Ralph Gibson "look"

2 more examples of chiaroscuro. But this time, did not over expose.
Tri-x in XTOL . I "burned" for additional shadows in both the pictures.
both using the elmarit 90/f2.8 on the m4-p

chari.jpg



markus.jpg
 
I think you are mixing the means and purpose.
Overexposed, overdeveloped, all that... it may or may not match, but that's not what makes Gibson- Gibson.
You need to include a "visual hooks" into your pictures, a subject matter that will draw the person's eye to it, the rest is just a matter of presentation. Picture has to be interesting, arresting, puzzling to begin with. That's what matters most in RG's pictures. Teddy bear on a sofa will not cut it, weather it has RG's grain or shot with RG's Leica. :) No offense, please.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...AeT8PjKAg&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1457&bih=669
 
maclaine said:
I've posted this picture before to illustrate other things in various threads, but I think this might be my most "Gibson-esque" image. This was from the first roll of film I developed at home. It's Neopan 1600 developed in HC-100. However, I diluted it wrong and had somewhere around 3-4x the amount of developer necessary in the tank. The negative is certainly very dense! Printing it is actually a bit of a chore, and I still have yet to get a print that I'm as happy with as this scan.

4614560526_8de11d31b1_b.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think of Gibson when I look at this picture, I dont think it's his style - too many details, IMO.
Regardless though, it's a good picture.
 
As posted by Jaans..this makes perfect sense to me.Gibson has overexposed keeping his detail in the upper part of the curve towards the shoulder( look at film characteristic curve),thats why he has no shadow detail,also gives more density which increases the grain.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. If you overexpose, you do it to record the shadow detail, if you want no shadow detail and high contrast, you underexpose and push. However, I said what I said, and I mean it. If you prefer to do it upside down or inside out, it is up to you and I am cetainly not here to stop you having fun with it.

This is how an underexposed and overdeveloped shot looks like:

http://www.rlc6.dcccd.edu/artsnews/files/2011/01/2-Christine.jpg


This is how an overexposed and overdeveloped shot looks like:

3905405979_a0a80869f9_b.jpg


You get yes, high contrast, but you also get shadow detail everywhere, then if you overexpose Tri X a couple of stops, the shadow detail will go through the floor... go figure...

However, the more relevant point is not how to get high contrast, as you can also do it in PS, but what has ben said here:

I think you are mixing the means and purpose.
Overexposed, overdeveloped, all that... it may or may not match, but that's not what makes Gibson- Gibson.
You need to include a "visual hooks" into your pictures, a subject matter that will draw the person's eye to it, the rest is just a matter of presentation. Picture has to be interesting, arresting, puzzling to begin with. That's what matters most in RG's pictures. Teddy bear on a sofa will not cut it, weather it has RG's grain or shot with RG's Leica. :) No offense, please.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I've also read Ralph Gibson's interviews and he does say he shoots at ISO 100 or 200 and then overdevelops. But I think he also says that he meters for highlights. So basically doesn't that mean that he places zone VII highlights into zone V. If you do that with ISO 100 set on your meter isnt that the same as metering for mid grey at ISO 400 ?
So I think he may not actually overexpose that much (but certainly overdevelops to increase contrast).
Am I wrong here ?
 
David67 said:
I've also read Ralph Gibson's interviews and he does say he shoots at ISO 100 or 200 and then overdevelops. But I think he also says that he meters for highlights. So basically doesn't that mean that he places zone VII highlights into zone V. If you do that with ISO 100 set on your meter isnt that the same as metering for mid grey at ISO 400 ?
So I think he may not actually overexpose that much (but certainly overdevelops to increase contrast).
Am I wrong here ?
Click to expand...

The meter reading is zone V,to make exposure for VII you need to give 2 stop more exposure than indicated by meter.
You have a white brick wall...meter reading off wall is 250/f11 with 100 film,make exposure 250/f5.6 or 60/f11.
To use 250/f11..set ISO @ 25.
Hope that helps.
 
icamp said:
The meter reading is zone V,to make exposure for VII you need to give 2 stop more exposure than indicated by meter.
You have a white brick wall...meter reading off wall is 250/f11 with 100 film,make exposure 250/f5.6 or 60/f11.
To use 250/f11..set ISO @ 25.
Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Yes I know that, thank you. I think I was saying the same thing. To recap :
Meter set at Iso 100. Metering done on the highlights of the scene. That does place highlights in zone V by construction. It is exactly the same as metering for mid grey at Iso 400 (assuming your highlights are on zone VII), or metering the highlights at iso 400 and then opening two stops.
So what I am saying is Ralph is not overexposing. He has an exposure technique based on metering the highlights of a scene, but this is not overexposure. The images of mfogiel make the point also I think.
 
icamp said:
It is overexposure.. you letting more light reach film..underexposure is reducing light to film.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

If you have an ISO 400 film and expose it at 100 ISO yes indeed you overexpose it, all other things being equal.

