What film? How to achieve rich grey tones?

removed account4 · May 3, 2009

c6h6o3 said:
According to Fred DeVan's article on Harvey's developer at the Unblinkingeye site:

"Cartier-Bresson was a staunch enthusiast and heavy user of 777, and I think was largely responsible for its adoption by Magnum's lab in Paris."

That's at least one thing that's still around that he used. I've found that it gives me glowing midtones like no other developer. However, you're going to have to develop and print your own film. You'll never get what you really want until you do.

you can still get 777 through
bluegrass packaging ...

Mark Fisher · May 3, 2009

I'm going to go against the grain here.....
If you are using someone else to do your printing, you should stick to something well known where you are located....that means chromogenic films most places. If you are in the US, that could also mean Tri-x if you go to the right place. Going with "exotic" films like Foma or Fuji in the US would mean you are likely to get under or overdeveloped film unless you went to a pro lab. I'd stick to what the lab has experience with.

The right answer is to find a way to at least develop film yourself (easy, cheap) and then print yourself. The quality of the print has a lot more to do with the printing and the paper choice than the film choice in my experience. I had a converted closet with no water (no big deal) and a self installed exhaust fan. It was cramped, but it worked!

Also, if you haven't already, look at a number of other photographers and how they chose to print. You will learn a lot by just doing that. HCB is one of the most famous, but not the only great photographer out there!

c6h6o3 · May 3, 2009

Mark Fisher said:
HCB is one of the most famous, but not the only great photographer out there!

Also, most of the prints of his pictures I've seen are technically just awful. He was, after all, a photojournalist and photographed for the purposes of magazine and book publication.

You can do much better at making beautiful prints, especially if you use a larger camera than he did.

Anscojohn · May 3, 2009

[ made no mention of film used, but being that it was in the 40's and 50's, wouldn't pan-x or tri-x have been the stock of the time? not sure about where ilford stood at that timepoint,
******
Eastman Kodak Super XX, I would assume. Until Tri-X became availabe in 35mm in 1954.
********

BTW, EYE could take pictues as gooder as hi'n: someone give me a Leica; take me to Paris to live; give me young, willing assistants (preferably of the lithsome female variety) allow me to sit in a cafe until the spirit moved me. Get me into Magnum. Please hold off all offers until the end of baseball season and I be reaadddy to goooooooH!

denmark.yuzon · May 4, 2009

thank you guys for all the input.. the bottom line is, i should develop my own, and experiment to get what i want to achieve.. i guess relying on some crappy lab to process and print my films is not the way to go.. i just find it more convenient, since time and money are both limited on my part, thats why i asked.. thanks you guys!

RobertV · May 4, 2009

You can do much better at making beautiful prints, especially if you use a larger camera than he did.

Because he used a Leica-M he was able to make that photo which not a lot of other people were able to do.

since time and money are both limited on my part,

When DIY the money about the materials are just a minor factor but indeed time is running out quickly.

2F/2F · May 4, 2009

RobertV said:
Because he used a Leica-M he was able to make that photo which not a lot of other people were able to do.

Yes; 35mm did give him, and lots of others a great tool for shooting things in a new way, and this is what made his pictures far more than the types of film he used. However, let's not forget that perhaps his most classic photos were made prior to the M system's introduction in the mid '50s. Therefore, if he was using a Leica, it was a Barnack model.

RobertV · May 4, 2009

M system's introduction in the mid '50s.

I keep it on the M's introduced in the '00s.

The question is which advantages has such (35mm R.F.) a camera against actual modern technology?

Andy K · May 4, 2009

RobertV said:
Because he used a Leica-M he was able to make that photo which not a lot of other people were able to do.

When DIY the money about the materials are just a minor factor but indeed time is running out quickly.

Nonsense. A camera is just a light tight box with a lens on the front. Whose name is stamped on it makes no difference. And to be honest, if we're talking photograph quality, then HCB is hardly a great advert for Leica.

RobertV · May 4, 2009

Nonsense.

Even more back to the basics: A pinhole camera then.

A Leica-M allows you to take photos close to the border of 35mm photography. 1/12S - 1/15S shutter release times. Working at apertures wide open with high quality.
It's a quiet shutter release, hardly noticeable. Lenses up from 0,95. I think the optics is Leica's best point.
My experience is that you have only two kind of persons:
You like a Leica-M or
You do not like it at all.............. (and then mostly not a RF camera at all.)

