Which film would Weston Use

[noah977]

Hi,

I'm planning a series of black and white nudes. Shot medium format.

I'm in love, with a lot of the skin tones achieved by Weston.

Here are some examples:
http://www.edward-weston.com/edward_weston_nudes_16.htm

http://www.edward-weston.com/edward_weston_nudes_15.htm


Now clearly, much of this was done in the darkroom with chemistry, brilliant dodging, paper selection etc.

I've generally stuck to Tri-x and Plus-x, but never got that tone I've been looking for.

That said, what would the group suggest for film choices?

 

[Mike1234]

I think that's more a matter of subject lighting and film development as much as anything else. Looks like ortho film to me. Oh... and the model is in fantastic shape which doesn hurt the images!!

 

[noah977]

Interesting. I've never used Ortho film. Might be time for an experiment. Any favorites?

 

[noah977]

To add.... I'm shooting with a 645 camera that takes 120, so I don't think there is an Ortho film that comes in 120...

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

It looks more like a sabatier effect to me.

 

[Mike1234]

I would try some experiments with panchromatic first. If you don't like what you see you can try using a deep blue or cyan filter to emulate ortho. Just keep in mind you'll lose several f/stops with the filter. Here's a thread in which this is discussed... (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Also bear in mind that those were most likely shot with an 8x10 camera, not medium format. Not that you can't approximate that look with 645, but you won't be able to match it exactly. Also, both the film he used and the paper he used for those shots is discontinued. There does seem to be a bit of sabbatier effect in the image, which in this case was done on the film, not to the print. Sabbatier on the print will be much more heavy-handed and harder to control.

 

[Mike1234]

Those examples don't look solarized to me at all... just front lighted with a single small soft box and processed for very high contrast.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think we had a discussion of those images on the LF forum at some point, and as I recall, the conclusion was that they weren't solarized, but what we're seeing is the limb effect with straight front lighting, probably from a window.

I don't know what film he was using in 1927, but even if it was a panchromatic film, it was probably more orthochromatic than modern panchromatic films, so something like Adox 25, which is described as "orthopanchromatic" might get you there. Foma 200 can have that sort of tonality with the right lighting.

 

[Venchka]

Old standby for flesh tones: Tri-X 320. Try Foma 100 & 200 films (rebranded Arista at Freestyle) just because they look different. Same for Efke 25, 50 & 100.

You're gonna need a bigger camera and an older lens. Weston worked in 8x10 and made contact prints. As I recall reading.

 

[John Koehrer]

Similar to what DavidAGoldfarb says it's straight front lighting.
I doubt that it's from a window though it would be softer. I vaguely recall reading he used a single light at the camera position for these.
You may be able to get a similar effect using a ring light. It also like the ambient light was rather subdued.

 

[keithwms]

Now clearly, much of this was done in the darkroom with chemistry, brilliant dodging, paper selection etc.

Actually it's not so "clearly".... Weston was known for very simple procedures and is not likely to have spent much time doing manipulations in the darkroom.

I guess I am a kind of disciple of Weston's (not that I compare myself, not by a long shot!). I don't like to spend a lot of time doing local manipulations and I favour smallish, intimate contact prints. I am also drawn to the kind of classic (= edgy and not nostalgified) tonality you find in Weston's still life subjects. I use Ilford fp4+/hp5+, panatomic x, and other 'traditional' grain films, and I also make ortho dupe negs from colour and b&w slides and sometimes enlarge b&w negs as well just to simplify the printing. But in any case I almost never retouch anything. I usually print on plain-Jane graded matte fiber paper, bleaching sometimes to get brighter highlights. Sometimes I tone lightly. In terms of lighting, I use available light almost all the time but for macro sometimes I use simple, constant tungsten sources. The sources (there are two) are usually placed very simply, often downard with the subject (flowers etc.) facing up. Sometimes I use softboxes with them.

Whether what I get with still life subjects is anywhere near what Weston might like, that you can very fairly doubt! I certainly wouldn't compare my output to his. What can I say, I am a newbie. But in terms of the preferred intuitive simplicity of the overall approach, I think EW would have liked what I try to do. AA would probably say "you could have made it better by doing this and this and this and this...." :roll:

 

