Single grade FB papers

[faberryman]

I jotted down the photographers and dates for the images in this offering from Magnum:

Dennis Stock - 1954
Leonard Freed -1963
Burt Glinn - 1965
Hiroji Kubota - 1997
Chien-Chi Chang - 1998

I couldn't find when Pablo Inirio joined Magnum. He clearly wasn't the original printer for the first three. He may have been the original printer for the last two. So I am wondering what the original prints looked liked.

Pablo Inirio clearly has the magic touch. But Magnum doesn't have enough black and white work either current or from the archive to keep him busy full time, so he freelances too.

I may have missed it, but I don't think Magnum gave Pablo Inirio any credit with respect to these prints. That doesn't seem very sporting. Here is a suggested heading:

"Pablo Inirio Creates Iconic Images from Magnum Photographers' Underwhelming Negatives"

 

[Pieter12]

As for why someone would buy one?

Collectors as an addition to owning one of the prints, illustrating how it was achieved?

 

[Don_ih]

Collectors as an addition to owning one of the prints, illustrating how it was achieved?

Yes - definitely. One of these would be cheap compared to having an original print.

He clearly wasn't the original printer for the first three. He may have been the original printer for the last two.

He was born in 1961 and started working for Magnum in 1992. His work prints are likely updates of whatever instructions his predecessor left behind. People are going to expect new prints to look like the old prints, after all.

Looks like these notes are # of seconds / contrast grade for specific burning - the base exposure is 45 seconds at filter 2 plus 15 seconds at filter 2.5 -- all at f5.6 (which is bright for a 1 minute exposure). That, of course, may be wrong.

 

[snusmumriken]

Is there any example anywhere of a straight print and an Inirio (or other master printer) compared, for any famous photograph?

 

[Pieter12]

Is there any example anywhere of a straight print and an Inirio (or other master printer) compared, for any famous photograph?

Here's an example. Also, Ansel Adams made a number of his famous prints with different amounts of dodging and burning, you might try to locate images of some of those.

 

[Chuck_P]

AA's.....Moonrise Over Hernandez, maybe some haven't seen it yet. I've never seen one with printing notes on it, though.

 

[faberryman]

If you do a Google search on "Dennis Stock James Dean 1955 NYC" you'll find a number of versions of the image Pieter12 posted, some with different crops and exposures. Pablo Inirio's is just one interpretation. It is too light to me. I'll let you know when Magnum calls me to head up their darkroom.

 

[snusmumriken]

Thanks, all. I thought this article was a good summary of the James Dean story. I realise I am straying way off topic, but does anyone else prefer frame 17, the one that’s second from bottom in that article? I think the way Dean is hunched against the rain and sheltering his cigarette outweighs any criticism of the composition - and actually I think the building looming behind him adds to the oppressive bad-day feeling. Of course the choice was Dennis Stock’s to make, I respect that.

I think I might question whether Inirio’s very complicated version of the print was worthwhile. Could be different on the wall of course. Anyhow, that web search demonstrates again how the strength of a good image overcomes all the ways in which it can be badly reproduced!

 

[koraks]

I realise I am straying way off topic, but does anyone else prefer frame 17, the one that’s second from bottom in that article? I think the way Dean is hunched against the rain and sheltering his cigarette outweighs any criticism of the composition

No, I don't really feel that way; in my view, #19 is the only one that works well. Looking at the strip with 17 through 20, my opinion is that no amount of facial expression etc. can fix the fatal flaws in terms of composition the other ones suffer from. They all share the building growing out of Dean's back and the fence connecting into his coat, which are unsurmountable problems IMO. The separation between Dean and the fence is necessary, as is the horizontal spacing between his body and the building in the background. Furthermore, having Dean in the center of the frame combined with the fence makes the entire image weigh down to the right very heavily, and there's nothing to balance that weight on the left side. Finally, the difference in pose and expression between #19 and #20 is so marginal that it can in no way ever make up for the composition problem in #20. The only way to make any of the other frames work would be to crop them into oblivion, departing at a fundamental level from how the images were composed in the first place.

Interesting question though. It should be asked more often here, I feel.

 

[snusmumriken]

Interesting that Stock also marked up frame 20 on the contact sheet, with all those compositional issues and with nothing special about the body language.

