Urban myth #567 : old BW negs were denser...

chiaroscuro/notan

df cardwell said:

Bowz- yep

Which painting inspired Avedon, which Ansel ?
What do the negatives look like ?

Dead Link Removed

.

Click to expand...

I'd sure like to see Biersdadt's negative - we can guess what a woodblock print negative looks like. Thanks for putting those up. Very interesting!

The basic concepts have very little in common. Bierstadt (and Ansel) employed chiaroscuro as the basis of their visual structure. Japanese woodblock prints are designed according to the principle of notan, which involves the placement of light versus dark in flat shapes. In fact, all block printing MUST conform to the notan principle because the block can either print or not print. In western printmaking, chiaroscuro is achieved by dividing the print areas in smaller and smaller units, so that mixed by the eye, the illusion of gray results.

This is fascinating, for me. I had thought of Ansel being in the chiaroscuro tradition, but hadn't made the connection between Avedon and notan. A whole new area of study, and one that can be performed with the lens.

bowzart said:

Avedon didn't sculpt form with light. If you look at his portraits, the light is very flat even though the image may be brilliant. I have read descriptions of his "aesthetic" -- didn't care about light, I'm sure the Zone Zystem was remote to his thinking. Things that many of us assume are important to photographers very well may not be to some.

Click to expand...

I think Avedon was a pretty in tune photographer technically, light and all, brilliant actually, and did indeed sculpt with light. His American West and open shade portraits on white were lit flat, yes, but do check out his studio work in more detail, much of it should be technically inspiring - even if not your cup of tea taste wise.

But I imagine Avedon had a pretty meaty negative (judging by where/how his blacks sit), probably not Ralph Gibson negs, but probably also not meeting the read-newsprint-through-the-highlights rule either, which btw, I've never been able to do with my own film.

He certainly was not one dimensional. I hardly know anyone who only does one thing, and a lot of people I know feel somewhat imprisoned by their so called "style" which far from being something to strive for, is actually usually an impediment if not concrete and rebar. His work was always distinctly his own, but not possible to be packaged and rubber stamped. Since he worked for clients, he would need to use techniques appropriate to the job. That alone is enough to require one to roam a bit, and he did, with elegance.

I would not suggest that he wasn't a really great master of the medium, one of the absolute best. However, I read here on APUG Ansel, Ansel, Ansel; his way of thinking and working was definitely "other than Ansel". I suspect that you may be correct about his negatives, but hey, I've never seen them. Anything we can say (unless someone here may have worked for him in the lab) is pure speculation.

A lot of Avedon's portraits dealt with NOTAN;
expanding the scale to open up the midtones,
and you can get a picture like this
without having a bulletproof negative,
just a d*mned fine portrait... of Callas.

Dead Link Removed

Let's take a look at a master of chiaroscuro:
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1842875_1769417,00.html


In view of the discussion of densities, the first image in this set has Mr. Karsh looking at one. Of course, to say that either Mr. Avedon or Mr. Karsh were exactly old timers would require us to define just what IS old.

Thanks for the link to La Divina!

For the past 35 or 40 years, films have been developed pretty much the same way, to a gamma of 0.65 or a bit less. That was not the case with earlier films, which were different in design. I was looking up something in an old PLI I have, dating from the late 1940s with supplements up to the early 1950s, and I noted that the recommended development gamma for old, orthochromatic Verichrome was 0.9 in D-76. Similar gammas were recommended for other Kodak continuous tone products and also Ansco continuous tone materials. In fine grain developers like DK-20 or D-25, times were listed for gammas of 0.7 to 0.8. These developers apparently couldn't reach the higher contrasts. I suspect the different recommendations are the result of changes in the film structure.

bowzart said:

... However, I read here on APUG Ansel, Ansel, Ansel; his way of thinking and working was definitely "other than Ansel". I suspect that you may be correct about his negatives, but hey, I've never seen them. Anything we can say (unless someone here may have worked for him in the lab) is pure speculation.

Click to expand...

More speculation: Take a look at Mortensons books. IMO a far better portrait photographer than Adams, and his techniques are far better suited to portraiture than the zone system. It seems to me that there is a certain (technical) similarity between Mortenson and Avedon.

nworth said:

For the past 35 or 40 years, films have been developed pretty much the same way, to a gamma of 0.65 or a bit less. That was not the case with earlier films, which were different in design. I was looking up something in an old PLI I have, dating from the late 1940s with supplements up to the early 1950s, and I noted that the recommended development gamma for old, orthochromatic Verichrome was 0.9 in D-76. Similar gammas were recommended for other Kodak continuous tone products and also Ansco continuous tone materials. In fine grain developers like DK-20 or D-25, times were listed for gammas of 0.7 to 0.8. These developers apparently couldn't reach the higher contrasts. I suspect the different recommendations are the result of changes in the film structure.

Click to expand...

A lot depends on how you define gamma. H&D did not like the non-linear portion of the curve. The ASA method included the non-linear part of the curve down to the point where the slope was 0.3 X that of the linear part, or something like that. What was at one time called .8 0r .9 gamma could later be called .6 or .7 C.I. ISO is different yet.

Ole said:

More speculation: Take a look at Mortensons books. IMO a far better portrait photographer than Adams, and his techniques are far better suited to portraiture than the zone system. It seems to me that there is a certain (technical) similarity between Mortenson and Avedon.

Click to expand...

Ole, you are very perceptive. I think you are absolutely right.

We have a zoney orientation. We miss a lot by rigid adherence to doctrine. Photography is a very crummy religion.