Koudelka, grain

J

John Rountree

Nothing is what I want
Local time
7:17 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
340
One of my students was lamenting the grain in one of her photographs and that led to a discussion of Josef Koudelka and a look at his work in Gypsies, and Exils. So, the question is: Why is there so much grain in so many of Koudelka's images? Is it from the film/developer combination? Or, is he enlarging a very small portion of the negative? Could it be poor temperature control when developing the film, or what? Don't get me wrong, I really like his photographs (with and without grain) and in many cases, i actually think the grain enhances the image. In fact I can't think of of a photograph where I think the grain hurts the picture. Since it is not evident in all of his pictures I don't believe it is a stylistic choice. Can anyone provide some insight?
 
I did a little search to answer more specificly but there is no info on what film& developer he used. It was the early 60's for the Gypsie work. So taking into account that timing and that the eastern block might not have had access to latest film technology gives you a good idea that the film might be the major grain contributor.

I have recently seen Koudelka's exhibition on the Russian invasion '68 in the NY Arperture facility and the neg's have been at sizes between approx. 10x18inch to wall size of approx 5x7 ft. (Additionally there was a projection of his shots combined with additional film captions from the '68 invasion in Prague). So obviously there is grain visible all over the place but I never thought about it. If you (your student) have a picture that has a message / captures a moment of human emotion , no one cares about the grain. If your picture sucks you'll start blaming the grain ;).
 
I recall seeing Koudelka's work in the DVD series "Contact"; the neat thing about viewing contact sheets is that you can see in places the manufacturer's film markings. Of the contacts shown, he was using some form of Agfa film, and also Ilford's HP3.

~Joe
 
For a lot of his shooting in the 1960's (including his Prague invasion photos), Koudelka used the remnants of reels of movie film that were given to him by crews of some of the films he did set shots for. Look at the contact sheet that is reprinted in the article in the current Aperture--no frame numbers.

To my mind, the grain really makes his Prague '68 photos work.
 
From what I understand, when he photographed the gypsies, and the images from Exiles; he was using Tri-x with Rodinal. He would spend March through October photographing, and November through February sleeping in the Magnum offices processing film. The grain was intentional and part of his intent, and he mostly printed his images full frame.

I will see if I can find more info, and post again, if I do.
 
Sisyphus said:
The grain was intentional and part of his intent, and he mostly printed his images full frame.
Click to expand...

Sisyphus, this comment is not meant to quarrel with you. But, there are also many images in both books where the grain is barely noticeable at all, but other images (like the child, standing alone in Gypsies) where the grain is nearly overwhelming. If his intention was to show, through the grain, the grittiness of gypsy life, how then did he control what images were processed to produce significant grain? I used to use Tri-X and Rodinal exclusively so I know that combination can indeed produce grain. BTW, I have always assumed that his images are full frame.
 
John,

I don't think you are quarreling with me. Right now I do not have the answer to your question, I can merely speculate. However, when I return home this evening, I will look through Gypsies, look at the photo, and also review some additional info that I have to be better a bit better informed.

However, from what I understand about Koudelka's technique, I think he used the the Tri-x Rodinal combination, but I may be mistaken. From my experience working with Tri-x and Rodinal or other tyoes of developers, you can change the grain size in numerous ways; by changing the temperature of the developer, by changing the rate of your agitation or the intervals in which you agitate your film, type of developer, or if you push or pull your film.

Without knowing the image off hand, I can only speculate, but if the image was taken in low light situation this might cause the increase size of grain, or he might have pushed the film. There are so many variables. I have also noticed that sometimes if I am taking a singular image of just a person up close, compared to a street scene, in my own work, that the grain sometimes appears larger than the other images.

If you are willing to, please let me know what page number of the image you are referring to.

Additionally, I commented about the full frame becuase the original poster was wondering if he cropped or enlarged certain portions of the image, which would make the grain appear larger in some cases.

Excellent comment . . .
 
I looked at the book before I made my last post so I could give the page number, but the book is not paginated. It is about two thirds of the way through the book. It could have been from pushed film, and I know in that situation if you are using long development times in Rodinal that the grain will swell like popcorn. I am the OP and only suggested the idea of enlarging a fraction of the negative as a possible explanation. I do appreciate you taking time to help me figure out the answer (if there really is one.)

Sisyphus said:
John,

I don't think you are quarreling with me. Right now I do not have the answer to your question, I can merely speculate. However, when I return home this evening, I will look through Gypsies, look at the photo, and also review some additional info that I have to be better a bit better informed.

However, from what I understand about Koudelka's technique, I think he used the the Tri-x Rodinal combination, but I may be mistaken. From my experience working with Tri-x and Rodinal or other tyoes of developers, you can change the grain size in numerous ways; by changing the temperature of the developer, by changing the rate of your agitation or the intervals in which you agitate your film, type of developer, or if you push or pull your film.

Without knowing the image off hand, I can only speculate, but if the image was taken in low light situation this might cause the increase size of grain, or he might have pushed the film. There are so many variables. I have also noticed that sometimes if I am taking a singular image of just a person up close, compared to a street scene, in my own work, that the grain sometimes appears larger than the other images.

