Why don't photographers include photo details in books?

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

Hope you are feeling better soon.

Shoot as many films as you like. If you enjoy that, then you should.

It will benefit you in different ways though if you concentrate on fewer films, and work carefully and closely with your lab on how to get the most of your materials.

Annie Leibovitz probably did print her early Rolling Stone work. If not, they were probably printed with her involvement. And the magazine's process then most likely was based on what were essentially photographs taken of the prints that were made conventionally by her or with her involvement.

Or if she shot slide material, the slides themselves were essentially photographed.

In most cases, in a blind test, it is just about impossible to identify categorically what film was used in a particular situation if there is an intermediary that is either digital in nature or if a photograph has been reproduced for publication. The intermediate steps add their own characteristics and get in the way.

Well, I can almost always spot a kodachrome

Don't worry I'm thinning out my favorites... Slowly...

 

[eddie]

Nice burn! haha

Thankfully I don't think ALL of my images in my gallery are mediocre or I might be offended LOL

Not what I meant, at all.... You've posted some images I really like. You've also posted some which, to me, weren't close to your best posts. I like your enthusiasm, am bothered by your occasional "just playing around" message accompanying some of your work, as if it's a preemptive apology for not being up to snuff, and am frustrated by your lack of interest in understanding any of the scientific aspects of this combination of science & art that is photography.

That being said, I wouldn't waste my time responding to your posts if I didn't think you have potential. I've enjoyed watching your images improve, and your desire to learn (albeit without actually doing the technical work...) *Now, that was a burn!.* For me the jury is still out as to whether you're someone who wants to be a photographer, or someone who likes to say they're a photographer. But, I am rooting for you...

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Firstly, I hope you feel better soon.

Secondly, I think you miss the point...

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.

As you say, most 'famous' photographers wouldn't consider including that sort of information in a book of their work, just like Michelangelo wouldn't have posted a sign next to one of his sculptures detailing the chisels and hammers that he used.

I for one will never again suggest that you use only one film and developer, Stone. But as long as you are posting on the public boards in the 'frantic/all over the place' manner that you have been, others will. It's only natural.

I might, however, suggest a healthy dose of Ritalin.

End of grumpy rant.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

It's probably also worth noting a couple of photographers who do include that sort of information and their reasons for doing so. Take John Sexton and Ansel Adams for example. Both of them often times include(d) technical details along with their photographs. But it's important to understand that while both men are(were) great photographers they are(were) also great teachers. Teaching is(was) a major part of their photographic experience. It is equally important to remember that not all artists are teachers, nor are they obligated to be.

Forgive my tense issues, it's late and I can't wait for these !*@#! prints to finish washing...

 

[StoneNYC]

It's probably also worth noting a couple of photographers who do include that sort of information and their reasons for doing so. Take John Sexton and Ansel Adams for example. Both of them often times include(d) technical details along with their photographs. But it's important to understand that while both men are(were) great photographers they are(were) also great teachers. Teaching is(was) a major part of their photographic experience. It is equally important to remember that not all artists are teachers, nor are they obligated to be.

Forgive my tense issues, it's late and I can't wait for these !*@#! prints to finish washing...

Nothing you said sounded tense. And I agree I must seem a bit ... "All over the place" I'm better in my head but have trouble verbal icing often the concepts that I understand in my brain because they are often complex. I'm one of those borderline "stupid geniuses" lol (if you think I'm bad, you should meet my dad the physicist/theoretical physical chemist... Hah!).

 

[StoneNYC]

Not what I meant, at all.... You've posted some images I really like. You've also posted some which, to me, weren't close to your best posts. I like your enthusiasm, am bothered by your occasional "just playing around" message accompanying some of your work, as if it's a preemptive apology for not being up to snuff, and am frustrated by your lack of interest in understanding any of the scientific aspects of this combination of science & art that is photography.

