What film did the masters use?

very true. very true. but its a good thing to have a few masters rather than many. that way we can determine who the "masters" are. I mean, if everyone could paint a Picasso, there wouldn't be a Picasso, or if you could design homes like F.L. Wright, his name wouldn't stand out like it does today. So having a few "masters" helps to keep the "doers", and actual teachers in the spotlight, where they should be. And the "look-alikes" and "copy-cats" just fall by the wayside.

Ansel did a tremendous job of documenting how he worked, and photographed. He saw that there were things that needed to be known by many photographers, and he had a terrific way of expressing that, either via printed matter(his books, texts, or articles) or his video documentaries on television.

I just wish that more of the "masters", in particular, Edward and especially, Brett Weston, had more work to put out there. But then again, maybe they weren't teachers and "helpers" like Ansel was.

-Dan

I read California and the West by Wilson and Weston recently. In the back Edward listed the technical info for the two years he and Charis traveled throughout California photographing under a Guggenheim grant.

He identified the film as "Panchromatic" -- no manufacturer, no speed, nothing else. Charis did mention that at one point Edward's film caught some sort of "infectious skin disease" that was eventually traced back to the factory.

What I get from this is that while the type of film the "Masters" used might be interesting -- it is not all that important when compared to the images.

Vaughn

PS...Edward's Daybooks are an educational read about the man, mind and methods.

RidingWaves said:

When I took a workshop with Salgado 92 or so he said then he used Tri-X and 'some' P3200, Tri-x in Rodinal, not sure what the P3200 in but possibly Rodinal by the look of it. Big Prints, massive things.
The book 'Darkroom' from Lustrum Press, has quite a few photographers with the film, developer and sometimes the dilution and even time. Ralph Gibson's classic look was from Tri-X, in Rodinal, at 1:25, and he tells you right in the book how he exposes and processes it, even the printing details. That book is worth a look if you are interested in that angle.

Click to expand...

Workshop with Salgado - I am so jealous. Thanks for info - I will definitely search for this book .

I don't know or care what film " The Masters " used, because it won't help my photography any more than knowing what brand of boxer shorts B.B. King wears will help my guitar playing

benjiboy said:

I don't know or care what film " The Masters " used, because it won't help my photography any more than knowing what brand of boxer shorts B.B. King wears will help my guitar playing

Click to expand...

See, your problem is you wear underwear at all!

benjiboy said:

I don't know or care what film " The Masters " used, because it won't help my photography any more than knowing what brand of boxer shorts B.B. King wears will help my guitar playing

Click to expand...

But if you do find out, please let me know!


Steve.

benjiboy said:

I don't know or care what film " The Masters " used, because it won't help my photography any more than knowing what brand of boxer shorts B.B. King wears will help my guitar playing

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. We all know what kind of guitar he played, but we need to know what strings and pick he used ... :rolleyes:

>In the 1920s, Edward Weston used a then-new "fast panchromatic" sheet film with an effective speed of about 16,<

Hm. I used to wonder why the old portraits always showed such glum looking faces. First I thought it was because their teeth must have been bad. Then I decided that maybe the exposures were so long that they had to exhibit a face they could "hold" for that long. Is that so? I mean the long exposures (not the teeth).

Oh, and Ralph & Ben, I thought maybe the question was asked just because he's curious about such things like I often am.

Steve Smith said:

But if you do find out, please let me know!


Steve.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have the stomach for the task Steve

Diane Arbus used a lot of Adox and Agfa. The Adox/Efke film of today is supposed to be the same thing. Sadly Agfa is gone. I use both myself for the same reasons she did, before I even heard of her or her work, but I'm not old enough to remember the original Adox. Arbus preferred the tonality and the extra silver. So do I. I also prefer the more conservative approach the European manufacturers take with their films. Kodak uses too much of that flat grain and dye technology which supposdly doesn't do much for photography but helps Kodak's profit margin. Finer grain and greater sharpness (not as much as Kodak's ad copy would make you believe) maybe but overall "blah" tonality and Kodak film takes forever to fix (I test a piece of the film in question for clearing beforehand to figure the final fixing time). Kodak can take up to 5 minutes just to clear in RAPID fix! Traditional films like Fomapan take only 1 minute in rapid fix and 3 minutes in hypo. Must be all that new fangled dye and crap in Kodak film. TMax already has a rep for long fix times because of whatever "modern" emulsion technology they put in. So does the new Tri-X so I don't know what they did to "improve" it. And the new TMax doesn't seem to ever clear in any fixer! Twice as long as the TMax I used 10 years ago. Anyway, Arbus was said to have complained about Kodak film later in her career, about the cutting of the silver content and dull tonality hence her switch to Adox or Agfa which she went to great lengths to procure. Developers included some version of Beutler and Acufine and probably Rodinal. Paper included Agfa in Beers developer and probably Selectol.
The only other photographer I recall with a clear film choice was Arthur Fellig better known as Weegee. Weegee used Kodak Super Panchro Press type B according to his own words.
The recently found negatives from the Spanish Civil War by Capa reveal he used just about every brand and make of the period. Nitrate and safety stock of Kodak Super Sensitive, Agfa SS, Isopan, etc.
Everyone else, history doesn't seem to care to record the brand names most of the masters used. It's probably moot anyway, but I sure am curious!