But if you take your metering not on the basis of a neutral gray (zone V) but on the basis of a highlight (zone VII), which is what I understand Mr Gibson is doing, then the ISO you set on your camera actually corrects for your specific method of metering (spot meter reading on a highlight). What you've done is measuring the highlights and placing them on zone VII by increasing the exposure by 2 stops (which is what you achieve through changing the iso setting on your camera). This is not overexposure, this is zone system 101.

Try it with a meter or a camera, you'll understand.

Then the overdevelopment increases the contrast and grain, especially with Rodinal at low dilutions.

And this is consistent with mfogiel image examples.
 
Yeah, I don't think you are correct. I'm pretty sure I read in an interview he overexposes the film by 1-2 stops and overdevelops to boot.
 
Read it again then. Does he say anywhere that he overexposes ? No.
What he says is that he exposes for highlights :
"And I discovered this by photographing primarily in bright sun and exposing for highlights, which is pretty easy to do."
interview link : http://www.bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm

Now go shoot a scene in the sun by overexposing and overdeveloping it, and prove me wrong.

There's no magic in the Ralph Gibson look. It's basic densitometry and understanding of your film and your developer.
 
He actually says in that interview he doesn't really use the meter at all with his Leica cameras.

Anyway, the man himself says the darkroom book:

To develop Tri-X, I use 10cc of Rodinal for every roll. If I am developing two rolls of film in a two-reel tank, I fill the tank with water at 68 degrees to within a quarter of an inch of the brim. Then I pour in in 20 cc of developer and stir. This is generally considered too harsh a solution, but it gives me the quality I desire. An eleven minute development time with agitation every minute and a half for ten seconds yields a contrasty negative having the appearance of blocked highlights. Thinner negatives, finer grain, longer development... I've tried all of these approaches, but the only negative that I consider interesting in terms of its potential is the overexposed, over developed one.
Click to expand...

Overexposed means overexposed, not exposed for the highlights.
 
David67 said:
I don't think you understood what I was saying.

If you have an ISO 400 film and expose it at 100 ISO yes indeed you overexpose it, all other things being equal.

But if you take your metering not on the basis of a neutral gray (zone V) but on the basis of a highlight (zone VII), which is what I understand Mr Gibson is doing, then the ISO you set on your camera actually corrects for your specific method of metering (spot meter reading on a highlight). What you've done is measuring the highlights and placing them on zone VII by increasing the exposure by 2 stops (which is what you achieve through changing the iso setting on your camera). This is not overexposure, this is zone system 101.

Try it with a meter or a camera, you'll understand.

Then the overdevelopment increases the contrast and grain, especially with Rodinal at low dilutions.

And this is consistent with mfogiel image examples.
Click to expand...

With respect..i dont think you understand your own post and you did not read mine.
If you have 400 film and want to meter a highlight the ISO you set on your camera is 100.With 100 ISO set on your camera,you have corrected for your method of metering (reading on a highlight).This is how i read your post
If you have exposure compensation dial on camera..set to +2 and shoot,its the same thing .
 
icamp said:
With respect..i dont think you understand your own post and you did not read mine.
If you have 400 film and want to meter a highlight the ISO you set on your camera is 100.With 100 ISO set on your camera,you have corrected for your method of metering (reading on a highlight).This is how i read your post
If you have exposure compensation dial on camera..set to +2 and shoot,its the same thing .
Click to expand...

I don't understand what ANYone is saying.

If you "expose for the highlight," how can you know ahead of time what the differential is between the "highlight" and 17% gray? The way i (thought i) understood it, you actually have to meter for the brightest region in the frame/scene and then let the rest of the darker values fall where ever they may. Same thing Steve McCurry used to do with color chrome film. But, whatever - the 'highlight' might be two stops brighter, but it might also be only a half step up, or three steps up. But, either way - you can't just change your ISO rating for the roll and expect the highlights in every shot to magically/conveniently be the same differential in every shot.

What am i missing?

And, saying you "expose for the highlights" without using a meter - seriously? That's either confidence/supreme competence or arrogance. I love Ralph Gibson's (old) work, so i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
Its about the "tones" you want to reproduce in the print.
If you take a photo of snow with out exposure compensation.its very hard to get the right tones when making the print..the snow looks muddy and grey with no texture.
Thats why i think Gibson overexpose.
 
Interesting thread here.

I like Ralph´s look.

I´m gonna give this a try, gonna shoot a trix400 @ 200 today and develope it like I would be developing 800 iso. I use xtol though.

It is an overcasting day here though, no hard sunlight.

will show the result here tonight or tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom