David67
Member
Yes I think that is exactly what I was saying so I don't think we are in a disagreement here. Anyway that's how I would do to try and reproduce a Ralph Gibson look.
True overexposure would give too much shadow detail I'm afraid (see mfogiel example).
OR there is indeed overexposure in order to increase grain, and then the shadows are significantly burned during the printing process. Maybe that's what Ralph is doing.
redisburning
Well-known
so, long story short, if I wanted to hand my film off to a lab (not that I do, it's just that my lease prohibits me from doing it at home + I dont really have the time to learn how to develop right now) and wanted to get the super dark blacks and high contrast, should I shoot 400 iso film at 100 and have them do 400, or would it be much preferable to shoot at 200 and ask for it to be pushed to 800?
the reason I ask is because pushing/pulling film around here costs a fair bit of extra cash on an already preposterously overpriced service. maybe I need to mail out or something...
edit: btw, will their scanner be able to handle such a dense negative?
the reason I ask is because pushing/pulling film around here costs a fair bit of extra cash on an already preposterously overpriced service. maybe I need to mail out or something...
edit: btw, will their scanner be able to handle such a dense negative?
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
Your lease prohibits you from developing film? How does that work!?
redisburning
Well-known
General prohibition of pouring chemicals down the drain was along the lines of what I was told. I dont think it's technically against my lease but I did give housing a call to make sure and they told me it was best not to do it. Im really, really, really not in a position to find a new place to live so I just let it be.
Im in a little down period between the university lab reopening and midterms. Previously, I did not have real darkroom access, for the next couple of weeks I just dont have the time to devote to learning how to do it. Ive got enough time to shoot one or two rolls and hand them to the lab, that's probably about the most I can do. Unless doing this is something I can figure out after 2 rolls (my current stock of not worth developing rolls with pictures on them) having never done it before, it's worth it to me to figure out how to get close enough results from the lab I can do the rest in photoshop.
I would expect the whole darkroom thing to be pretty complicated. I didnt just pick up a camera and turn into Kenro Izu, or anything even remotely close to the same league, so I would not expect to get the results I want from developing so easily.
Last edited:
Japan---Exposures
Member
"Exposing for the highlights" does not necessarily mean overexposure, although it could. But it would more generally mean exposing in a way that the highlights are recorded without loosing detail and "let the shadows fall where they may".
But as someone else said, if there is no connection to your vision i.e. what it is that you are photographing and why, then the how is irrelevant, but to be fair the OP asked for a "look", not an artistic vision.
But as someone else said, if there is no connection to your vision i.e. what it is that you are photographing and why, then the how is irrelevant, but to be fair the OP asked for a "look", not an artistic vision.
jmcd
Well-known
In the Darkroom section of Camera from 1978, Ralph discusses how for years he struggled with a normal negative. Then while the Somnambulist was being printed, he noticed how much ink the printer used on the plates, thus creating great blacks.
After this Ralph change the way he made negatives, more to model the lithographic process. He went to contrasty subject matter, and intentionally overexposed and overdeveloped, which made for increased grain and contrast. This created a denser than normal negative, which for him allowed for more exploration in the printing process.
After this Ralph change the way he made negatives, more to model the lithographic process. He went to contrasty subject matter, and intentionally overexposed and overdeveloped, which made for increased grain and contrast. This created a denser than normal negative, which for him allowed for more exploration in the printing process.
ChrisN
Striving
That's my interpretation too. I used this approach with the attached shot - metered to ensure the highlights didn't blow out, and let the shadows block up.
But I'm left wondering about how he prints these negs. If he does over-expose then overdevelop, he'll have negs with good shadow detail and very dense highlights. I guess that with the very dense highlights (but apparently not blocked solid) he has to use a long-enough print exposure time that causes the shadows to block up to the extent he wants but without requiring much burning-in. High-contast paper probably helps.
So I wonder how he avoids the highlights blowing out on the neg, with both over-exposure and over-development? When he speaks of over-development, does he mean relative to normal development for the box speed, or relative to the development time that you would normally use for a film pulled (over-exposed) two stops. Let's say he shoots the whole roll of 400 iso film at 100 iso (two stops over-exposure) - does he then develop for the normal 400 iso development time, or does he add 40% to the normal 400 iso development time? (Or does he add 40% to the normal time for a film pulled two stops, and end up developing for the 400 iso normal?)
Attachments
Jaans
Well-known
That's my interpretation too. I used this approach with the attached shot - metered to ensure the highlights didn't blow out, and let the shadows block up.