Andy K · May 4, 2009

You're right, there are two kinds of persons:

Those who make photographs,

... and those who think the name on the camera makes the photograph.

RobertV · May 4, 2009

You're right there are two kinds of persons

I hope you have ever worked with a RF camera. Otherwise jumping into this discussion is meaningless so otherwise:

Keep calm and carry on. :rolleyes:

Andy K · May 4, 2009

Since 1975 I use Zorki, Voigtlander (German), Voigtlander (Japanese), Canon. Also Bronica, Nikon and Olympus. For street shooting the easiest to use is the Nikon. The quietest, and least conspicuous, is the German Voigtlander. It is quieter than a Leica and you do not have to raise it to eye level to meter the scene.

If SLR cameras had been in widespread use at the time, I think Bresson would have used one. How a camera is focused has zero bearing on the photographs produced. Plus Bresson rarely used the viewfinder, so RF or SLR, makes no difference.

Rolleijoe · May 4, 2009

denmark.yuzon said:
I've been looking at HCB's pics.. been wondering what film he used.. anyway, ive been using Fujifilm Neopan 400 as my main film.. but, i find it too "modern" if thats the correct term.. im looking for a film that is readily available and at the same time, has that "HCB" look and feel to it.. something that has old emulsions that will give me rich grey tones rather than contrasty black and whites... hope you guys could help out..

one more thing.. i send my films to a local lab.. since i dont have the gears, technical know how of processing my own black and whites.. can a C-41 black and white film be as good as the traditional process black and white films?

In simple terms, No, C-41 can't match the look of silver-rich traditional b&w films, as they use dyes to make the image. Copying a look can take years to learn. You can use the same camera, film, chemistry, paper, and still have a different look.

Buy a book, take a class, etc. Because just dropping in film and sending it out for processing isn't going to get you anywhere fast. You need to LEARN what makes the film/camera/chemie look the way it does, and the technicalities of how changing even exposure by 2 stops can give a different look.

You've asked a much too complicated question here, than I believe could be simply answered thru this forum.

keithwms · May 4, 2009

fp4+, hp5+, tri-x, foma...

And I do wish people would stop attempting to make every thread about their own little niche of knowledge and opinion, frankly that's why I gave up on RFF entirely: the bullshit to fact ratio was excessive.

This was a very simple question about tonality. Give the O.P. some suggestions and let him/her experiment.... that there isn't a 'formula' for HCB's success is completely obvious and doesn't need to be restated every time somebody mentions his name.

Andy K · May 4, 2009

keithwms said:
fp4+, hp5+, tri-x, foma...

This was a very simple question about tonality. Give the O.P. some suggestions and let him/her experiment.... that there isn't a 'formula' for HCB's success is completely obvious and doesn't need to be restated every time somebody mentions his name.

Precisely.

keithwms said:
fp4+, hp5+, tri-x, foma...

And I do wish people would stop attempting to make every thread about their own little niche of knowledge and opinion, frankly that's why I gave up on RFF entirely: the bullshit to fact ratio was excessive.

Ditto.

removed account4 · May 4, 2009

Andy K said:
You're right, there are two kinds of persons:

Those who make photographs,

... and those who think the name on the camera makes the photograph.

you said it!

j-fr · May 4, 2009

No surprise, just some simple information...

I have in my modest collection of photographs four of HCB's original contact prints from 1965 (Ahmedabad, India). The film is Kodak Tri-X.

j-fr

www.j-fr.dk

Chazzy · May 4, 2009

j-fr said:
I have in my modest collection of photographs four of HCB's original contact prints from 1965 (Ahmedabad, India). The film is Kodak Tri-X.

j-fr

www.j-fr.dk

Contact prints in what format?

j-fr · May 5, 2009

HCB contact prints

Chazzy said:
Contact prints in what format?

The film is 35 mm, the print is 24 x 30 cm, one film on each print.

j-fr

www.j-fr.dk

wogster · May 5, 2009

keithwms said:
fp4+, hp5+, tri-x, foma...

