Using fog as a tool in image capture

[BDK]

Not sure if this is the proper forum, but nothing else comes close. I am an admirer of the work of Alexei Titarenko. http://www.alexeytitarenko.com. I want to emulate his basic toolkit and then apply to my own vision. Titarenko has shown that B&W analog is still a very creative medium, and his full toolkit is just an inspiration to me. It must be quite a chore when a customer wants a print. Recreating a fine art print must required detailed notes, with respect to chemicals and temperature. I just marvel.

 

[gone]

Interesting work. He has a unique look to his prints.

 

[Bazza D]

It seems that he likes photograph a lot during or right after rain/snow. It would appear that he uses the weather to get some of the effect. Kind of reminds of the famous shot by Josef Sudek where he had his assistants scatter around as much dust as possible to diffuse the light in the shot. I mean what better way to add fog than to use fog.

 

[jvo]

I presume you've done the you tube search....


this is one of the more insightful ones

 

[DREW WILEY]

Fog is easy here. Just look out the window this time of year.

 

[radiant]

Fog is the bacon of the photography.

 

[gone]

Unfortunately, my few attempts to photograph fog came out looking like......fog. That was it, just fog.

 

[AgX]

I looked at the photos linked to in post #1 and I do not see fog.

 

[Tel]

I looked at the photos linked to in post #1 and I do not see fog.

I agree. I see soft focus, double exposures and motion blur from long exposure times.

 

[foc]

Yes, it appears that there were techniques used (like mentioned by Tel, soft focus, double exposure etc), in-camera and in printing, to simulate the effect of fog rather than fog itself.

 

[Tel]

Fog:
foggy rail yard by terry, on Flickr

 

[AgX]

Well, the one of his that really puzzles me is this one:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/...-V0O40HJDGK70C5T0MOBE/016-NEW.jpg?format=750w

I considered several options, including double exposure with motion blur, but non was apt. Am slow on the intake again...

 

[foc]

including double exposure with motion blur

I think you may be right with this assessment.
Just look at the building on the left, there is, what appears, a ghost image of the building. This would suggest double exposure.
Also look at the chimneys on the buildings on the right and see the dark sweeping down lines from each chimney.

I wonder if this was double exposure and motion blur in the darkroom rather than the camera.

 

[BDK]

He is a very clever printer. What I like is that he elevates photography to more of a personal art form. You simply can't expose and print. As a positive, this palette does not require burning and dodging.

 

[BDK]

I looked at the photos linked to in post #1 and I do not see fog.

Not a "fog", rather a satin like patina over the image. Hard to describe in words, as the images are still clear. But it's as if a thin coat of "varnish" was applied.

 

[Tel]

I think you may be right with this assessment.
Just look at the building on the left, there is, what appears, a ghost image of the building. This would suggest double exposure.
Also look at the chimneys on the buildings on the right and see the dark sweeping down lines from each chimney.

I wonder if this was double exposure and motion blur in the darkroom rather than the camera.

I'm inclined to agree with FOC; the sweep of the blurred lines does exactly repeat the pattern of the chimneys and the foreground building on the left. I suspect the motion-blur effect was done in-camera (because it's easy to move the camera during exposure and you cam make multiple exposures and then choose the one you like best in the darkroom). Then you simply double-expose the print, aligning the elements precisely. Still a lot of work though. Personally, I like the geometry of the woman, her shadow and the shadow of the street sign behind her best about this. The motion blur accentuates the light a bit but it's not the best thing about the composition.

 

[BDK]

If you step back a bit from the print, you can clearly see where the bleach has been applied in a circle. He applies the bleach with a sponge, as shown in earlier videos. And it is more than likely that the paper has been pre-flashed. Toned in selenium. Maybe gold. Additional bleaching to emphasize the sunlight on the street in front/back of the woman. The lighted street should naturally continue all the way to the right edge. But it is dark, back to basic tone. Showing the use of the bleach. Either Ferri alone, or with fixer to make Farmers Reducer.

 

[removed account4]

hi bdk
you might be able to so similar things using expired photo paper, and old box ( like from the teens or late 1800s ) cameras with Wollaston meniscus lenses and a dim flash. you will need to learn how to use simple and dilute developers and cold water, fogging with leaky camera back and an enlarger light, in the developing and contact printing stage. takes a bunch of practice to do things like that, but once you do it you can move on to the next riddle to solve
don't forget to have fun
John

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've made plenty of prints like that, sometimes involving real fog, sometimes not, and sometimes combining natural atmosphere with sheer technical "breaking the rules". Even "bad" flare can become an excellent tool if understood and selectively used in the scene. Selective bleaching of the print is an after-the-fact technique. How you tone it can accentuate the technique. I made an "all the above" print last week. I have always admired the way early photographers were willing to engage a sense of atmosphere in their work rather than trying to defeat it. And I particularly enjoy certain old silver prints which had partially faded, spoiled, and bronzed due to being improperly fixed in the first place. Well, I don't do that because I want my prints to last; but I have learned to simulate the effect via split toning etc.

 

[Mike Crawford]

I presume you've done the you tube search....


this is one of the more insightful ones

Absolutely!

And Ted's short film on him will help a bit more with his process and background. I really like the inspiration of Shostakovich.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

And Ted's short film on him will help a bit more with his process and background.

Interesting video! Interesting words too: "you start to do something real, it always comes little by little, so only people who never did anything in art think that you may do like that and make interesting work. The work that lasts for ever - they're never done like that. It's a long and complicated process." Thanks for sharing.