But I'm left wondering about how he prints these negs. If he does over-expose then overdevelop, he'll have negs with good shadow detail and very dense highlights. I guess that with the very dense highlights (but apparently not blocked solid) he has to use a long-enough print exposure time that causes the shadows to block up to the extent he wants but without requiring much burning-in. High-contast paper probably helps.
So I wonder how he avoids the highlights blowing out on the neg, with both over-exposure and over-development? When he speaks of over-development, does he mean relative to normal development for the box speed, or relative to the development time that you would normally use for a film pulled (over-exposed) two stops. Let's say he shoots the whole roll of 400 iso film at 100 iso (two stops over-exposure) - does he then develop for the normal 400 iso development time, or does he add 40% to the normal 400 iso development time? (Or does he add 40% to the normal time for a film pulled two stops, and end up developing for the 400 iso normal?)
Just to give you some idea of how much he overdevelops - from Kodak literature that was floating around @ the massive development chart as well as what I have tested, for TRI-X exposed at EI:400 using Rodinal at 1:25 dilution, the development time is between 6:30 and 7 minutes.
So, if Gibson exposes his TRI-X at EI:400, then if he develops for his suggested time of 11 minutes, then he is overdeveloping by 4 minutes. You must also remember that he chooses scenes that have strong highlights a lot of the time, so this overtime if you will of 4 minutes is substantial.
If he exposes his film at EI:100 or 200, then develops at 11 minutes, then he is already overdeveloping his negative by 4 minutes for EI:400, then you have to take into account these extra 1 or 2 stops that he has overexposed. So, instead of pulling and developing for a shorter time than the 7 minutes, he is still overdeveloping regardless. Apparently all of his film receives the same time treatment. Of course he has to print down the highlights, and although the shadows lose their detail when he does this, they still have golf ball like grain - hence the reason for the overexposure.
But as others have mentioned, his 'look' is not only about this gritty development that he achieves, but also how close he gets into the strongly lit subject and breaks down the scene into a few important details, where everything else is left out of the frame. He specifically uses a 50mm summilux for this most of the time as that lens has been his stalwart from day one, namely his early series in LA in the 60's. I enjoy looking at how his vision has developed from his archives on his website.
What is interesting is comparing Gibson with someone like the Magnum photographer Trent Parke, who also achieves big grain, but in contrast, Parke uses the 28mm lens and shoots scenes that have many components in them. They are often more complex in terms of coverage, as there are more elements contained within the one frame.
Gibson's early work was more street related like Parkes and if you look at his Gibson's site there is my favorite shot of the couple walking up from the beach with his shadow also in the scene, insinuating the all seeing eye or the notion of power over his subjects. The grain is also fantastic. In later years he had less elements in his photos.
Anyway, thats my take,
Cheers
Jaans
Well-known
If you go to his website, ralphgibson.com, then go into archive 1, then go into san francisco series, then photo #20 is of that beach scene I mentioned. #21 is also complex as well as #16 or 17 of the old ladies on the bench.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
Jaans,
thanks for your reference to Trent Parke, incredible images. Just a quote on T.P:
"Trent's aesthetic is dominated by his use of harsh, sharp light, and deep black shadows.
Trent achieves this by often shooting directly into the sun, pushing his film and over-exposing each photo by between 1 to 4 stops (developing the shadows) Trent then prints his photos very dark (printing for the highlights) resulting in extreme contrast or saturation.
Trent then dodge's and burns the images (Trent prints pretty much all of his own work and always makes the first print from each negative) but explains he does not like tampering with them too much.
Trent's methods obviously employ such a great tonality from the film that he could never achieve his desired look with the limited tonality of Digital image capture."
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2855508874
thanks for your reference to Trent Parke, incredible images. Just a quote on T.P:
"Trent's aesthetic is dominated by his use of harsh, sharp light, and deep black shadows.
Trent achieves this by often shooting directly into the sun, pushing his film and over-exposing each photo by between 1 to 4 stops (developing the shadows) Trent then prints his photos very dark (printing for the highlights) resulting in extreme contrast or saturation.
Trent then dodge's and burns the images (Trent prints pretty much all of his own work and always makes the first print from each negative) but explains he does not like tampering with them too much.
Trent's methods obviously employ such a great tonality from the film that he could never achieve his desired look with the limited tonality of Digital image capture."
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2855508874
GSNfan
Well-known
It would have been cool had he given a nod to Diado Moriyama, because his 'look' is very similar to Moriyama's work, not to mention he even uses a similar 28mm focal length.
I did liked M2M a lot but now I have slightly overgrown that initial impressions.