If you are willing to, please let me know what page number of the image you are referring to.

Additionally, I commented about the full frame becuase the original poster was wondering if he cropped or enlarged certain portions of the image, which would make the grain appear larger in some cases.

Excellent comment . . .
Click to expand...
 
John,

I am looking at the image of the child. It is a rather grainy image isn't it? I do not know for sure, but instinct tells me that one factor that the child was photographed in low light, which can accentuate the grain, and it looks like that he may have either overexposed the film, pushed the film when developing it, or a combination both.

The reason why I think he overexposed or pushed the film is because there is no or little detail in part of the highlights, like the child's arm, and part of the face. No detail in the object that the child is holding with her right arm, and no detail in the shadow area of her right arm as well, or on the right side of the image, and the child's hair.

I could not find anything concrete that explained what type of film he used or what developer, but I am pretty sure that he used Tri-X and Rodinal.

I hope that helps.

:S:
 
I guess one of the things about great photographers and their photographs is the fact that their images leave questions unanswered. Knowing just a little about Koudelka's life, I think at least part of the explanation lies in the physical conditions of his life at the time the images were made. I believe that he had a rather spartan life style during that period (and maybe still does). I think capturing the image was the sole driving force in his life and "correct" exposure, and/or precise temperature control were of secondary concern. Regardless, his work then and now should stand as inspiration to every photographer that aspires to reflect the human condition.
Sisyphus, thank you for taking the time consider my question.
 
Sisyphus said:
I could not find anything concrete that explained what type of film he used or what developer, but I am pretty sure that he used Tri-X and Rodinal.
Click to expand...

It's a bit late to answer but at least I can show you which film he used:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0SkmAh7d8

That is Orwo NP27, a product from east germany ("GDR"). It was horrible and is said to be the grainiest 400 ASA film you could buy in the 70s and 80s. Today that factory is modernized and produces material mainly for the motion picture industry and traffic surveillance. For a while a version of their traffic surveillance film TC27 was relabeled by a different company and sold as "R3".

The 'old GDR films' were improved and renamed: UN54 (100 ASA) and N 74 (400 ASA), and they are much better, approximately somewhere between the Fomas and the traditional b/w films from Kodak and Ilford.

The downside is that they only available in rolls starting from 100 feet. Some people including myself use them like Kodak 5222 and roll their own.

http://www.filmotec.de/?cat=23&lang=en&lang=en
 
Sisyphus said:
From what I understand, when he photographed the gypsies, and the images from Exiles; he was using Tri-x with Rodinal. He would spend March through October photographing, and November through February sleeping in the Magnum offices processing film. The grain was intentional and part of his intent, and he mostly printed his images full frame.

I will see if I can find more info, and post again, if I do.
Click to expand...

His Gypsies work was done around 1962, which is 8 years before the Prague Spring and more than 10 years before he joined Magnum.
 
The grain in his images is mostly due to technical constraints. The films and developers 50 years ago in the Soviet Block were quite inferior to today's products.

From what I know about Koudelka he did not do this on purpose. He was interested in the people he photographed and in what he called "the maximum*", he wasn't into gimmicks like artificially grainy images or anything like that.

*http://www.horvatland.com/pages/entrevues/05-koudelka-en_en.htm
 
Last edited:
icebear said:
I did a little search to answer more specificly but there is no info on what film& developer he used. It was the early 60's for the Gypsie work. So taking into account that timing and that the eastern block might not have had access to latest film technology gives you a good idea that the film might be the major grain contributor.

I have recently seen Koudelka's exhibition on the Russian invasion '68 in the NY Arperture facility and the neg's have been at sizes between approx. 10x18inch to wall size of approx 5x7 ft. (Additionally there was a projection of his shots combined with additional film captions from the '68 invasion in Prague). So obviously there is grain visible all over the place but I never thought about it. If you (your student) have a picture that has a message / captures a moment of human emotion , no one cares about the grain. If your picture sucks you'll start blaming the grain ;).
Click to expand...

I agree totally.

Cheers
Ernesto
 
I'm going through Gypsies now, and don't see ANY pictures where grain isn't quite prominent, in varying degrees. There is a photo of a small girl, titled "Svinia. 1966," in which grain is 'out of control,' but that seems to be a rare occasion in which he may have enlarged a small part of a negative. There's another VERY grainy image, "Podhorany. 1967," that looks full-frame, but in very dim light - maybe this was pushed or just underexposed?

The variability of grain in this book seems to be due to using different films, unsteady exposures and compensation in printing. I agree with everyone else - the grain largely contributes to the 'fabric' of the imagery. Gritty subject matter, treated with grit.

Like everyone else, i'd love to be able to tell your student to embrace grain, but we all know that how you feel about it depends on your personal vision. If you want grainless images, grain is the enemy, despite what other people are able to accomplish with it. Still, one hopes that with greater 'exposure' to fine examples of beautiful, grainy images, the student might find, at least, an appreciation for the aesthetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom