What film did the masters use?

[sun of sand]

Isopan was a very popular film
I see it used probably more than any other
surely tri-x is right there

 

[clayne]

There's a reason Tri-X is repeatedly referred to as "classic."

 

[Wade D]

There's a reason Tri-X is repeatedly referred to as "classic."

Indeed Tri-X is a classic. Even though. I think that what makes a master is the ability to use whats available and get to know it well enough to get the results you desire. Of course a creative mind and the right environment helps a lot as well. I know this doesn't answer the original question but it does perhaps shed light on why they used the materials at hand.

 

[Ian Grant]

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..

Pan-X was available in all sheet film sizes up to 12"x10" at one time, and in film packs, in addition in 127, 117, 120, 620,116, 616, 118 and 122 roll film sizes, and as 135, 635, 235 and 828 miniature film.

Ian

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

@ Dan: Lindbergh used PlusX a lot, I think.

 

[Steve Smith]

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?

Of course not. Everyone knows that you have to have the same camera as well!


Steve.

 

[olleorama]

Of course not. Everyone knows that you have to have the same camera as well!


Steve.

Oh, I thought it would suffice with the same light meter. Hmph, back to the 'bay then.

 

[haziz]

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?

But of course! If I use the same materials as Ansel Adams or Edward Weston then I am guaranteed to get the same vision and results!

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[railwayman3]

I've had an even better idea....all I need to find out is what make of paints and brushes were used by Picasso, then I can take up art and make my fortune.....

 

[Terrence Brennan]

120 Panatomic-X film

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.

I used to use Panatomic-X 120 film, in my trusty old Minolta Autocord, in the mid-1970's. Nice sharp film, but pretty much a "tripod only" proposition, especially with a K2 or A filter, and a pull one stop exposure rating. Those parameters would give you effective ISO speeds (then known as ASA speeds) of 8 or 2, respectively.

I also used it in my 35mm camera, with a K2 filter, and a 2x teleconvereter. Without push or pull dvelopment, the effective ISO speed would be about ISO 4. It was my practice, in my salad days, to simply stack the K2 filter on top of the Skylight filter I had on the lens. No wonder my negs from those days are a bit soft! Nice sharp, small grain, though.

Pity, though, all of those nice old films are gone. AFAIR, Panatomic-X died because not enough was being sold. The medium speed films then available, such as Plus-X and FP4 seemed to fill the bill as far as the pro market was concerned. After Kodak killed Panatomic-X (was it 1973 or 1974?), Ilford introduced Pan-F in 120 size. Kodak brought back Panatomic-X as Panatomic-X Professional, but the writing was clearly on the wall.

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

Ditto to that. I recall reading in one of the "Darkroom" series of books, Number 2 AFAIR, that Brett Weston said that his father loved the old Isopan film, and that development in Pyro cut its speed from 25 to 12.

 

[hugopoon]

Read somewhere that HCB used Pan-X (which he called Pin-X) until Tri-X was introduced; I think he only used Tri-X after that. Can't remember where I read it. I also read that he made really dense negatives & didn't use the rangefinder patch (scale focused everything.) I think there're some photos floating around that show tape over his RF window, leaving only the framelines visible.

He punched a hole in the centre of his lens cap and put a string through it — that string went on his left hand and he palmed the cap when he was shooting (so one of the photogs I admire most uses a lens cap…)

Also read somewhere that he painted any part of his camera that wasn't black black to avoid reflections. Made a lot of photos with a 50mm.

 

[viridari]

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?

I shot a roll of Panatomic-X in 120 last year that had expired back in (IIRC) 1989 but had been frozen since new. So yes, include 120 in your list.

 

[DWThomas]

My 3rd Edition (1965) Kodak B&W Master Darkroom Dataguide shows Panatomic-X ASA 40 available in roll films, and 35 mm, but also a Panatomic-X ASA 64 in sheet film. The speed difference and the nebulous "Image Structure Characteristics" appear to suggest the sheet film was a slightly different emulsion.

 

[Brandon D.]

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

Hey, he's my idol, and I'm not afraid to it admit it, .

I have a few of his books. And, looking at his contact sheets, it appears that he mainly used Plus-X and sometimes Tri-X. For color, he shot 160VC. He shot lots of polaroids for tests, and it appears that he did quite a bit of dodging and burning in some of his work. Regardless, I'm still an Ilford guy, though, .

