Why don't photographers include photo details in books?

[Chris Lange]

If you are honestly serious that you can't tell the difference between Neopan 400 vs Tri-X or Neopan400 vs HP5+... Then I feel sorry for you, because I sure can... VERY different looks.

That said, I totally get your comments that your professor made about shooting the lens, that totally makes sense and so I will take that under advisement to be wary of what I'm really doing

Alright, here are 4 different 400 speed films: Kentmere 400, HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan, which is which? I look at these photographs I cannot honestly say that any of them contains a look specific to the emulsion they were shot on. Also, as someone who has admitted to never printing a single frame in their life, I don't think you are qualified to make that judgment. Listen to the way people describe their favorite films, "alabaster highlights, charcoal black shadows, sandpapery grain, etc..." it's all fucking bullshit. If you can see the difference between films of the same speed and grain type, then one negative was not printed or processed as well as the other. It's easy to convince yourself that you are seeing the so-called "special" aspects of a film when in reality you're just patting yourself on the back...

oh, three of these are with an M2/ 50 summicron combo, and one is with a Nikon F3/T and a 35/1.4...

 

[removed account4]

your post made my day chris, thanks

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm not sure if this is in the right section, mods, please move this if it's not.

I'm constantly surprised and frustrated when I'm looking through a book of photographs by a famous photographer, and almost never is there any indication of what film it is or what developer was used.

I don't expect to see all the details Aperture, shutter, light measurements, etc., but I at least expect to see what type of film it is and what developer was used to develop it if it's black-and-white.

It's always sort of bothered me but never really came as a question until I happen to pick up Annie Leibowitz book "A Photographers Life". i've seen the book a few times before on the shelves, but with that he used bookstore and was able to pick it up at a reasonable price. The front cover has a bunch of different pieces of film on it all taken on Kodak TXP 6049 presumably taken on a Hassleblad considering it's medium format film in 6x6 format. (Or possibly Mamiya RB/RZ67 with 6x6 back? I only say that because later on in the book I found some Polaroid test shots that appeared to be with the 6 x 6 back that has the edgings that look like the Mamiya and not the Hassleblad but I don't have any kind of research to tell me what Annie's preference in cameras were over time when she wished shooting in studio, I know that her 35mm work was with a specific camera, but I don't know about her studio me and format stuff).

So now I know that Annie at some point really like shooting with Tri-X Pan Professional. But only for those photographs, the rest of them though a lot of them seem to show the edgings of the film rather than them be cut out perfectly, but don't show the full edge markings so I can't tell what they are. Especially since many of the photographs in this particular book our large full-page images, not those crappy little tiny ones in some photo books which as an aside those really bother me, someone publishes a very large book, charges a lot of money for it, and then you open it up and there's tiny little squares inside a giant white page, but that's just personal preference for me.

Anyway many of the photographs show very beautiful green and especially this early work of hers that she showing, and I wonder what type of film it is some of it a shot in very low light situations but seemingly have a wide DOF so I'm wondering if it was pushed, or if it was some kind of fast exposure film like Royal X Pan or something else. But I have no way of finding out it's very frustrating.

I suppose since I'm confused about cameras it would also be nice to know what kind of camera they shot with as well as the film, not that it really matters but at least it would kind of gives some insight into the kinds of shooter they are something that I think people might be interested in.

Does anyone know why this is such a failure in photographic books to not include something as simple as the type of film it is?

hi Stone
I'm guilty of the same thing.there are two reasons I can think of
1. they did not record and don't remember that info
2. They are trying to tell you that this info is irrelevantEquipment and materials don't make a picture. the photographer does. anyway don't copy. find your own style
all the best.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

John is right. people love to chase magic bullets,and the reason is simple. as soon as they can claim that they didn't have the exact same materials and equipment it explains to them why their images aren't as perfect as the master they were trying to imitate.of course this is nonsense, but it has kept resellers in business for decades.the truth is much harsher. today's equipment and materials are better than they have ever been in photographic history. we have no excuse;we need to try harder.BTW,john did it; his images are unique and beautiful while having his very own style. I bet, he could tell us his current equipment and material choices and, we still could not duplicate his style ; I know, I could n't; sowhat's different?only the man behibd the camera; that's where the magic is; not in the camera bag. as they say:The magic is in the wizard not in the wand.
all the best keep working at it. success will eventually come, and then people will ask you what camera and film you are using. the best feature of your camera are the 6 inches behind the viewfinder.

 

[cliveh]

The magic is in the wizard not in the wand.

