Digital hasn't been around that long in the history of printing, and yet that's the first assumption? Kenna is a masterful printer - why couldn't he have done it in a darkroom? A little research will show that the white pole image was made in 1984. So no, not digital, and unlikely to be one, even though he has been known to revisit old negs. In fact, here's a more recent article about his thoughts on digital. I think if he had gone digital (as a few old die-hard photographers have) someone would probably know about that here on APUG.

There isn't a lot of technical information about Kenna's printing techniques because he doesn't really share them online or go into specific details. We only know about some things because of what he's said in interviews, or possibly to people who see him at his exhibitions, plus what others have said who have printed for him. The Rolf Horne link given above is another good source. But for specific photographs? IDK.

What I've always liked about him is that he is living proof that you don't need any magic bullets to do magic in the darkroom. He mostly uses Tri-X in his Hassy or occasionally a Holga, has a lab develop the film for him, and prints on Ilford MGIV, and prints small (especially in today's world of mural-sized prints). I think his work is a great blend of technical know-how combined with vision and the openness to play and experiment in the darkroom. Almost like jazz.



*FWIW, I have no problems with hybrid (and/or purely digital) techniques at all, and can't wait for APUG and DPUG to finally get hitched. That said, I'm in awe of printers like Kenna and Moersch and Rudman and Lambrecht and Carnie and so many others - I wish I had a fraction of the knowledge and skills that they have (as photographers but especially as darkroom printers), but since I'm pretty isolated here in Japan I try my best to learn what I can.

Rachelle, no problem and point taken. I should have looked a bit further before replying. The older interviews with a bit more technical info were nice to read. I'm always interested in how darkroom prints were "constructed". Unfortunately, few people share these details on the internet. And the few master printers are spread out over the world so that one hardly ever gets to see one of their prints in real life. Bob Carnie is the closest to Ottawa but I hardly ever go to Toronto. Hopefully one day I'll do a traditional silver print workshop with him.

Menno

 

[Doremus Scudder]

More than anything else it is about seeing the subject and how it will look in print before you've actually taken it. Learning to spot/see subjects like that is tough but once you begin to get it then realising the print isn't so difficult. Without the neg to do it with makes it very hard.

So in short, learn to see. ....

+1