Modern Black and White Aesthetic

[John Bragg]

I was traveling across Canada and doing commissioning, training of broadcast systems.
After many years of those and my previous international, intercontinental travels for business I came to "one week, one bag" traveling style.
I'm not a snob and do my own laundry by my bare hands every day.
To keep this travel light concept I didn't haul loads of cameras and lenses.
Just one small camera and lens. With dozen or less films per week.

I would leave hotel room in one hour before my job starts and do photo walk. After work I would walk for photos until it was time for laundry, bathroom and sleep.

I was loading ISO400 rated as @1600 at any time. Starting from hotel in the morning ISO1600 was good. Sun was going up, I would put x2 yellow filter to lower shutter speeds to which camera shutter supports. Sun is in the zenith, x4 orange filter.

After work walk it would be often still the same film and it would go to the opposite. Orange x4 to bring it down @1600, yellow x2 and then just protective filter. And if I would walk into the gallery, museum, exhibition with bright light still on outside with same film in the camera, but in dark halls of museums or in the pubs, where I stopped to eat. 1600 was handy.

I would change film in the evening and dark, rate it as @1600 and continue to use this film next day.

Why I would not dink with two cameras? I wanted to travel, walk light and smart. After decades of travels it feels great not to check-in your Samsonite and wait for it to be dumped at the baggage carousel. 😉

__________________________________________________

But for some it might be too ESL (educated solution level).
How do you know if frame posted on Flickr was not taken under same as mine solution allowing to use same high rated film for any situation instead of dinking with different cameras, different films?

Great. Glad it works for you and is an interesting solution to your problem. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Huss]

I feel no need to criticize whatever aesthetic someone else likes or enjoys.

I can only know what satisfies me, at some given point, for some given intent, and that's what I try to produce. And when viewing other people's work, I look for what I like at that point, and what I might divine out of it.

A punchy, grainy, contrasty look ... works well for some things, some moments, some photographs. A smooth, "perfect" tonal scale with high detail and grainless acutance works well for others. I can easily point to examples of both in my own work ... and regardless whether the capture medium was film or digital.

It seems wrong to me to say "the kids today don't understand, they're missing what I loved." The photographs they are making are their photographs, not mine, and they should make them as their heart and eye intend. They might not always be what I like, but then neither were the photographs that others of my contemporaries (or even my own!) always what I liked, looking at them now.

Make your photographs the way you like and show them, share them. If they provide the thrill to other photographer, younger photographers, that you feel they do, those others will emulate them. Don't go telling those folks that their capture medium is wrong or deficient, or that you dislike their expression, because then they won't listen to you.

G

Well said.

 

[Huss]

Brad likes grainy contrasty pics. He shot these on film - not sure what kind but I sorta remember it was a specific high contrast stock that he had searched out.

https://www.boredpanda.com/family-photos-brad-pitt-angelina-jolie/

 

[Huss]

Yes Vince
He would get crazy with his dodge & burn, burn and dodge, lol
His body of work is exquisite
Be it Nudes, Portraits, Social Commentary (love the book ‘The English at home’

Every photographer I know has his hit & misses
For Me, Brandt’s work is Raw, Emotional... emotive

I've always loved your avatar pic.
High contrast etc and fantastic.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Great. Glad it works for you and is an interesting solution to your problem. Thanks for sharing.

It is common solution for pictures posted on Flickr these days.
People are often using same roll of film in single camera for indoors, outdoors.
Not everyone is pushing Ansel Adams style, but many are buying single roll of film as expensive thing, not getting sheet loads of film for free from Kodak as Adams.

 

[icebear]

I love a Photo that moves me, pulls me in
Gets me thinking, stirs my emotions

Does not matter whether it’s ‘punchy’ , a full tonal spectrum of greys, or lots of rich inky blacks
😉

Hi Helen, me too !

What matters first is content. If it doesn't speak to me everything else is lost. Doesn't matter the brilliant technical aspects, a boring image is a boring image.
I'm personally more on the total range:
There needs to be some BLACK and some WHITE, the entire range from end to end. I don't care if there are a multitude of shades grey (50?) in between. If it's just all greys and no black, it's not for me. I don't obsess over the zones but I do try to expose properly using the histogram on 'ole Miss MM.😉
I do like what I get as end result

DNG -> processed image TIFF -> quad tone rip -> piezo print

As for Ansel Adams: Technical perfection following a certain ideal gives you something to obsess about when there aren't a lot of interesting images you feel the urge to catch. He caught some great images though. Getting to a vantage point in Yosemite and seeing the natural view of half dome or other scenery you only knew from his books, ... it certainly is impressive. I missed the tour bus - almost. 😀

 

[DHK]

“We were using Tri-X film pushed to 1200 ASA, whereas the normal rating is 400. The reason was to be able to shoot at 1/1000th of a second as much as possible, because if you made pictures on the street at 1/125th, they were blurry. If you lunged at something, either it would move or else your own motion would mess up the picture. I began to work that way after looking at my pictures and noticing that they had those loose edges, Garry’s were crisp.” – Joel Meyerowitz From Bystander: A History of Street Photography.

