What film did the masters use?

[DanielStone]

hey all,

I have recently been trying to do a little research on some of my favorite photographers. In particular, the films they use/used before moving to digita@l. For me, I've been very interested in Peter Lindbergh, I've really come to love his b&w work from the 80's and early 90's, and even now with digital, it still has his 'look' of higher contrast, yet those glorious midtones. Now I'm not looking to start a 'war' of "no he didn't, he used ....". If you know 100%, please put it out there for us to see. And if you happen to know what developer they used, please include that as well.

photographer can be alive, or gone.

so, if you happen to know what film your favorite photographer(s) have created their images on, in any format or camera, let us know.

I'll get the ball rolling:

Michael A. Smith & Paula Chamlee: Super XX in 8x20(Michael) & 8x10(Paula+Michael). Souped in ABC pyro.

-Dan

 

[Rick A]

Prior to panchromatic, they used orthochromatic films(my favorite for portraits). Panatomic-X, Royal X Pan, Verichrome Pan, to name a very few. Tri-X ortho, Ektapan, Royal Pan(dif. from Royal-X), SuperXX. I cant remember he name, Kodak made an ASA 12 film up until the early 70's, and there was Super Panchro Press. There were many, many films to choose from.

 

[wclark5179]

What formats was Panatomic-X available? I show 135 magazines, 35mm & 70mm long rolls in my Kodak Pub. F-5 dated 1969. I really liked the film tho. Was it ever in 120/220 or large format?

Just checking..

 

[removed-user-1]

In the 1920s, Edward Weston used a then-new "fast panchromatic" sheet film with an effective speed of about 16, which he developed in trays with a pyro developer. I can't find a source for what I'm writing here, I've read about Weston for a long time and this is just from memory.

I'm sure I saw 120-size boxes of Panatomic-X when I was a kid.

 

[David Lindquist]

In the 1920s, Edward Weston used a then-new "fast panchromatic" sheet film with an effective speed of about 16, which he developed in trays with a pyro developer. I can't find a source for what I'm writing here, I've read about Weston for a long time and this is just from memory.

I'm sure I saw 120-size boxes of Panatomic-X when I was a kid.

The 1940 U.S. Camera annual has a piece (with photographs, of course) regarding Edward Weston's Guggenheim funded project of photographing California and the West. It includes a statement of equipment and materials used. For film he used Agfa Isopan "tray developed by inspection in ABC Pyro Soda with carbonate cut to less than half." "Negatives are printed on Convira No. 2, developed in Amidol."

May as well give the rest of it equipment-wise: 8 X 10 Century Universal camera; Ries tripod; Turner -Reich triple convertible lens (12" - 21"-28") plus a 19" Zeiss Protar; Worsching Counter Light Cap; Weston meter.
David

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Dan

I hope your question is not based on the assumption that all one has to do is use the same materials to create similar images?

 

[dpurdy]

When Agfa discontinued Agfa Pan 25 in 8x10 I read that Brett Weston was very disappointed.

I have some Panatomic X in 120 still good.
dennis

 

[TSSPro]

I too wondered what the tools were that went into creating some of the iconic images of the past 171 years. I dont think that it has been a..."well if only I had THAT film I could be just like So-and-So..." kind of question for me. Just a sense of curiosity.

 

[df cardwell]

Wrong question.

I want to know why the sky goes crazy whenever Schwab goes out to take a picture.

.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I suppose that as historical interest, there's some value to it, but since films and proprietary developers both disappear and change, it really is far more important to me to use what I can get now or make myself.

For whatever it's worth, Minor White used Ansco Versapan and developed it in Edwal FG7, without the optional additional sulphite, at least in the mid 60's. However, he didn't necessarily suggest to anyone in his workshops that they should do the same. I liked Versapan, and used it myself until Ansco's successor, GAF, quite making it. I have also enjoyed using FG7 over the years.

 

[CBG]

I see references to :
Kodak Super Panchromatic
Kodak Super Panchro-Press
Kodak Commercial Panchromatic
Agfa Isopan
Kodak Panatomic-X
Kodak Plus-X
Polaroid 55pn
in Adams' book on the making of 40 photographs. Looks like he thought a lot of films were worth while.

 

[benjiboy]

What formats was Panatomic-X available? I show 135 magazines, 35mm & 70mm long rolls in my Kodak Pub. F-5 dated 1969. I really liked the film tho. Was it ever in 120/220 or large format?