That being said, I wouldn't waste my time responding to your posts if I didn't think you have potential. I've enjoyed watching your images improve, and your desire to learn (albeit without actually doing the technical work...) *Now, that was a burn!.* For me the jury is still out as to whether you're someone who wants to be a photographer, or someone who likes to say they're a photographer. But, I am rooting for you...

Haha! Nice!

Well the "playing around" images, do you mean like the FP100C bleached negative of my yard I posted? Or do you mean the "picture of my 4x5 camera" that has like 800 views?

If you mean the former, sometimes I want to share my experiments, if you mean the latter, well if you don't like that image you are not my target audience for that genre.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Nothing you said sounded tense.

Was that a joke?

 

[StoneNYC]

Was that a joke?

No, I mean it, I didn't read any aggression or tension in your words. So when you apologized I was surprised.

I even laughed at the "posting all over in the manner you do" Or however you said it, it made me laugh.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

It's probably also worth noting a couple of photographers who do include that sort of information and their reasons for doing so. Take John Sexton and Ansel Adams for example. Both of them often times include(d) technical details along with their photographs. But it's important to understand that while both men are(were) great photographers they are(were) also great teachers. Teaching is(was) a major part of their photographic experience. It is equally important to remember that not all artists are teachers, nor are they obligated to be.

Forgive my tense issues, it's late and I can't wait for these !*@#! prints to finish washing...

Tense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense

 

[StoneNYC]

Tense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense

Haha! Oh grammatical tense, that was a strange way to phrase it.

Anyway, I jump all over tense's too so I didn't notice that either lol!

Ok world, gnight.

 

[MattKing]

Tense:

[h=2]1tense[/h] noun \ˈten(t)s\grammar : a form of a verb that is used to show when an action happened

not


[h=2]2tense[/h] adjective
: nervous and not able to relax

Was that a joke?

Originally Posted by StoneNYC (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Nothing you said sounded tense.

 

[Richard Man]

StoneNYC, you need to get a copy of "Age of Silver" and "Celebrating the Negatives."

 

[analoguey]

I don't think it's pretentious at all, I just think that I guess my perspective is wow this image is beautiful but so grainy and I'd love to know how it was made and what it was made with. Even just out of curiosity not because I want to mimic it.

It doesn't matter but it kind of does matter in that if the image that looks so beautiful grainy were ultra sharp and digital looking then maybe wouldn't be such an interesting photograph because the textures would've changed.

I think part of the reason might be that they dont *remember* around the time they are publishing the book? Sure, the film info is right there, but unless its output as part of the data - who would remember exposure data - if development processes are more or less stabilised? Maybe there were notes, maybe there weren't.

just like looking at images at a museum or gallery ... photographers ( film photographers ? ) put their nose as close to the glass as possible
to look at the details &c and have no concept of viewing distance .. it is kind of embarrassing ...

personally, i don't really care about what kind of film, paper, lights and all the technical "stuff"
because to me the "chi" is the image, now all the crap used to make it...

YMMV

Yes, have to agree on the viewing distance. It is hard to convey that to people - especially if you are used to zooming things. I found it quite difficult to explain how film grain will exist to a friend viewing a 3'x4' at about <15" distance - when he kept going on about digital being cleaner. (The digital was, at 100% and about 1/3rd the size of the film image) - "GRAIN is BAD" we are taught by digital manufacuters, remember?

 

[Xmas]

I think this story is about Vivian Mailer...
When asked at an exhibition how the grain was achieved said 'I drop the film off at drug stores'

A few people who test lenses properly will then admit that the difference between the two lenses would only be apparent shooting of a similar support (tripod).

If you need a repeatable signature or look e.g. like the 19th century impressionist school then you will need to control your process and keep records.

For example

There is a considerable difference between a single coated lens and a multi coated lens even for the same optics like the Cosina Voightlander 40mm which is available in either - with SC or MC on the name plate.