Since I read this, I wondered how Mr. Winogrand processed his film technically. I wouldn't say his images looked pushed in a tonal sense. I'm always curious to the truth of quotes like these, and when they are true - how often?

 

[Huss]

“We were using Tri-X film pushed to 1200 ASA, whereas the normal rating is 400. The reason was to be able to shoot at 1/1000th of a second as much as possible, because if you made pictures on the street at 1/125th, they were blurry. If you lunged at something, either it would move or else your own motion would mess up the picture. I began to work that way after looking at my pictures and noticing that they had those loose edges, Garry’s were crisp.” – Joel Meyerowitz From Bystander: A History of Street Photography.

Since I read this, I wondered how Mr. Winogrand processed his film technically. I wouldn't say his images looked pushed in a tonal sense. I'm always curious to the truth of quotes like these, and when they are true - how often?

Just using the Sunny F16 rule, in bright daylight 400 ISO film can be shot at 1/1000 @ F11.
So I am assuming they were shooting in dark alleys? Deep shade? You'd still be at 1/500 & F4 in the shade. If they wanted deep DOF and 1/1000 sec in the shade, then yes they'd have to push the film.

 

[JeffS7444]

The photographs [the kids] are making are their photographs, not mine, and they should make them as their heart and eye intend. They might not always be what I like, but then neither were the photographs that others of my contemporaries (or even my own!) always what I liked, looking at them now.

Well said Godfrey, and how boring life would be if all paintings were done in a realistic style - Andy Warhol took a whiz on that idea, sometimes literally - or all photos were required to have proper Zone 3 and Zone 8 tonal values! (not to dismiss A Adams's work, which really benefits from bright lighting IMO)

Let's also not forget that what we're seeing may be the result of someone just farting around and seeing what's possible and not a profound statement.

 

[Huss]

“We were using Tri-X film pushed to 1200 ASA, whereas the normal rating is 400. The reason was to be able to shoot at 1/1000th of a second as much as possible, because if you made pictures on the street at 1/125th, they were blurry. If you lunged at something, either it would move or else your own motion would mess up the picture. I began to work that way after looking at my pictures and noticing that they had those loose edges, Garry’s were crisp.” – Joel Meyerowitz From Bystander: A History of Street Photography.

Since I read this, I wondered how Mr. Winogrand processed his film technically. I wouldn't say his images looked pushed in a tonal sense. I'm always curious to the truth of quotes like these, and when they are true - how often?

p.s. thank you for reminding me about Meyerowitz, and why I love color photography!

 

[DHK]

Just using the Sunny F16 rule, in bright daylight 400 ISO film can be shot at 1/1000 @ F11.
So I am assuming they were shooting in dark alleys? Deep shade? You'd still be at 1/500 & F4 in the shade. If they wanted deep DOF and 1/1000 sec in the shade, then yes they'd have to push the film.

The weird part to me was why shoot at asa 1200? Was it different in the 60s? It's not a normal place to set a meter. Regardless, if 400asa == 1/1000 at f11, then 800asa is f16 and then 1250asa is at f20 and 1/1000... err on the side of overexposure and you reach f16 and 1/1000. If he used a yellow filter than it's brought back down to f11 and 1/000 when pushing to 1250. That eliminates having to focus and have to stop and hold the camera still.

I've also read that he would use a dim green light to inspect film while developing - was that common practice? Can someone explain that in detail?

 

[DHK]

p.s. thank you for reminding me about Meyerowitz, and why I love color photography!

meyerowitz, eggleston, herzog, parr, mermelstein... such life in color.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Just using the Sunny F16 rule, in bright daylight 400 ISO film can be shot at 1/1000 @ F11.
So I am assuming they were shooting in dark alleys? Deep shade? You'd still be at 1/500 & F4 in the shade. If they wanted deep DOF and 1/1000 sec in the shade, then yes they'd have to push the film.

They were not taking pictures of their lady with also nice little dog.
"Darling, could you, please, turn this way".
🙂
They were on Manhattan streets with light and shadows co-existed.
It isn't as sunny as fields of California. 🙂

As for your question, true or false. I have seen Winogrands negatives of 125 ISO film. In one story about him from NY class he told "f8 and 1/250 is good". In another document I read about him via MOMA photography course "Seeing Through Photographs" to answer question "how long it took you to take this photograph" he told "1/125th of the second".