How true and what a wonderful quote.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Alright, here are 4 different 400 speed films: Kentmere 400, HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan, which is which? I look at these photographs I cannot honestly say that any of them contains a look specific to the emulsion they were shot on. Also, as someone who has admitted to never printing a single frame in their life, I don't think you are qualified to make that judgment. Listen to the way people describe their favorite films, "alabaster highlights, charcoal black shadows, sandpapery grain, etc..." it's all fucking bullshit. If you can see the difference between films of the same speed and grain type, then one negative was not printed or processed as well as the other. It's easy to convince yourself that you are seeing the so-called "special" aspects of a film when in reality you're just patting yourself on the back...

Well said, Chris.

The only other explanation of course is Stone's self proclaimed genius. I've read that claim of his several times, as someone else mentioned. If you say it often enough then it must certainly be true. How else could you have so little knowledge of the silver process while also having so much knowledge of the silver process.

 

[bdial]

Here is my "no magic bullet" example, borrowed from the gallery.
Same film, camera, lens, subject and exposed a few seconds apart, printed on the same paper, though with 1/2 grade difference in filtration. If you look at the prints there are differences, but they are really, really subtle, and the only way I know the difference is that I wrote on the back of each print what neg it was from.

 

[Dinesh]

The only other explanation of course is Stone's self proclaimed genius.

If this is the zenith, what do you suppose the rest of the class was like?

 

[eddie]

I think questioning Stone's intelligence is crossing a line.

Stone- I'd like to think the advice you get here is a sincere attempt, on the part of the posters, to help you become a better photographer. You've only been doing this for a few years, and still have a long way to go. Still, it seems every time those with more experience point out where you're wrong, you reject it. It would be in your best interest to start paying attention, especially when it comes to the specific characteristics you attribute to different films. I know I've been doing this for over 40 years. I think John has been doing it about the same. Chris could probably identify the smell of stopbath before he learned to read. Shawn and Thomas, while younger, busted their asses learning to control their materials (and have the images to show for it). I know that, "he wrote the book" is usually an exaggeration, but Ralph really did write the friggin' book! If you really want to be a photographer, you should listen to these people. Step back... simplify your materials... print, print, print.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think questioning Stone's intelligence is crossing a line.

Stone- I'd like to think the advice you get here is a sincere attempt, on the part of the posters, to help you become a better photographer.

I agree, Eddie. This is no place for insults.

We are trying to help, but at the same time it's like talking to a brick wall trying to actually get a point across.
Stone, if you really want our advice, you should open your mind to embracing the responses you receive, from people who generously donate their time and share their (many times) life long experience, in efforts to help you.
If and when you ask the rest of us a favor to try to help you, it would help if you at least try to fully comprehend what we are replying.

If you want to play with film and that's fun to you, then please separate those efforts from efforts in trying to understand what is actually going on. The two don't mix well.
I can tell you that my first thousand rolls of film were my worst ones in terms of actually understanding what the hell I was doing. It takes a long time to learn instinctively how our materials work, and expect to be at it with some discipline for a long time before the epiphanies start to happen.

My mentor told me once that if you really want to learn film, then buy long bulk rolls of Tri-X and lots of D76, lock yourself in a darkroom and print print print. Only come out to expose more film, and do over again and again, until you have pictures you like.
No free rides, all hard work. And don't make things complicated by believing another film is somehow going to make things better.

That's paraphrased advice I received from a person who studied with the masters, relaying hundreds of years of combined knowledge down to that piece of advice. Time of receiving advice? Right in the midst of making a total mess of mixing films and developers, while wondering what was going wrong. Sound familiar?

I am a student, learning something new every time I go in the darkroom. The most important lesson I've learned to date is that it sucks donkey balls to print inconsistent negs.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I think questioning Stone's intelligence is crossing a line.

Stone- I'd like to think the advice you get here is a sincere attempt, on the part of the posters, to help you become a better photographer.

I agree, Eddie. This is no place for insults.

We are trying to help, but at the same time it's like talking to a brick wall trying to actually get a point across.
Stone, if you really want our advice, you should open your mind to embracing the responses you receive, from people who generously donate their time and share their (many times) life long experience, in efforts to help you.
If and when you ask the rest of us a favor to try to help you, it would help if you at least try to fully comprehend what we are replying.

What I said was tongue in cheek and given the consistent nature of Stone's posts along with the playful nature of many of them I don't believe any sort of line was crossed. (He has, in point of fact, mentioned his genius several times lately...)

Other than that I agree completely with both Eddie and Thomas, as usual.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I am a student, learning something new every time I go in the darkroom. The most important lesson I've learned to date is that it sucks donkey balls to print inconsistent negs.

Now THAT is genius.

 

[lxdude]

The most important lesson I've learned to date is that it sucks donkey balls to print inconsistent negs.

You should add that to your sig line.

 

[eddie]

What I said was tongue in cheek...

I know. My comment wasn't aimed at you. Just trying to keep the thread from devolving into personal attacks.
That being said, I'd be happy to participate in an intervention, where we all lock Stone in a basement with one film and one developer, and make him write, "THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET" one thousand times.