I also feel there is absolutely no point in copying someone else's look, because it will be just an imitation and never matching the original... And even if its better than the original, it is still an imitation.
Last edited:
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
GSNFan,
thanks for your comments. As a student (of photography), I find learning by imitation very effective. And perhaps more productive than just gear talk, which is fun too but not necessarily correlated to my output.
I read somewhere that to be an expert in something, one has to put in 10,000 hours in the craft. I sort of started a year ago, so I still have nine more years before i can start being an expert.
Trent / Daido / GB have similarities, large grain, high contrasts. I think Daido pushes his film, similar to Araki or Yamasakiko. I find more shadows (and details) in GB and Trent's work. Still experimenting, still figuring out.
raytoei
thanks for your comments. As a student (of photography), I find learning by imitation very effective. And perhaps more productive than just gear talk, which is fun too but not necessarily correlated to my output.
I read somewhere that to be an expert in something, one has to put in 10,000 hours in the craft. I sort of started a year ago, so I still have nine more years before i can start being an expert.
Trent / Daido / GB have similarities, large grain, high contrasts. I think Daido pushes his film, similar to Araki or Yamasakiko. I find more shadows (and details) in GB and Trent's work. Still experimenting, still figuring out.
raytoei
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
sorry about the perspective/framing.
+1 Overexposed and Overdeveloped.
PP Dodge and Burn.
+1 Overexposed and Overdeveloped.
PP Dodge and Burn.
mcdef
Newbie
Featureless blacks and glowing highlights. Here's the closest one of mine I can find.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
hi. Here is a pdf file on Ralph Gibson
from a 1977 Book "Darkroom".
"...When I took the photograph, I exposed for the
highlights and let the shadows go black, as always.
Shadow detail is of great concern to some photographers.
It's something I don't like in my work. I prefer to have
the shadows go completely black to produce strong shapes."
http://retro.ms11.net/rgo.pdf
from a 1977 Book "Darkroom".
"...When I took the photograph, I exposed for the
highlights and let the shadows go black, as always.
Shadow detail is of great concern to some photographers.
It's something I don't like in my work. I prefer to have
the shadows go completely black to produce strong shapes."
http://retro.ms11.net/rgo.pdf
Chris101
summicronia
Featureless blacks and glowing highlights. Here's the closest one of mine I can find.
That looks like Gibson's style for sure!
Jaans
Well-known
The way the subject is tightly composed, the framing and lighting all look similar to a Gibson. However, there is little perceptible grain in this image - it is bordering on flat (nothing wrong with that) and instead Gibson's imagery is known for its grainy grittty look.
Chris101
summicronia
I dunno - a lot of Ralph's stuff is grainy, but not everything is. Think about the one with the arm and hand - the subject is wearing a stripped shirt - writing with a fountain pen. Or the one with the hand holding the pocket watch. Or any of his stringed instrument nudes from the last few years. They are all pretty crisp, with some grain as are nearly all film pictures, but not gritty by any measure.
Jaans
Well-known
Your right - 'gritty' was probably the wrong terminology to use for all his images. Having said that, my favorite Gibson image of the beach with his shadow in the foreground and an old person coming up is definetely gritty.
I am well acquainted with those images that you mentioned (frequently lurk on his site^^)- even have the one with the man and walking stick on a calendar at home from his exhibition. All of those photos have much more perceived depth than the image that you refer to below as having a Gibson look. The image below has that sheen either from digital capture (looks slick) or a slow speed film - if you look at the whites on the pepper shaker compared with the white on the writing pad from his website (the one you referred to) - they are different. His writing pad has noticeable grain where it is absent in this shot.
So, like I said earlier - this photo has the 'Gibson look' in terms of composition/framing/light, but the noticeable absence of grain and that gloss runs contrary to his search for grain in the finished image. Don't get me wrong - I like the photo below, but it is just too 'slick' to be compared to a Gibson.
I am well acquainted with those images that you mentioned (frequently lurk on his site^^)- even have the one with the man and walking stick on a calendar at home from his exhibition. All of those photos have much more perceived depth than the image that you refer to below as having a Gibson look. The image below has that sheen either from digital capture (looks slick) or a slow speed film - if you look at the whites on the pepper shaker compared with the white on the writing pad from his website (the one you referred to) - they are different. His writing pad has noticeable grain where it is absent in this shot.
So, like I said earlier - this photo has the 'Gibson look' in terms of composition/framing/light, but the noticeable absence of grain and that gloss runs contrary to his search for grain in the finished image. Don't get me wrong - I like the photo below, but it is just too 'slick' to be compared to a Gibson.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
hi. the pdf link seem to be working now.