Cranky today, 37th? I think it's well known that Tri-X is way up there in use by many classic photographers. We can deride various little angles of it all day and night - but it doesn't change the fact that it's a great film. Kodak makes good stuff and I see no reason to totally slam them.

T-Max and Tri-X are totally different beasts .. if you can't get Tri-X to clear in fixer, you're doing something wrong, no offense, but comparing it to T-Max in that respect is just not correct. Now, it may be fair to say you don't like the Tri-X film base, but that's a different story.

I was just re-reading copies of "Contact Theory" and both "Darkroom" books this weekend and so many photographers used Tri-X, some exclusively. Its always been my favorite film, especially for its tonality and grain. There is no "flat grain or dye technology" in Tri-X.

5stringdeath said:

I was just re-reading copies of "Contact Theory" and both "Darkroom" books this weekend and so many photographers used Tri-X, some exclusively. Its always been my favorite film, especially for its tonality and grain. There is no "flat grain or dye technology" in Tri-X.

Click to expand...

I could have sworn there were most definitely dyes used in Tri-X (and plenty of others from every manufacturer) for panchromatic sensitization - NOT grain formation or representation (C-41 style).

Tri-X is so substantial to film photography that people take it for granted these days.

5stringdeath said:

See, your problem is you wear underwear at all!

Click to expand...

So that's why I can't play the guitar , I'm too constricted in the nether regions

I guess I should have mentioned that I do use a lot of Tri-X but I do lean towards films like HP5 and Fomapan 400 because I prefer their "look". Tri-X is a unique film which ensures it continued success. It was in another APUG post that I mentioned Tri-X is my "default" film if only because I've had more experience with it than any other film. As for fixing, I didn't mean I can't get film to clear. Just that some brands take much longer than others. Of all the films in the 400 class I use extensively, Kodak Tri-X and the new Tmax 400 take much longer than supposedly more traditional Kentmere or Foma to clear. I always test my fixer with a piece of the film to be processed before actually starting the processing and I also keep a roll count to determine exhaustion. Never had a problem with over or under fixing. According to the Darkroom Cookbook (3rd edition, Anchell and Troop), Kodak has added some T-grain type technology to its "traditional" films like Tri-X. The authors claim this has ruined the classic Tri-X look. I suppose the flatter grains and dye account for the longer fixing times necessary for Kodak film. I still like Kodak products, but I still like the European film maker's rule of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", just like Arbus's preference for German brands after her experiences with Kodak in her later work.

wclark5179 said:

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..

Click to expand...

Yes, Panatomic-X was available in 120. I still have several bricks in the freezer.

df cardwell said:

There is no magic to photography except the magic we bring to it.

Click to expand...

Now there's a sig line quote.

I don't know what the "masters" used but I think they probably used what was available at the time.
The more important thing is that they used it to the maximum extent and made great images.
Film and cameras don't make great images. The photographer does.

I did some 4x5 Panatomic X in the 60`s Now that is T-Max 100

Across the board, most people liked tri x in the 60`s and 70`s. Acufine was popular.

Ansel used xx or tri x later.

thisismyname09 said:

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

Click to expand...

I would be hesitent to assune that the aerial film is the same emulsion as 135 or 120 size Plus-X. Certainly the motion picture Eastman Plus-X was different.

Gerald C Koch said:

I would be hesitent to assune that the aerial film is the same emulsion as 135 or 120 size Plus-X. Certainly the motion picture Eastman Plus-X was different.

Click to expand...

Not different enough to matter. Undetectable to the eye in use.

clayne said:

Not different enough to matter. Undetectable to the eye in use.

Click to expand...

Aerial film is designed to be developed in a contrasty developer because of atmospheric haze. It is not the same as regular Plus-X and may not always respond as Plus-X. The spectral response may be different since haze selectively filters out the shorter wavelengths. Just a word of caution.