 

[Dinesh]

You don't get to continually post that you are a genius and expect to come out unscathed.

The OP continually asks for advice and then refuses to accept that there may be validity in any or all of the answers that he receives. In a perfect world, I would ignore these threads and move on, but there is too much valuable information in the replies.

I am more likely closer to imbecile than genius, but even I know that I don't know much.

 

[MattKing]

If you are honestly serious that you can't tell the difference between Neopan 400 vs Tri-X or Neopan400 vs HP5+... Then I feel sorry for you, because I sure can... VERY different looks.

It would be fun to see how many regular posters here could fairly effortlessly screw up Stone by adjusting their procedures with Neopan 400, Tri-X and HP5+ to make it impossible to tell which is which.

I bet a there wold be a lot who could.

Other than spectral response, within films of similar speed and construction (traditional vs. T-Max type) there really isn't anything that differentiates most films in a way that prevents a user from making one appear like another.

 

[StoneNYC]

Alright, here are 4 different 400 speed films: Kentmere 400, HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan, which is which? I look at these photographs I cannot honestly say that any of them contains a look specific to the emulsion they were shot on. Also, as someone who has admitted to never printing a single frame in their life, I don't think you are qualified to make that judgment. Listen to the way people describe their favorite films, "alabaster highlights, charcoal black shadows, sandpapery grain, etc..." it's all fucking bullshit. If you can see the difference between films of the same speed and grain type, then one negative was not printed or processed as well as the other. It's easy to convince yourself that you are seeing the so-called "special" aspects of a film when in reality you're just patting yourself on the back...

oh, three of these are with an M2/ 50 summicron combo, and one is with a Nikon F3/T and a 35/1.4...

One of the 4 isn't loading on my phone... I'll look on the computer when I get home but the second one (stairwell) looks like HP5+ at first glance.

I'll give my official answer when I can get a better look.

 

[kintatsu]

...expect to be at it with some discipline for a long time before the epiphanies start to happen...

I am a student, learning something new every time I go in the darkroom. The most important lesson I've learned to date is that it sucks donkey balls to print inconsistent negs.

Well said! When we stop being students or learning, it's time to throw in the towel! I have a long way to go, but everything is coming in steps. That helps, too. Learning first to be consistent, then working from there makes it easier!

 

[removed account4]

It would be fun to see how many regular posters here could fairly effortlessly screw up Stone by adjusting their procedures with Neopan 400, Tri-X and HP5+ to make it impossible to tell which is which.

I bet a there wold be a lot who could.

Other than spectral response, within films of similar speed and construction (traditional vs. T-Max type) there really isn't anything that differentiates most films in a way that prevents a user from making one appear like another.

great idea for a game-thread !
"the stump thread"

too easy to stump everyone though, i would guess most people would get most their attempts wrong.

 

[markbarendt]

The most important lesson I've learned to date is that it sucks donkey balls to print inconsistent negs.

Now THAT is genius.

You should add that to your sig line.

Hell, that should be APUG's sig line.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

One of the 4 isn't loading on my phone... I'll look on the computer when I get home but the second one (stairwell) looks like HP5+ at first glance.

I'll give my official answer when I can get a better look.

So what's the verdict, Stone?! :munch:

 

[StoneNYC]

So what's the verdict, Stone?! :munch:

Haha, I wasn't able to get to my computer this weekend I just had a lot of catch up work, I'll try and look on my iPad later or perhaps I can do it Wednesday night when I come back from Boston for the holiday.

I'm curious to find out if I'm right. Kentmere is the wildcard as I've never shot on it before.

I'll certainly get to it as I said I'm curious myself

 

[Chris Lange]

The irony is that no matter what your answers are, even if they are correct, I could just as easily post another 4 images from the same films that exhibit characteristics opposite of those I previously uploaded.

 

[DannL.]

I looked at the four images on my monitor and they all look exactly like digital images displayed on a LG Flatron monitor. And now that I think about it, all the images from the APUG Gallery also look exactly like digital images displayed on a LG Flatron monitor. That's interesting (not). Aside from the obvious differences, displaying digital representations of traditional work on a computer monitor is misleading at best. And as Chris has alluded to, he could have posted four digital images from a digital point-n-shoot.

Would I publish information about the equipment used in a book/publication? It depends on the purpose of the image in the book.

 

[NB23]

I'm amazed at the responses in this thread. If such an extra wiiiiide variety of different results can be had with a single film-developer combo, then what's the point in a film forum at all?

I'm sorry but it's all bullcrapola: consistency and repeatability is the name of the game. If your results are different, even slightly, it's probably time to get serious. The whole point of concistency is to be able to control the only thing you can control.

To the OP: I too would love to know the details of each photograph in a book.
It would be really helpful and it would make me really happy trying to analyze them with those infos in mind.