And I do wish people would stop attempting to make every thread about their own little niche of knowledge and opinion, frankly that's why I gave up on RFF entirely: the bullshit to fact ratio was excessive.

This was a very simple question about tonality. Give the O.P. some suggestions and let him/her experiment.... that there isn't a 'formula' for HCB's success is completely obvious and doesn't need to be restated every time somebody mentions his name.

Personally, I think trying to copy the look of someone elses work exactly, removes the art factor from the work, it can also be well nigh impossible to do. People have been trying to "copy" the Antonio Stradiveri violin since at least 1737 and nobody has been successful yet. Even though they know what materials were used and to a large degree how.

The photographer is best to determine his or her own "look". To pull this into perspective, if the OP thinks that contrast is too high, then he/she should try a softer working developer and/or print on a softer grade of paper. The tricky part in this, is that it's easy to go too soft and end up with mud. One also needs to realise that only an original print from the photographer will give a true representation of their work, a copy from someone else or a publication (magazine, book or digital) print will not. A print of an HCB image can be tough to verify now, since he quit photography more then 30 years ago.

John Bragg · May 5, 2009

Neopan 400 can easily produce a classical old style look in Rodinal as RobertV says.I use it with Rodinal at Ei200 and it has a feel of the original Tri-X.

clayne · May 8, 2009

How did this thread turn into a combined HCB, Tri-X, look at my stuff thread?

I've noticed the newer TMY400 has similar tonal elements to APX, albeit typical higher contrast of T-max - but maybe that's just me.

MFP · Jun 2, 2009

tri-x 400 in hc-110 for about 7.5 to 10 mins, give similar results of alot of his work.
However, remember that because he metered for the area in which he was shooting, adjusting exposure every few minutes, and using the "hyper focal technique" for focusing (that is, not really focusing at all but stopping down to f/8-11 and adjusting focus the focus ring so that the distance of most subjects would be in focus, and then leaving it there) when he was shooting, his friends who would print his work did a lot of dodging and burning, and that does add to the look and feel of many of his pictures.
The goal of HCB's methods were to think very very very little about photography thus freeing your brain to impatiently wait for composition to line up perfectly. Additionally, if you keep the same style throughout all of your work, particularly a tri-x based one, composition becomes the only really important element to your work; and copying HCB's film/developer- achieved style will not give other photographers the impression that you are just copying HCB, because not only do so many photographers use similar film/dev combos, but many of HCB's highly respected Magnum comrades share the use of "his"(even though it was his friends who always developed and printed his work) film/dev combo.

Harry Lime · Jun 2, 2009

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread the biggest problem is that most of the materials HCB used are no longer in production.

You could try Kodak Super XX b/w movie film. After Tri-X and Plus-X it may be the oldest emulsion Kodak still makes. I think it dates back to the early or mid fourties.

The classic ADOX films (25,50,100asa) are probably the oldest films in production.

HCB used Tri-X from the time it came out (1954/55?), so that's a good option.

There are several stories that he prefered 777 for development, although after looking at some of his prints I do not see that tell tale glow that 777 tends to impart... I read elsewhere that his negs were developed by inspection, because occasionally his exposure was off by a mile. In any case I would put my money on a divided developer like Stoekler 2-bath or a modern variation of it like Barry Thornton's 2-bath. I would not be surprised if some of this pre-war work was developed in Rodinal, as it was as close to a standard back then as D76 is today.

One thing I was struck by when I was at an exhibit was how fine grained his early work was. That leads me to believe he was using a very soft working solvent developer.

HCB started out with a Elmar 3.5/50. Some of his shots made shortly before the war look like they may have been shot with a Summar 2/50, but not many. Some time in the 40's he got hold of a Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50 in LTM mount that he apparently used until the arrival of the Summicron 2/50 collapsible in 1954. He shot this Summicron until he departed for the big studio in the sky a few years ago. There are a few pictures with him shooting with a Summicron Rigid 2/50. A few of his very late shots are extremely sharp and I wonder if he was playing around with a modern incarnation of the Summicron. But if you are after the HCB look the collapsible Summicron 2/50 is the ticket.

HCB's printer was instructed to print with a very long and fairly low contrast tonal scale.

having enough talent for two people also comes in handy...
;-)

What film? How to achieve rich grey tones?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency