Why don't photographers include photo details in books?

[Shawn Dougherty]

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?

Doesn't that make a film forum MORE valuable? A simple example.

Rodinal + Tri-X... 1+25 rated at 800 and given N+ development with lots of agitation.

Rodinal + Tri-X... 1+100 rated at 200 and given N- development with little agitation.

You don't think this is going to give you very different results? (I know from experience that it does.)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Doesn't that make a film forum MORE valuable? A simple example.

Rodinal + Tri-X... 1+25 rated at 800 and given N+ development with lots of agitation.

Rodinal + Tri-X... 1+100 rated at 200 and given N- development with little agitation.

You don't think this is going to give you very different results? (I know from experience that it does.)

And once you know how to use those techniques, it's party time and overdue to make more photographs.

If anybody says to me that Tri-X looks a certain way, I'm quite confident I can create the opposite, within reason.

 

[batwister]

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.

Never heard so much garbage (rubbish) in my life - well, in the last few days at least. I hope when you're in hell, you share a messy dorm with Picasso.

 

[Chris Lange]

And once you know how to use those techniques, it's party time and overdue to make more photographs.

If anybody says to me that Tri-X looks a certain way, I'm quite confident I can create the opposite, within reason.

/thread.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because they do not bother to take and save notes on the trivial details.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Because they do not bother to take and save notes on the trivial details.

Yes, life is too short for that.

 

[DannL.]

If anyone "is" interested in a book that gives "the story" behind a photograph and details of it's creation, then they might consider "The Fine 35mm Portrait" by Jack Manning ISBN 0-8174-2438-5. For each photograph in the book the following details are included . . .

The story about the photograph:
Camera and Lens: (Details)
Lighting: (Details)
Film and Exposure: (Details)
Development: (Details)
Print: (Details)

A 199 page book, approximately 131 pages are dedicated to the photographs and the details behind their creation.

 

[StoneNYC]

If anyone "is" interested in a book that gives "the story" behind a photograph and details of it's creation, then they might consider "The Fine 35mm Portrait" by Jack Manning ISBN 0-8174-2438-5. For each photograph in the book the following details are included . . .

The story about the photograph:
Camera and Lens: (Details)
Lighting: (Details)
Film and Exposure: (Details)
Development: (Details)
Print: (Details)

A 199 page book, approximately 131 pages are dedicated to the photographs and the details behind their creation.

Thanks

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes, life is too short for that.

Says the man who documents everything for his teaching books

But it's true, sometimes you just have to be out shooting.

 

[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...

Ok, without being able to see larger image files that let me see the grain structure, I'm only going on overall look here...

My best guess... (Again I've never seen Kentmere so that could throw me off if it looks like something else like FP4+ or something since it's a Harmon type product? But assuming it isn't.... Here goes...)

-The first image of the docks is Tri-X

-The hallway/staircase is Neopan400

-The snow is Kentmere

-The alleyway sky is HP5+

These are all very different scenes, different light, etc, I would be more confident if they are all the same image and if the Kentmere were eliminated.

The last image of the alleyway sky almost looks like Plus-X to me...

Few! What a challenge!

Anyway the above is my final answers, some notes...

I've only shot Neopan400 for models really, and some horses once, blown out, but what I mean is, it has a unique response (like Eastman Double-X or Acros100) to skin tones, the "spectral response" I've heard it called, I different, so I'm not sure how it handles buildings.

I have limited experience with HP5 as well, and almost mine with Tri-X

I mostly shoot Acros100 which I love a lot, and PanF+ for modeling. Though when Fuji announces it's price jumps, I stocked up on Acros100 so I haven't bought any PanF+ in a while, when my acros100 runs out I'll probably go back to PanF+, the acros was for night time long exposures in 120 but now that I'm shooting 4x5 I don't need the acros100 in 120 as much so I'll standardize on PanF+ and TMY-2 most likely for models.

The 2nd and 4th images I almost wanted to flip, but HP5+ In the shadows looks like that brick and from what I remember of a background wall of a model, Neopan400 looks more like that stairwell. If blown out, the docks could be Neopan400 and the alleyway could be Tri-X, but as others say, you can make one film look like another if you have a certain style and way of shooting that accomplishes that, but for me, the way I shoot, each film gives a very distinct look that I can see and I choose my films based on that look and I don't believe them to be fully exchangeable given certain light conditions etc.

Again, guy instinct first answers above are my "final answer"

ANYWAY how badly did I do?

