A picture of Robert Frank

[Al Kaplan]

I first started developing my own film in 1961. Like many newbies I immediately wanted to try every available film in every available developer. Adox KB-14, KB-17, and KB-21 were readily available. The numbers were actually the DIN speed numbers equivalent to ISO 20, 40, and 100. I believe that Adox also made a higher speed film only available in Europe. I tried all three and for a year or two shot a lot of KB-17. I settled on using FR-22 developer. It came in 1 ounce bottles and was a one-shot designed for slow films.

KB-14 didn't seem to have much finer grain. Both Ilford FP3 and Kodak Plus X had finer grain than KB-21. If you enlarged big enough, at least 11x14, you could notice that ISO 20 Agfa Isopan FF and ISO 40 Isopan F seemed to have sharper grain than the Adox film.

If anybody wants to come by, go through my boxes of negatives and contact sheets, and make some sample prints...LOL...I still have all of them. You might even be able to print up some sexy pictures of your wife's grandmother. Just to study the grain of course.

By today's standards they were all grainy films. Even Kodak dropped Panatomic-X and the motion picture film of the same speed, Eastman XT Pan a few years ago. Faster films had fine enough grain.

 

[lawrence]

This picture was taken by the great Czech photographer Bedrich Grunzweig.

That's a great shot, many thanks for sharing it.

 

[Beniliam]

Im glad that this topic could be interesting for you. 🙂

Al Kaplan, thank you again.

I read many times that photographers like Louis Faurer, Robert Frank, Eugene Smith... developing their films by inspection (using a green bulb for ´see´ in milliseconds what density the negative have), I supposed that this method was ´common´ among the photographers in those years. Always intrigued me how this photographers can photography the night in that time without using a tripod.

For example:

-Horacio Coppola (argentinean photographer, more than a century of life and still alive!)




-William Klein




-Eugene Smith (Thelonius Monk band) This Smith serie of portraits and group portraits I think is quite interesting.

 

[summaron]

Anther thank you for posting the Robert Frank photo. He looks so different than he did later on, after the years of living "poor as a churchmouse" on the lower east side.

I remember Agfa being more available than Ilford, at least in California. The guy I used to buy film from recommended it for low light photography--it was 600 ASA or something like that, and TriX was maybe 200. Roaul Coutard liked Ilford so much he spliced 100' rolls together when he was filming Breathless for Godard and so Ilford brought us the first splash of the New Wave. But Frank's existentialism was on plus x or double x, I'd guess, probably whatever was cheapest and/or most consistent from batch to batch.

 

[Al Kaplan]

You're RIGHT, Summaron. Agfa was easier to find than Ilford in Miami, New York and Boston in the early sixties.

Film speeds of the era included Weston, G.E., Scheiner, British Scheiner, DIN (German), Gost (Russian), and ASA (American). The American system included a one stop "safety factor" with faster films, a bit less for more contrasty slower speed films. Everybody knew this, the photo magazines wrote about it: ASA 200 Tri-X was really ASA 400 and Agfa Isopan Record was 1000, not 500....and so on. At some point as we approached the seventies the American Standards Institute confessed and eliminated the "safety factor". Tri-X became labeled as ASA 400!

Some speed scales were arithmetic like ASA and GOST ~ double the number equals double the speed. Others like DIN were logarithmic ~ add 3 and the speed doubled. ASA 100 was 21 degrees DIN and ASA 400 was 27 degrees DIN. When the International Standards Institute, ISO, came along it combined the American and German system numbers seperated by a slash so Tri-X became ISO 400/27. A few years later the DIN number was dropped. Tri-X became just plain 400.

Tri-X developed to a standard gamma (contrast) in a standard developer of the D-76 type was ALWAYS a 400 speed film by our present standards. Over the years it got finer grain and better tonality but it DID NOT BECOME FASTER. This was true of every other film as well.

It used to be common to refer to films like Tri-X as EI 400 with standard development but E.I. 1200 in Acufine. EI or E.I., short for Exposure Index, meant that when using the ASA scale that rating gave you good exposure, but since it didn't always use "standard development" it didn't meet ASA standards for rating the film speed it wouldn't be ASA 1200 in Acufine.

 

[newspaperguy]

Nice summary, Mr. Kaplan.

And thanks for reminding me that the one-shot I used
for Adox Kb-17 in the 50's was FR X-22... I could
picture the little bottles, but had forgotten the name.

Also had an FR brand "strobe" somewhere around
that time... not too impressive as I recall. But it was
a lot lighter than the paper's Graflex units.

Both were better than the pocket full of SM's, or #5's.

 

[kbg32]

The image of Robert Frank I remember most, is the one I never took. I lived only a few blocks from his apartment on Bleecker Street. One night, around 2 am I was walking home and walking towards me was Robert Frank carrying an extremely large package of toilet tissue. I did have my camera with me and I believe he would have gotten the humour of the situation. But, alas, I never did take that picture.

G--d is human after all!

 

[250f8bthere]

The Americans at the National Gallery of Art

The Americans at the National Gallery of Art

Just got back from a brief trip to Washington, DC and visited the NGA twice to view THE AMERICANS. 83 LARGE prints - many 20x30, virtually all from 35mm negs. About 24 of his contact sheets were also displayed. Lots of Plus X, HPS, and a few more obscure film stocks. Significant variation in the contacts - one reference suggested over-shooting a subject so editors would have a lot to choose from prior to his acceptance of a second installment on his Guggenheim fellowship. Afterwards, he was much more selective. Also, the contact sheets themselves varied greatly - deep rich blacks on some - muddy images on others - but the final prints all looked spectacular. A well-worthwhile exhibit - I would encourage all who can to visit. Plan to spend several hours - it's great. Museum closes promptly at 5PM. In addition, many images from his other photographic ventures are provided, as well.