Here is no true or false. Where are different situations. And "F8 and be where" is just stupid. 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

Let's also not forget that what we're seeing may be the result of someone just farting around and seeing what's possible and not a profound statement.

Completely. And let’s not forget that you don’t have to be good at something to enjoy it either.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Completely. And let’s not forget that you don’t have to be good at something to enjoy it either.

It’s like sex, then. That’s the best synopsis of all this.

 

[Ccoppola82]

One thing that really does bother me is how the very young people will buy a single roll of film...push it 2 stops...and publish a "review" of it in YouTube and make recommendations or statements of the films quality or "who it's for". Irritates me because at least in my own experience, it took me probably 30 rolls or so of hp5 shot at a few different EI and paired with various developers to even begin getting a handle on it. They do this for lenses and camera bodies as well and I find it misleading. Even so, I suppose it's not as bad as the "why I bought this camera" videos. Lol

 

[LCSmith]

They were on Manhattan streets with light and shadows co-existed.
It isn't as sunny as fields of California. 🙂

Quite true. For me this is the thrill of Manhattan street photography. On a sunny day in midtown it's an obstacle course of light and dark. Much is reaction -- but calculated reaction.

 

[Huss]

They were not taking pictures of their lady with also nice little dog.
"Darling, could you, please, turn this way".
🙂
They were on Manhattan streets with light and shadows co-existed.
It isn't as sunny as fields of California. 🙂

Most of Meyerowitz's street photography was in very bright conditions.
His subjects were mostly brightly lit, even if there were shadows in the scene.
He exposed for his subjects in the bright light, not for the shadows that may have been in the frame.
So an easy F11 @ 1/1000 @ 400 ISO.

But... most of his famous work is colour, and it seems he used Kodachrome back then. He couldn't push K64 to 1200 ISO so adopted a different style which insisted that he shot in bright conditions.

 

[Prest_400]

I would counter your argument and say it’s way more difficult to compose a photo stopped down then it is wide open. At F/2.8 or F/3.5 you’re ignoring all the elements in the foreground and background that can potentially add context to your image.

Also, Winogrand and Meyerowitz are both known for shooting at 1/1000th of a second and pushing their film 2 stops in dev. Would you call their work lazy, mediocre, and ugly? These methods are available to photographers to use as tools, there is no wrong way to make art.

Something sounded off about wide open/stopped down composition and I'm glad to say it's because I've become used to Rangefinders which show no DoF!
My experience is a strange mix as I shoot a 6x9 Fuji rangefinder which in practice leans to a slower more meditative shooting. I've only pushed once, and it was a N+1 under fog to raise negative contrast in HP5. In some ways I find counterintuitive to push in medium format and ISO 400 has suited me. I should try more however.

Not only photography wise, but thinking cinematography I've often looked up to the concept and aesthetic of Film Noir. I should watch more classic B&W movies.

Nicely written for a start ^^^. And I thought when digital first came out I would never have to put my hands in developer again. I was wrong at least for what I wanted; conversions just didn't work for me. Now I don't even think about digital to B&W conversions. I spend my B&W time continually trying to produce the effect I want.

I have devolved so now I don't even really like my own digital color work. There is a softness, warm, non-surgical look to color film that I really can't leave. Just like Prest 400.

Agreeing with you John. I also like to say that the "never will shoot X again" formula doesn't work. All in all they are tools. 35mm film, for example, in practical use can readily be replaced by digital. But as an amateur and doing photography for pleasure there is something besides pure technical prowess and efficiency.

Your words made me think that, as I moved north from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia, I find the scenery not as romantically fitting to that color negative look. Portra looks wonderful under Mediterranean and Californian light; I'd say its warmer palette and light do that.
I do have some Provia and Portra frozen for when the occasion arises but so far I've been mostly focused on B&W.

Back to the example of tools, I like to think that a large part of (the amateur photography I engage in) is about emotions and time. Playing with the very different looks is part of the fun.

But... most of his famous work is colour, and it seems he used Kodachrome back then. He couldn't push K64 to 1200 ISO so adopted a different style which insisted that he shot in bright conditions.

Reminds me that shooting slow chrome film is a good way to recalibrate one's perception. When I did a year of Kodachrome 64, TriX afterwards felt really fast!

 

[jsrockit]

They were on Manhattan streets with light and shadows co-existed.
It isn't as sunny as fields of California. 🙂

Exactly...the tall buildings shield the sun so much of the day and so much of the year in Manhattan.