Get one of his books, if you will. You can preview them at www.peterlindbergh.com

 

[darkosaric]

When I saw Sebastiao Salgado work for the first time - I searched long on net about his technique: as I understand TriX and Rodinal is what he use.

 

[nworth]

Among sheet film users, Ansco Isopan 50 was popular, as were Kodak Super-XX, Panatomic-X, and Super Panchro Press Type B. Later, Kodak Royal Pan developed a pretty fair following, especially among studio photographers, and a new and much improved version of Tri-X became available. For roll film, 120 was the pro size, although most pros used sheet film. Popular roll films included Ansco Supreme and Kodak Plus-X. 35mm only started to develop a big following after about 1950, and very few pros used it. There were some outstanding exceptions, however. Kodak Plus-X and Panatomic-X were popular. Later, the improved Tri-X became available in roll and 35mm sizes and gained instant popularity. We didn't hear much about non-US film or photographers 50 years ago, but firms like Agfa, Ilford, Gevaert, and others were making excellent films in Europe, and Japan also had thriving film producers.

 

[white.elephant]

. . . I have also enjoyed using FG7 over the years.

I use quite a lot of FG7 myself and really like it.

 

[flatulent1]

Daniel,
Since you ask, I use Delta 100 and ID-11.

 

[removed account4]

hurell's film was expired from what i understand ...

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

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.

 

[Anscojohn]

Isopan was a very popular film
I see it used probably more than any other
surely tri-x is right there

Tri-X after 1954.

 

[5stringdeath]

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.

You just reminded me of another great book "Contact Theory" by Lustrum ... wish I could find a copy .... awesome book on editing.

 

[df cardwell]

Daniel's original post is asking a really good question.

Make's me wonder out loud: So, where do we learn stuff ?

Obviously, in web forums and blogs. But say we are disadvantaged and didn't have a computer and DSL or Cable ?
Or even then, what if everything we read in Forums isn't very useful or accurate ?

Probably have go work for somebody for a few years. Have to be a first rate film shooter, though. That's tough, these days.
Or, you could go work in a first rate B&W lab, and when you worked your way up until you were printing the A list, you'd be able to learn a lot.
Also tough.

Well, you could learn out of a book if you could promise that you'd try to understand what the author was actually saying instead of using the text to confirm your own opinions.

It's not the same world as it was when I was a kid and could cut the grass for a retired shooter who taught me stuff in exchange.

Thing is, until we've got some experience under our belts, we don't have anything to help us judge whether we're getting straight stuff or B.S.

Adams did a great service by documenting his work, and explaining how he did things. We err when we look to it as a recipe instead of a workflow,
but reliable Primary Sources are hard to come by and his Examples are as close as we are likely to get to an objective and experienced teacher.

For that, you could go study with Benson, or Dow, or some other vastly accomplished photographer & teacher (who doesn't advertise on the internet). Or go apprentice yourself to Carnie or Schwab.

Or, you can look at the Kodak published data as the raw data of an MFA degree and set yourself down to understand it and apply it. Pick up a book by Zakia, and you are set.

The Truth IS out there, and it was put there for a reason.

.

 

[doughowk]

Where do we learn: hopefully from a Master. For the craft part - apprenticeship, or at least workshops. In lieu of both, interviews or articles by Masters can broaden your technical as well as visual skills. Several books do a good job of this (hope you don't mind a list):
"Darkroom" ed Eleanor Lewis
"Darkroom2" ed Jain Kelley
"Contact:Theory" Lustrom Press
"Landscape"Theory" Lustrom Press
"Interviews with Master Photographers" Danziger & Conrad
"Master Photographers" ed Pat booth
"Photo-Wisdom" ed Lewis Blackwell

 

[df cardwell]

... In lieu of both, interviews or articles by Masters can broaden your technical as well as visual skills....

Here is where it becomes thorny. SO much of what has been published, and well promoted, over the past hundred years is plain rubbish. Some texts have great track records in that they have been used by many good teachers for years (Vestal, Horenstein). Others sell a lot of copies. Everybody wants to be perceived an expert and sell lots of books,
and sadly, the first thing that should make you suspicious is that THEY'VE WRITTEN A BOOK ! (I swear, the week Ansel died, half a dozen "experts" stepped out of the background to fill the column inches he occupied in print.)

Folks like Ansel (and Phil Davis, and Fred Picker) are few and far between. And there are damned few Masters.

.