 

[Harry Lime]

There is a new companion book to 'The Americans' called 'Looking In' (Steidl) and it's brilliant. There are two versions of this book. The bigger hardcover edition contains his contact sheets and alternate prints. Highly recommmended. The best photobook I have bought in years.

 

[sevres_babylone]

I also bought "Looking In." My hardcover copy arrived yesterday. In a way I was lucky that I didn't get around to ordering the softcover before I went away last month. At that time I didn't know about the significant difference in content between the softcover and hardcover versions. When I found out, Amazon was out of stock, with their website only showing exorbitantly-priced used copies for sale. Fortunately, I kept looking, and when I saw some new ones in stock, I ordered mine immediately. If you are interested, I would suggest that you order the hardcover one while it is available (although based on my own history, now that I've purchased it, it is likely to be remaindered tomorrow, and available cheaply.) Although I've only had a brief time to go through the book, I see nothing to contradict Lime's description. While I have other books which contain pre and post The Americans images, including Moving Out, and 3 versions of The Americans (Pantheon, Scala, and Steidl), this book is definitely worth having too. I have started to read the essay which discusses the different exhibitions and versions of The Americans published after its first printing, and it is quite interesting. While rumours may circulate that i have preferred reproductions in the "inferior" versions, I want to say that if directly confronted with such accusations, I will deny them, even if true...

 

[Harry Lime]

Always intrigued me how this photographers can photography the night in that time without using a tripod.

I think part of it is simply accepting things for what they are and not being obsessed with pixel peeping, like too many people are these days.

Shooting at night with 400asa or slower film and a fast lens requires one to take something of a leap of faith and accept the imperfect aspects of the image captured.

I had to clear this mental hurdle myself. You have to let go of wanting total control and total technical perfection. Once I figured that out and it made me a better photographer.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I think some of it is just not to worry about it. That in itself will make you calmer and steadier. Taking a course in pistol shooting will teach you a lot about proper stance and breathing techniques, or at least read a book on the subject. Everytime you go into a drugstore with one of those automatic blood pressure and pulse machines see how relaxed you can get, how low you can get your blood pressure, how slow your pulse rate.

Most of us can learn to get a pretty consistant 1/8 of a second and a fair amount at 1/4. Lean into a post or wall, get your arms in the correct position, and now you might be in 1/2 to full second territory. Composition, lighting, gestures and expressions are more important than seeing every last pore and wrinkle sharply deliniated.

Stop lusting after the latest greatest apochromatic aspheric wonder lens. Sometimes a softer lens masks the other problems, as does a grainier film. If you're trying to emulate Frank or Cartier-Bresson remember what equipment and films they were forced to use in that era. Also consider that they weren't shooting for 16x20 prints. Most of those images showed up in a magazine at a maximum magnification of 6 or 7 times, but they caught the moment!

 

[Al Kaplan]

I hope that the rest of you old shooters will keep up the effort of keeping the techniques of yesterday available to the younger photographers who cut their teeth on pixels. Thanks, ~Al

 

[Harry Lime]

Stop lusting after the latest greatest apochromatic aspheric wonder lens. Sometimes a softer lens masks the other problems, as does a grainier film.

My two main camera have become a 1960 Nikon F with Nikkor-H.C 2/50mm and Leica M with a 1.4 35/50. When I started out I used to lug around a mountain of gear and spent more time fiddeling with crap instead of concentrating on seeing. Over the years I boiled it down to the above setup and actually started to grow as a shooter. Spending a few years with only a 35 or 50 is the smartest thing you can do. I wish I had figured that one out a few years earlier.

Occasionally I'll shoot a little with my IIIc mounting a 50mm and VIOOH finder. It still baffles my mind that Frank and the rest of them managed to produce the work they did, with that sort of camera (and this is coming from someone who's shot mechanical cameras every day for the past 12 years). In terms of shooting comfort and ergonomics the IIIc makes a Leica M look like a spaceship from the future.

If you're trying to emulate Frank or Cartier-Bresson remember what equipment and films they were forced to use in that era. Also consider that they weren't shooting for 16x20 prints. Most of those images showed up in a magazine at a maximum magnification of 6 or 7 times, but they caught the moment!

I still remember the first time I went to an HCB exhibit. There they were, all of those famous shots hanging on the walls and the vast majority of them were slightly out of focus, poorly exposed, but nobody gave a hoot.

 

[raid]

These postings here are very interesting and informative to me. I love history. Thanks.

 

[Bill Harrison]

I didn't see anyone mention Ansco Super Hypan. Talk about grain... Good idea about going back to look through my boxes of negs, not for the grain, but to edit with " New Eyes" bey theres a bunch of old, very neat images... Thanks Al, Bill

 

[Al Kaplan]

Super Hypan was ASA 500 compared to Tri-X at 400. Not only was it grainy but the grain was mushy looking. Ansco Versapan on the other hand was much nicer than Plus-X or FP4, fine grain and fantastic tonality, ASA 100.

 

[Beniliam]

Thank you for keep alive this thread!

I hope that the rest of you old shooters will keep up the effort of keeping the techniques of yesterday available to the younger photographers who cut their teeth on pixels. Thanks, ~Al

I wish to know one of those photographers that in the ´golden days´ using their craft and the techniques for teach me and improve in my darkroom capacities... but its so difficult in that time find photographers ´de raza´ and much more in this little country.

Composition, lighting, gestures and expressions are more important than seeing every last pore and wrinkle sharply deliniated.

...and accept the imperfect aspects of the image captured.

Interesting points, but sadly forgotten today. We need another Alexey Brodovitch! More spiritual references, no technological dazzles...


Those days in Madrid there is a big exhibition of Weegee, one of the great night photographers master! Hope you like some of these photos!

​