Some people will see the difference and ask what film gave those colours. The effect occurs even with a DSLR and can also be detected in mono. When I was asked the question the answer took a while. 'That was Fugi 400 C41 with a Canon 35mm /1.8 from '57 at /5.6, the pastel shades are from the sIngle coating and contrajour' note I had used a deep hood and French flag to avoid any obvious flare. But I had not seen the to me subliminal pastelisation because I had not looked.

The SC lenses compress scean contrast, for high contrast there is more compression, the compression is by spilling highlights light into shadows.

Sadly not everyone keeps records. You also need to ignore the friendly trolls...

Sir Alexander Fleming was a good lab worker one bad Petri dish - penicillin mould, so he sent his lab assistant out for a second sample of the mould, she needed to survey a number of street sellers barrows and debris before locating a sample- dedication.

 

[eddie]

Well the "playing around" images, do you mean like the FP100C bleached negative of my yard I posted? Or do you mean the "picture of my 4x5 camera" that has like 800 views?

If you mean the former, sometimes I want to share my experiments, if you mean the latter, well if you don't like that image you are not my target audience for that genre.

I like the bleached negative experiment. I shoot nudes, too (a few in my gallery posts) so that genre interests me, but I don't think the photo you mention works. I guess I sometimes think your "playing" is out of laziness, or not really having complete control of your materials. The coffee images come across that way, to me anyway...

 

[removed account4]

i think it is great that you are learning from the ground up ( using film and developers that you have heard of and want to have fun with )
but who knows, maybe someday you will want more than that? and that is where an intimate relationship between your materials comes into play.
even if you send to a lab, you know what they do, you do tests with your film and you get a relationship with the lab, nothing magical about that ..
so called magican-photographers are just people who know what they are doing because, well they have been doing it over and over again,
can mix and process film without thinking about it, expose film using intuition, or mix split toning chemistry after having a stroke, just by rote memory.

seeing you are near NYC schlep your work around to photographers whose work you like/admire/respect and assist for a while
( or go to NYSOP and take a class and pick professors' brains ) .. you'll learn much more than reading forums and "having fun"

enjoy the dayquil

john

 

[Mr Bill]

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.

I really don't know why they did or why they didn't publish such, but I recall at least some of the picture books of my youth including shooting data on many of the photos. Seldom anything on the development or printing paper, though.

Some examples from a 1950s U.S. Camera annual:

"For the picture of the Boulder Dam, [Edward] Weston used an 8 x 10 camera with a convertible Turner-Reich lens and Ansco Isopan fine grain film."

Or an Ansel Adams photo, The Fishing Cone, in Yosemite, says "He used an 8x10 studio Ansco Commercial View camera, with a 12 1/2" Cooke Anastigmat lens. The exposure was made on Ansco Isopan film, at a shutter speed of 1/10th of a second at an aperture of f/45."

Another guy has photographed a window washer, he "used a Standard Rolleiflex with a Tessar f/3.5 lens, exposing at 1/100 of a second, at an aperture of f/16, using a K-2 yellow filter."

Leonard McCombe has photographed W. Somerset Maugham - "In the photo at right, he caught Maugham as he waited in vain for a taxi on Madison Ave. during the rush hour in New York. Using a Contax, McCombe exposed at 1/125 of a second with aperture set at f/4, on Super-XX.

I don't know if I ever really learned anything from this, other than that a 35 mm camera was "sort of ok" for limited types of things, and that a Rolleiflex could do just about anything that fit into its focal length range and didn't require a really fast lens, and that larger negs were just the ticket for highly-detailed shots when a lengthy setup was possible. But still, it was interesting to get a mental picture of how the photographer was working.

In those days, published information was much harder to come by than it is today. There were essentially no bookstores where you could browse photo books. So perhaps that sort of info filled a void. Today, I think that films are so tremendously better that the playing field has been leveled quite a bit. Smaller negs can do a job that once required larger ones. And any modern name-brand lens can mostly deliver pretty near what any other can. So the camera/lens/film info is probably nowhere near as important as it once might have been.