[Jim Noel]

the films of Weston's time were slower. During World War II super double X. was probably the most commonly used film. Plus X was available but the emulsion was different from today's plus X. in addition there were films by Ansco, Agfa, DuPont and others. Orthochromatic and panchromatic films were both commonly available.
The best source for information as to the film used by Edward would be books of his life. I have seen a few of the negatives when visiting with Cole in years past but never bothered to take a look at the notch codes in an attempt to determined the filmmaker. Edward developed his film by inspection and printed with a bare bulb on papers no longer available. Papers of that time had no artificial whiteners built in, which resulted in highlights not been blown out so easily. There was a time in his life if he could afford it he would print on platinum paper, which was factory coated.
attempting to reproduce the skin tones of a Weston print takes time and effort and experimentation. The prints I have on my walls would be extremely difficult to copy with today's materials. The closest I get is with a film which has excellent highlight separation and moderate contrast.
so I would say he began by purchasing medium speed film, and experimenting with developers and dilutions to achieve your purpose. Edwards negatives were dense by today's standards, but one has to remember that his prints were all contact prints which tolerate and even require a more dense negative contain information not only in the highlights but also in the shadows.
I know these are not the answers you want. But frankly, I believe everyone should experiment and determine their own best course rather than relying on everyone else to answer for them. intensive study and experimentation never hurt anyone.

 

[archer]

Recently, there was a PBS special on Edward Weston and much of the work with nudes shot indoors, was shot with a Graflex 4X5 SLR from the early twenties. I don't know what film was used but I believe the speed was 10 to 20 ASA. Kim Weston is printing EW's negs currently so you could try to contact him. I'm sure he would know.
Denise Libby

 

[pgomena]

Archer is right on, those two shots were done with a 4x5 Graflex. I remember reading about it somewhere in the past. The model was a dancer. Lighting was simple, direct window light from directly behind the camera.

Peter Gomena

 

[henrysamson]

Similar to what DavidAGoldfarb says it's straight front lighting.
I doubt that it's from a window though it would be softer. I vaguely recall reading he used a single light at the camera position for these.
You may be able to get a similar effect using a ring light. It also like the ambient light was rather subdued.

Yes, I've been told that he had a single light very close to the lens to achieve the "limb effect".

In the book "Edward Weston, Omnibus" (I think I got that title correct) which contains a collection of articles about Weston, Cole states that from the time it came out until he stopped photographing his father used Isopan film. The book is at home so I am not sure of the dates.

Hank

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Similar to what DavidAGoldfarb says it's straight front lighting.
I doubt that it's from a window though it would be softer. I vaguely recall reading he used a single light at the camera position for these.
You may be able to get a similar effect using a ring light. It also like the ambient light was rather subdued.

Actually that sounds right, particularly because of the angle he's shooting at.

I was thinking of some of the later photos of Charis on the dunes where he gets the limb effect and seems to be using just straight on direct sunlight.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "limb effect"?

 

[GraemeMitchell]

Personally, if I was really trying to mimic those shots, I'd play with TXP. Though regular Tri-x could do it to.

I think that format/camera/lens has really little to do with it. To me it's all light and printing. And an eye for the location with right tonal qualities. It looks heavily printed to me, but that's just a guess. I'd be impressed to see a negative that printed straight like that.

I'd try a doorway directly behind camera. Negative fill on the sides of your model. Push the film a stop or two, and then print the hell out of the neg, focusing on burning in the edges of the form.

For a similar lighting effect, but done much much more gently, look at Paolo Roversi's "nudi" work.

 

[noah977]

Wow,

Thanks for all the suggestions. I had no idea such a simple questions would lead to so much information.

I've been away from black and white for a few years, so I'm probably a bit rusty. Going to take some experimentation to figure out the best way to do this...

 

[whlogan]

Ortho 120

Yes, there is ortho film available for 120 size.... check Freestyle...

Logan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've never shot with either ortho or panchromatic film. So something to try. I"ve been away from black and white for a few years, so I'm probably a bit rusty. Going to take some experimentation to figure out the best way to do this...

Most B&W film produced in the last sixty years has been panchromatic, so there's a good chance you've used some.

 

[Allen Friday]

I don't know what lighting Weston used for the referenced photographs. But, it is not terribly difficult to emulate the effect on the skin and background. William Mortensen describes the method in his book on pictorial lighting. (How often do you find Weston and Mortensen mentioned together.)

Here's the basic method: Place your camera on a tripod perpendicular to the background. Place a light in a small reflector and position it directly over the lens parallel to and in line with the lens. The edge of the reflector should be as close to the lens as you can get it. I have done a few shots like this with the edge of the reflector actually touching the lens. Move the light forward and backward along the lens axis to emphasize or minimize the dark edge on the body. You don't have to move the light much, perhaps only a few inches, to vary the effect quite a bit.

 

[noah977]

Clearly, the limb effect is very strong in this image.

What initially drew me to it was the "texture" of the skin. It seems like a ton of local contrast. Often when I'm shooting a model, I just get a fairly basic "average" skin tone.

My initial inquiry was more to the skin tone than the limb effect.

Perhaps either an ortho film or a heavy green filter would achieve this effect?

 

[Mike1234]

Texture is enhanced by using a single point light source and especially so if lit at a hard angle (perpendicular to the suject). Earlier I mentioned he may have used a small soft box at the camera but I realize now, as others have said, it's a point light source.