 

[koraks]

Yes, I found that interesting indeed. One obvious possible reason is that #20 has Dean covering the largest surface area of the negative - it's quantitatively speaking 'the best' negative of the subject. I suspect this might have played a role, along with qualifiers like 'focus is OK, motion blur is manageable' etc.

 

[Don_ih]

I think the way Dean is hunched against the rain and sheltering his cigarette outweighs any criticism of the composition

The "iconic" shot has Dean curled around himself and isolated, appearing as a "loner" and aloof - which solidly coheres with his public identity (especially his identity after he was dead). Frame 17, he looks like he could've just been splashed by a passing bus.

 

[snusmumriken]

Frame 17, he looks like he could've just been splashed by a passing bus.

Hahaha! To be fair, they all share that look. If he had never made Rebel, this would just have been some pedestrian suffering from wet shoes and socks.

On closer inspection (I was on my phone earlier) Dean's face is not even remotely sharp in frame 17.

 

[Pieter12]

Interesting that Stock also marked up frame 20 on the contact sheet, with all those compositional issues and with nothing special about the body language.

Stock may not have even marked up the frames. The film could have been turned in to a photo editor who took it from there.

 

[GregY]

We've certainly veered down the sidetrack with inkjet prints of well-known photos.
B&H currently lists a 100 sheet box of Ilford Galerie Grade 3 (love the paper!) for $259 USD as compared to MG Ilford Classic FB at $139. That's quite a difference. As much as i like Galerie & the long gone Forte Fortezo graded papers.... the multigrade papers have improved over the years

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...B&H currently lists a 100 sheet box of Ilford Galerie Grade 3 (love the paper!) for $259 USD as compared to MG Ilford Classic FB at $139. That's quite a difference. As much as i like Galerie & the long gone Forte Fortezo graded papers.... the multigrade papers have improved over the years

All except with respect to excess shininess. That discontinued Galerie is worth the price just to experience what a decent surface finish looks like.

 

[GregY]

All except with respect to excess shininess. That discontinued Galerie is worth the price just to experience what a decent surface finish looks like.

Sal, I can live with the finish...particularly at $100/box difference. I still prefer Foma & Forte papers, but I'm very happy that Ilford really has stepped into the breach and continues to produce a range of papers. Ilford Warmtone is really my go to for final prints.

 

[cliveh]

Maybe the marks on the James Dean print and others are just bull shit to impress a talent that does not exist, as to me the correction just looks like a higher contrast print with the correct exposure.

 

[Don_ih]

Maybe the marks on the James Dean print and others are just bull shit to impress a talent that does not exist, as to me the correction just looks like a higher contrast print with the correct exposure.

It kinda looks like he reduced the overall print exposure by one stop....

 

[Bill Burk]

They’re split grade notations!
Here’s the key:

Burn = +
Dodge = [no sign]
Grade 0 = /0
Grade 2 1/2 = /2 1/2
Grade 5 = /5
Swift movement = [number of passes] x

Something like that. Does the book narrative confirm?

 

[Don_ih]

Something like that. Does the book narrative confirm?

Don't know, but you're interpreting it the same way I did. Except in the photo of Cartier-Bresson, you can see a minus sign for dodging.

 

[snusmumriken]

Don't know, but you're interpreting it the same way I did. Except in the photo of Cartier-Bresson, you can see a minus sign for dodging.

Agreed, that was how I read it too. And the scribble is presumably bleach or Farmer’s reducer. In the sky, the up arrows presumably mean dodging, eg for 2 sec during the 2 1/2 grade exposure and 2 sec during the grade 0.

The notes on the tall building are a bit puzzling though: 2 sec at each of grades 0, 2 1/2 and 5? Why not just 4 sec at 2 1/2?

Do you suppose the ‘35’ in a rectangle alongside ‘w/GLS’ means ‘using a glassless 35mm negative carrier’?

With all due respect, in the James Dean case the overall result looks unnatural to me.

 

[Don_ih]

Do you suppose the ‘35’ in a rectangle alongside ‘w/GLS’ means ‘using a glassless 35mm negative carrier’?

In the photo of Cartier-Bresson, there is also a 35 in a diamond, but it looks like it says either "no gls" or "nd gls". Maybe "w/gls" means in a glass carrier?