Getting a certain "look"

[Rezultz]

So I've been developing my own film for about a year now (I know, not very long) and have had pretty decent results using D76 1:1 using box speeds/times for development. I follow a lot of street photography blogs online and would love to attain the look (tonality, grain, etc) of my favorite street photographers...namely at this point Severen Koller. Does anyone know what chemistry and process he uses? That information would be an amazing Christmas present!
Thanks and Happy Holidays!

 

[---f]

you may want to just email him.

http://www.severinkoller.com/contact

 

[it'sawhat?]

looks like mainly fuji neopan100 and tri x 400 if your diluted d76 doesn't get that look i'd try diluted xtol kind of hard to tell developer he's using from the web but those 2 come to mind .

 

[zauhar]

I am also a beginner ..

The suggestion to email Koller is excellent, but if he does not respond, try rodinal instead of D76, and also give stand developing a shot. Examples -

Rodinal

Rodinal + Stand

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've often been asked about the process for a certain look for either a series, or a specific photograph. While some people may have a very "simple" technique (a film + development combination + paper or PS filter/plug-in), other times the process is anything but simple.

You could be given the instructions but yet you must understand why you're doing what you're doing in order to get there.

Sometimes it's a very specific lens, even a very specific camera w/settings.

 

[anu L ogy]

I've actually seen his stuff before. I didnt recognize it until I clicked context on his website. Im sure someone with a bit more experience than me can chime in here, but I would venture to geuss he does not use Rodinal. My best geuss is that he's very comfortable with how he exposes his film, then he develops in D76.

 

[shadowfox]

So I've been developing my own film for about a year now (I know, not very long) and have had pretty decent results using D76 1:1 using box speeds/times for development. I follow a lot of street photography blogs online and would love to attain the look (tonality, grain, etc) of my favorite street photographers...namely at this point Severen Koller. Does anyone know what chemistry and process he uses? That information would be an amazing Christmas present!
Thanks and Happy Holidays!

What I saw in Mr. Koller's website are excellent street photography (content-wise), and a set of very consistently and carefully post-processed photos. Could be digital or darkroom, we don't know.

The point is, I doubt that those images came out that way without any post-processing. So that's where you need to focus your research on.

While some people claimed that they can determine certain "look" by tweaking development method and recipes, I personally prefer to determine that at the final stage, be it in the darkroom or in Lightroom.

 

[ijohnnyz]

I'm also a fan of his work. He talks about his development technique in his old blog that I bookmarked. Here's the post: http://severinkoller.blogspot.com/2007/03/since-i-got-asked-many-times-in-last.html. I believe he achieves his look in post processing. I myself develop my B&W with scanning and digital post processing in mind.

He was also interviewed for the New York Times' Lens Blog: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/a-photographer-coping-with-emotions/

 

[filmfan]

Looks like he bumps contrast during post, (edit) or processes his film at a warmer temp.

 

[Turtle]

this look could be achieved with film or digital. If film, it looks like modern film and modern lenses, such as D100/Acros/Tmax 100/400 etc. Developer could be just about anything, but Rodinal would work. The look seems to be quite straight line in many shots although some suggest old tech films.

Just looked at the blog and there is a certain amount of info there on what chemicals and agitation he uses. Looks like he uses a variety of films and simple technique. The look achieved is consistent with this.

 

[zauhar]

So no one should experiment with developers and technique, just use PS? That's no fun.

I can't avoid some adjustments in Vuescan, but I am trying to forego too much dicking around with PS. I already see that it could easily consume what remains of my life.

Randy

 

[DominikDUK]

He seems to mostly use tri-x and plus-X in Xtol and scan the film I agree with some previous posts that the contrast is probably added in post via digital means. (could be done in the darkroom as well Grade 4 to 4 1/2 contrast filter).

Dominik

 

[Rezultz]

Instead of guessing, I just sent him an email. Hope he responds. I also think its Xtol but would like to know the dilution, developing time, etc.

 

[Turtle]

While this will be useful, a lot can depend on what happens to the resultant neg, ie the paper printed on, the type of scanner, the type of enlarger etc, so you can expect to experiment to get the same look and you might have to deviate from how he develops his negs to get the same look using your print output methods.

Instead of guessing, I just sent him an email. Hope he responds. I also think its Xtol but would like to know the dilution, developing time, etc.

 

[sdotkling]

Here's a hint: his blog has so many pictures that he can't possibly be printing them by hand. Who could have the time? I'll venture a guess that he's just using Tri-X or its European equivalent and D-76, or something else pretty normal, then scanning negs. He's good, though, and apparently gets around.

 

[shadowfox]

So no one should experiment with developers and technique, just use PS? That's no fun.

I can't avoid some adjustments in Vuescan, but I am trying to forego too much dicking around with PS. I already see that it could easily consume what remains of my life.

Randy

Not at all.
If you like tweaking the "look" of photograph using developing techniques, then more power to you.

I don't. I can't visualize the changes that will result because I tweak my development recipes or methods. So I employ one single standard development method (only vary the time depending on how the roll was exposed).

I'd rather use darkroom printing technique to achieve the look I wanted, but due to limited time (regrettably), I cannot do a lot photos in the darkroom. Since I'm equally comfortable tweaking images digitally, that will suffice on a lot of occasions.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

So no one should experiment with developers and technique, just use PS? That's no fun.

There's always enlargement paper, multicontrast filters for the enlargers, and different paper development techniques. If you have the time/means/patience.

 

[sevo]

Here's a hint: his blog has so many pictures that he can't possibly be printing them by hand. Who could have the time?

Printing by hand is not quite that time consuming, at any rate if you are into a classic photojournalism/street - which has a legacy of formulaic straightforward printing and automated processing. FWIW I always found scanning more time consuming as scanners are nowhere near as fast as doing rush prints (possible at a rate of more than one frame per minute even with a tabletop automatic processor, given a small enough print size).

I'd consider a output of more than 10,000 images per working year a pretty strong indication of an all-digital process. But that is less than eight films a working day if he's printing half of his shots. A figure that is quite feasible for a hard working all film and wet darkroom street photographer with a lab assistant and a documentary twist (and according low failure rate). There have been quite a few more prolific street photographers and photojournalists back in times when they could only be using film...

Sevo

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I kinda think the film+developer is only the start point toward 'the look.' In my first attempts to soup film, after a 20+ year layoff, i used Rollei Retro/APX100, in ID-11/D-76. The results were fantastic. But, it wasn't until i adjusted curves/contrast in Photoshop that i really found 'the look' i wanted.

Same story with some photographs a friend recently sent me. I asked him what film/dev he was using. He said it was Kodak C41. I replied that i hadn't seen that tonality from that particular film before. He sent me the 'raw' scan, which was markedly different from the final image i liked so much.

Really, the Photoshop adjustments are like choosing a paper to print on. Or, adjusting the paper development. Or bleaching.... Or whatever processes wet darkroom folks use.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Maybe I'm missing something....but I don't see anything particularly special about a look. Don't get me wrong, I think the photography is excellent...but I see nothing more than a slightly elevated contrast level...with some of them having the look of the shadows being increased while the higlights are being recovered....in Lightroom for example.

The same effect can be had with a digital file in Silver Efex.