 

[Chris Lange]

doubled posted by accident.

 

[Chris Lange]

Docks: Nikon F3 - 35/1.4 - Neopan 400 @ 1600, with a Red25 filter, D76 1+0
Stairs: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - HP5+ @ 200, Cachet AB55
Alleyway: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - Kentmere 400 @ 400, Rodinal 1:50
Snow: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - Tri-X at 400, Rodinal 1:50

for what it's worth, all of the following are also HP5+ in Rodinal 1:50, with the same M2/Summicron combination, some with a b+w mrc 090 red filter.

 

[StoneNYC]

Docks: Nikon F3 - 35/1.4 - Neopan 400 @ 1600, with a Red25 filter, D76 1+0
Stairs: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - HP5+ @ 200, Cachet AB55
Alleyway: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - Kentmere 400 @ 400, Rodinal 1:50
Snow: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - Tri-X at 400, Rodinal 1:50

for what it's worth, all of the following are also HP5+ in Rodinal 1:50, with the same M2/Summicron combination, some with a b+w mrc 090 red filter.

That Bass shot is BEAUTIFUL!

Well, total fail! Haha originally I did think the stairs was HP5+ but then went with the alleyway.

I did also think the Neopan400 could have been pushed in that docks scene, as I said "over exposed horses"

And using filters and rating crazy extremes is a bit of trickery, then again you did say "with the right tools and skill you can use a film to look many ways" so ultimately looks like I fail haha.

Good job this was fun!

 

[Chris Lange]

Haha thanks for putting up with my stubborn charades, Stone. There really was no way I would have expected anyone to be able to identify a set of 4 random images down to emulsion...I actually had considered putting up the selection of HP5+/Rodinal images that I just posted as a ruse, but I'm not that cruel...

But that's the point really, the only reason I even remember what developers were used for those images is because 99% of my film in the past 6 months has been processed in Rodinal 1:50, which makes it easy to remember the rolls on which I didn't use it. I have come to prefer HP5+ over Tri-X for exactly one reason, and one reason only: it dries a little flatter. As I said, I use them interchangeably, and will return to Tri-X when I get my box of Arista flavored Tri-X, and once that runs out, I'll probably go back to HP5+.

EDIT: funnily enough, that photograph of the bass and bassist is technically the worst photograph of the bunch by far. It is underexposed and underdeveloped. Exposed for EI 1600, developed for 400 with unintentionally weak developer. Just goes to show...

 

[batwister]

EDIT: funnily enough, that photograph of the bass and bassist is technically the worst photograph of the bunch by far. It is underexposed and underdeveloped. Exposed for EI 1600, developed for 400 with unintentionally weak developer. Just goes to show...

Reminds me of Roy DeCarava, both in subdued tonality and subject matter. But have to say, the umbrella image is the standout. Very smart, if somewhat classical, use of space and perspective and contrast.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Nice work, Chris. I enjoyed the images, especially the second one in the second grouping - crazy shadows, man!

 

[StoneNYC]

Haha thanks for putting up with my stubborn charades, Stone. There really was no way I would have expected anyone to be able to identify a set of 4 random images down to emulsion...I actually had considered putting up the selection of HP5+/Rodinal images that I just posted as a ruse, but I'm not that cruel...

But that's the point really, the only reason I even remember what developers were used for those images is because 99% of my film in the past 6 months has been processed in Rodinal 1:50, which makes it easy to remember the rolls on which I didn't use it. I have come to prefer HP5+ over Tri-X for exactly one reason, and one reason only: it dries a little flatter. As I said, I use them interchangeably, and will return to Tri-X when I get my box of Arista flavored Tri-X, and once that runs out, I'll probably go back to HP5+.

EDIT: funnily enough, that photograph of the bass and bassist is technically the worst photograph of the bunch by far. It is underexposed and underdeveloped. Exposed for EI 1600, developed for 400 with unintentionally weak developer. Just goes to show...

I enjoy images that break the rules and still look intriguing

When I scan in images, I include the film type, dev, and length of dev time, and scan DPI

 

[Chris Lange]

I enjoy images that break the rules and still look intriguing

When I scan in images, I include the film type, dev, and length of dev time, and scan DPI

I used to write dev/camera used on my sleeves but I got sick of doing it. I may have written this in another thread before, but I approach my photography from the perspective of a chef, rather than that of a baker.