If a large proportion of readers still wanted such technical information, I imagine that it would continue to be published. But perhaps not, I dunno.

ps; after posting, one other thing occurs to me - until they listed the specifics, it seemed possible that they had available magical equipment and techniques, such that I could never match their results. But once the hard data is revealed, I find that much is within my capabilities; I am not limited by my gear, only by my skill and preconceived limits. So in a way, it probably helped to inspire me.

 

[Mr Bill]

i think it is great that you are learning from the ground up ( using film and developers that you have heard of and want to have fun with )

To me, the part about having fun is key. Never quit having fun. You can go to just about any lengths, and endure nearly anything as long as you see it as fun.

 

[StoneNYC]

To me, the part about having fun is key. Never quit having fun. You can go to just about any lengths, and endure nearly anything as long as you see it as fun.

Yep still having fun thank goodness!

I think I wouldn't know as much as I know if I hadn't at least experimented a little bit. I certainly would have never tried FOMA film.

Believe it or not, I actually really like the look of FOMA100 but the emulsion issues I have with it, have made me decide not to use it which is unfortunate because as I said I really do like it, but not so much for long exposures cause it's got horrible horrible reciprocity failure... Lol

If I could get any film it would be Neopan400 in 4 x 5 sheet film and 120 if possible, I can't imagine why it was discontinued, it looks amazing.

Anyway when I publish my books I'm at least including the film type and possibly the developer. I certainly keep track of all that, so it's not something that would be hard for me to find.

 

[removed account4]

Anyway when I publish my books I'm at least including the film type and possibly the developer. I certainly keep track of all that, so it's not something that would be hard for me to find.

materials listed would only be of interest if j peterman wrote it

 

[Alan Klein]

Read this article about how she got 4 of her most famous pictures. You'll understand why she was too busy to worry about tracking F stops.
Dead Link Removed

 

[StoneNYC]

There are some notable photographers who do include some technical info. It will often depend on whether or not the photographer also teaches darkroom skills. So for example, John Sexton - who gives lots of workshops - includes some technical info for each image at the end of each of his books. Usually for each image he gives the film, format, focal length, aperture, exposure time, filter, and development (in ZS terms eg: N, N+1, N-2, Comp. etc.).

It is also worth noting in some other cases it would be totally redundant. What good would it do for each and every image in George Tice's books to say Tri-X/D76?

Hah! Well he could at least include it in his forward

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Because most people reading those books don't care a bit, and in the end it adds absolutely no value for most readers.

It could also be a very conscious effort on behalf of the photographer not to lead other photographers down the slippery slope of thinking they can somehow improve their photography by switching materials. That selection is something that should be figured out on our own, by practicing.

Look at other photographers' work for inspiration regarding lighting, composition, emotional impact, gesture, timing, approach, etc. The films is so insignificant in all of this that it almost doesn't count.

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?

 

[StoneNYC]

Read this article about how she got 4 of her most famous pictures. You'll understand why she was too busy to worry about tracking F stops.
Dead Link Removed

That last one was a doozy (it was also DIGITAL she didn't have to record anything, it's all in the metadata... Lol).

But I found it strange that her "4 most famous photographs" didn't include any of the ones I know her for....maybe the Demi Moore one but I mean definitely didn't include the John Lennon one... I know everyone already knows about it, but it's certainly more famous than the rest...

Thanks for sharing, I read the whole thing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There's the other side of this coin though. Supplying tech info could also potentially prevent people from going down the slippery slope, particularly when it comes to developers. People sometimes have the tendency, when they see a great looking print (or reproduction in a high quality book), to think there must be something in the process they're missing (Pyro, Amidol, whatever). If they knew many of the greats use(d) "boring" materials it might convince them to work harder instead of searching for magic films, developers, papers etc.

That's true. It is 95% about technique anyway.