Just checking..

As far as I know it was never available in anything bigger than 35mm.

 

[thisismyname09]

As far as I know it was never available in anything bigger than 35mm.

IIRC, you can still buy it in large rolls for aerial photography, so it is very much available in larger rolls than 35mm.

 

[DanielStone]

Dan

I hope your question is not based on the assumption that all one has to do is use the same materials to create similar images?

Ralph,

of course not. I figured that one out quickly .

I'm just interested(as many others probably are) about the materials used to create many images that have become iconic of our time.

-Dan

 

[kompressor]

As far as I know it was never available in anything bigger than 35mm.

I still have a few bricks of Panatomic-X in 120

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I find it interesting that unless you have an academic interest in the history of picture making and the materials used, the question is somewhat moot.

So many great photographers used a vast array of anything from 35mm cameras to huge banquet cameras, and a ton of different materials. I can't think of any of them making it big because of their material choices.
What remains are the pictures. Glorious pictures. 35mm from Cartier-Bresson enlarged by Sid Kaplan to absolutely stunning print quality. Contact prints from 20x24 negatives to exotic materials by others. What's in common? The pictures speak loudly and resonate with their audiences, they get under the skin of the beholder. Unless you are an individual (usually a photographer) with a very keen interest in the processes of film photography, very few people that appreciate these masterpieces will think of asking what film was used. Or developer. Or lens. Or cable release.

I'm not thinking you shouldn't ask the question, but I really wonder about why you ask. They were masters because they knew HOW to work with those materials, and made what was available to them work. And amazingly well too. The know-how is the cat's meow.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

And now I see your reply to Ralph's question...

 

[MattKing]

I wonder how many of the film choices made by the "masters" were dictated by either economics and/or availability?

I expect a lot!

"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I'm just interested(as many others probably are) about the materials used to create many images that have become iconic of our time.

-Dan

It's kind of like knowing if Keith Emerson used a Minimoog or a Moog Modular for his solo on "Lucky Man"... Sometimes, somehow, it adds to the enjoyment of the art.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Keith Emerson used a Moog Modular.

 

[mike c]

It's kind of like knowing if Keith Emerson used a Minimoog or a Moog Modular for his solo on "Lucky Man"... Sometimes, somehow, it adds to the enjoyment of the art.

Kirk,I thought that machine they used (Emerson,Lake and Palmer) was called a moog synthesizer,great song .woops now that I see the word modulator you are probably right.or modular.

 

[bblhed]

The original photo of Sharbat Gula was taken with Kodachrome 25, using a Nikon FM2 camera and Nikkor 105mm F2.5 lens but when Steve McCurry went back to photograph her again he used G100e to take the photo and claimed that both the films were for him the best available films of the day. Does it really matter? You know that the colors in that photo go right through you, but you have to wonder if it would look as good on any other film. Now that you did a Google search I bet your kind of upset that you didn't know the name of a person that famous. That is a prime example of just knowing how to set up the right shot right then.

 

[df cardwell]

But it IS cool if you can connect the dots...

Paul Strand used Portrait Pan (and D-23) until it was discontinued.
So, look at the curves Kodak published in the 1950s from Kodak,
and you can get an idea what his negatives looked like.

And, if you scratch your head a little bit, and mess around, you can see that TMY and HC-110 will make the same curve.

And so on. So it IS useful to see what masters used, if masters they be, and see that there are ways to make (today) the same negs they used (then) using the materials at hand. Dig a little deeper, and you see they all had to cope with materials evolving, disappearing, and becoming obsolete by either technology or their own vision. Many films were used out of convenience, or convention, and not because they were magic.

Just like today, folks used what they had, or what was commonly used and readily available. The irony is that some materials that were common as dirt, and cheap, have become holy relics with supernatural powers, used today for their special and mysterious properties. What made them "masters' was that they had truly MASTERED their craft and could get the results they needed from a variety of goods. There is no magic to photography except the magic we bring to it.

 

[CBG]

It may be more important to sort out what curve suits you and what you are photographing and the rendering you need.

 

[DanielStone]

by chance,

one of my "idols", I hate calling them that, but I somewhat revere them for their vision, is Peter Lindbergh. His b/w work is tremendous, even though he's down gone to the "dark" side(digi). Anyone know what he used(besides Nikons ) for film choice? Tri-X, hp5?

thanks

-Dan