 

[Alan Klein]

Chris: I too like the bass shot. The tones are wonderful. But I believe it's the way you expressed the content that makes it inspiring. The humped over musician struggling with the weight of his instrument hanging on with a single hand. It's an eye grabber. When you come down to it, that's what makes a picture in the end - it's content and what it expresses to us. Well done. Alan.

 

[Chris Lange]

Chris: I too like the bass shot. The tones are wonderful. But I believe it's the way you expressed the content that makes it inspiring. The humped over musician struggling with the weight of his instrument hanging on with a single hand. It's an eye grabber. When you come down to it, that's what makes a picture in the end - it's content and what it expresses to us. Well done. Alan.

Thank you Alan

You're absolutely right. I enjoy the tones, but they are really an accidental artifact of the processing. What I did know before pulling the negatives out of the tank, was that I wanted to print this negative because of how I remembered making the picture.

 

[erikg]

Really nice images, Chris. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Claudia Moroni]

I believe that this question has been extensively answered in the thread, so I'm just going to give you a list of books that I own that include photo details.

They're all education/technical books on lighting and portraiture.

Lighting For Portrait Photography by Steve Bavister includes film format, film type, exposure details and lighting details

The Photographic Portrait by Robin Gillanders includes camera, lens and lighting details

Outdoor Lighting: Fashion & Glamour by Cathy Joseph includes camera, lens, film, exposure and lighting details

Portraits And Figures by Terry Hope includes camera, lens, film and exposure details.

I personally don't think that having access to these kind of informations is particularly propaedeutic and I'd much rather reading books about the photographers experience beyond the technical details.

If you're interested in having a peek behind the scenes, I'd recommend reading

Avedon At Work In The American West by Laura Wilson

Annie Leibovitz At Work by Annie Leibovitz

Revelations by Diane Arbus

Magnum Stories by Chris Boot

The New York Times Magazine Photographs by Kathy Ryan

The Contact Sheet by Steve Crist

The World's Top Photographers series of books (my favourites are the one about portraits and the fashion and advertising one)

And finally two guides that are extremely inspiring and detailed are

Train Your Gaze: A Practical And Theoretical Introduction To Portrait Photography by Roswell Angier

Exploring Colour Photography: A Complete Guide by Robert Hirsch

I realise that I've gone a bit OT considering the initial question, but I strongly believe that these books could be way more informative then photo details in regular photo books.

I love looking at photographers' work, but I think that if you're starting out, it's also good to read guides and educational books.

 

[StoneNYC]

I believe that this question has been extensively answered in the thread, so I'm just going to give you a list of books that I own that include photo details.

They're all education/technical books on lighting and portraiture.

Lighting For Portrait Photography by Steve Bavister includes film format, film type, exposure details and lighting details

The Photographic Portrait by Robin Gillanders includes camera, lens and lighting details

Outdoor Lighting: Fashion & Glamour by Cathy Joseph includes camera, lens, film, exposure and lighting details

Portraits And Figures by Terry Hope includes camera, lens, film and exposure details.

I personally don't think that having access to these kind of informations is particularly propaedeutic and I'd much rather reading books about the photographers experience beyond the technical details.

If you're interested in having a peek behind the scenes, I'd recommend reading

Avedon At Work In The American West by Laura Wilson

Annie Leibovitz At Work by Annie Leibovitz

Revelations by Diane Arbus

Magnum Stories by Chris Boot

The New York Times Magazine Photographs by Kathy Ryan

The Contact Sheet by Steve Crist

The World's Top Photographers series of books (my favourites are the one about portraits and the fashion and advertising one)

And finally two guides that are extremely inspiring and detailed are

Train Your Gaze: A Practical And Theoretical Introduction To Portrait Photography by Roswell Angier

Exploring Colour Photography: A Complete Guide by Robert Hirsch

I realise that I've gone a bit OT considering the initial question, but I strongly believe that these books could be way more informative then photo details in regular photo books.

I love looking at photographers' work, but I think that if you're starting out, it's also good to read guides and educational books.

Thanks

This was a much better response than most so thank you and also, you didn't go OT at all.

 

[batwister]

Thanks

This was a much better response than most so thank you and also, you didn't go OT at all.

You're just saying that because she's a girl.

(I genuinely believe that )

 

[StoneNYC]

You're just saying that because she's a girl.

(I genuinely believe that )

No I'm saying that because she gave examples if books that have info AND agreed with me hahaha!