wave_jumper

<P>.<BR> http://pegappp.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/strand_mrbennet_.jpg <P>So what makes this tonal range different from when he had shot the same picture with a Canon DSLR?</strong><br /> <br /> I hope some of you will be able to help, and that the people who do not know, resist the urge to post things as "the look of Paul Strand is more than using this or that material", "it is impossible to recreate this without an 8x10 camera and platinum paper and the same toning chemicals" and the like. Because mind you, you are looking at this picture on your small computer screen...so there is no paper texture involved. No difference in resolution. With the extensive controls of Photoshop one should be able to come <em>close</em> to this scan.<br /> <br /> My impression is that the shadows are compressed. There is a little bit of detail in his clothing which I really like. Would this be deliberate underexposure? Or burning in the darkroom? Because of the old film he was using, probably the skintones rendered a little darker than his Canon? Is there any compression of the highlights? Probably some burning on the wood?</p> <p>Personally I am shooting 120 film and scanning it. Would like to know what differences you see. Would there be any particular stock like Tri-X, FP4+, Delta, Acros or Neopan having a curve which achieves something like it? It is evident that the look of Paul Strand is more than choosing a particular film. Especially since he was printing on platinum paper.<br /> <br /> Thanks in advance! :)</p>

<p><img src="https://pegappp.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/strand_mrbennet_.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Amazing! This picture though of Strand again shows the compressed shadow look, right? It does have the same lighting as well. <br /> Compressed shadows, expanded midtones. What about the highlights? Is this something that would be easier to achieve with FP4+, Tri-X, Delta or Acros film? (I know that the printing has much more to do with the look, yes)</p>

<p>Maybe someone can help more easily by looking at this platinum print by Paul Strand,<br /> <a href="https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/strand-cobbler1.jpg">https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/strand-cobbler1.jpg</a></p> <p>It does not seem to be processed too much. Cloudy daylight. The Scene is one of high dynamic range (specular highlights in face and highlights sleeves to black shadow). If he took the same picture with a Canon DSLR how would it look different?<br /> - As I see it, the shadows are completely compressed; look at hair; no detail. Long and steep toe?<br /> - The midtones are darkened (see face) and expanded? So upswept curve to increase contrast?<br /> - The highlights; compressed? So no highlight contrast? Long, gentle shoulder?</p> <p>So in short, I should shoot a film, with a long toe right into the midtones, then a long gentle shoulder? With a little bit of dodge/burning I should come close. When I scan, I clip some more shadow detail, compress gently some highlight detail, and lower the overall contrast? <br /> My guess would be FP4+ would be about right. Or Tri-x? </p> <p>With a DSLR I would expose for the highlights and apply the same curves and do some dodge/burning/toning? Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses so far! Kinda strange though that as a photographer you do not know the difference between dodging and burning Leszek.. Anyways, yes I am trying my best to replicate his materials as much as possible. I am using Fomopan film which, because of less sensitivity to reds, has darker skin tones (much like his orthochromatic film). But from my point of view, it should be possible to recreate the tonality anyhow with the extensive control of Photoshop.<br> Btw, Steve I like the picture, and with a little bit of tweaking I was able to get it quite close as well (upswept curve again!)</p>

<p>Alright so how do I come as close as possible then to these scans?<br /> Probably lifting shadows, and pushing down highlights with a simple curve adjustment will be the last step to it. Because this only changes the black and white points, as I explained earlier, and not the tonality. Or in other words, the tonal separation or lack thereof, of the shadows/midtones/highlights.<br /> When trying to achieve the same tonality as the scans, I think one can best use some kind of upswept curve? This achieves less shadow detail, overall darkening of the midtones, and more highlight separation?<br /> <br /> Hope somebody can shed some light on this (instead of recommending to "burn-in the shadows to see more in the shadows.." Btw, I am scanning film using a Minolta Multi Pro scanner shot with a Hasselblad 500c/m.</p>

<p>Fellow photo.net forum users,</p> <p>So lately I have been really impressed by photographs of the legendary Paul Strand and the tonal range of them.<br> The photos, of which I will post some example below, are indeed low-contrast scans, with a slight green toning. But I am not particularly interested in these two things, since I already know how to reproduce them. Which I have more difficulties with finding out is the tonal separation in them. </p> <p>Would like to be able to have this same detail in the shadows, really smooth midtones greys, yet really textured skintones. Is there any increased contrast in the shadows? Or midtones? Or Highlights? The light he used seems to be a typical overcast day. Obviously, he was using an 8x10 and film.<br> In the examples below, the darkest pixels in the histogram are about 25. The lightest about 220 [0,255].</p> <p>I hope some of you will be able to help, and that the people who do not know, resist the urge to post things as "the look of Paul Strand is more than using this or that material" and the like. </p> Much appreciated! Thanks in advance. <p>http://scs-assets-cdn.vice.com/int/v21n11/htdocs/luzzara-1953/young-man.jpg<br> http://scs-assets-cdn.vice.com/int/v21n11/htdocs/luzzara-1953/old-man.jpg<br> http://scs-assets-cdn.vice.com/int/v21n11/htdocs/luzzara-1953/a-gathering.jpg</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks for your thorough response Bill! I have been trying the method you preached and I think I come quite near your results (although I'm not sure if I have an accurate sense of this);<br />1. 40mm<br />2. 50mm<br />3. 100mm<br />Really happy to know about this 'technique'!!</p>

<p>Thanks! Great photos from his Into the American West project. But it seems to me that the three photos I posted are taken from a bit farther away than these? It is difficult to compare for me since the photos I posted are head-shoulders only/fashion images. They might be cropped or taken with another lens because there is no film border on them.</p>

Yes ofcourse, much more important; in these photos and every other good portrait ever made. Anyways, any idea if he was really close for these shots or not? Thanks!

<p>Anybody..?</p>

<p>Avedon shot on a 360mm lens on 8x10 (52mm Full Frame equivalent).<br />And on a 75mm lens on Rolleiflex (also about 50mm Full Frame equivalent).<br />But I have no idea if he cropped these photos.<br /> The first picture I posted; I do not know who took it.<br /> You are right btw, a better question to ask might be <strong>at what distance to the subject these photographs were taken? </strong>(as focal length itself does not change the distortion..)<br /><a href="http://www.fluorodigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Image-X.jpg">Three</a><br /> Is it possible that all three photographs were taken from very up close, about 1 meter? To me it looks a bit likes this.<br />Photograph 'One' is taken from a slightly lower perspective, and the cheek looks exaggerated<br />Photograph 'Two' the forefront seems exaggerated, the hand looks quite big compared to the face<br />Photograph 'Three' the cheek looks almost circular so might also be exaggerated compared to the face<br /> I hope someone with a bit more experience can shine some light on this!</p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I am just really curious to know at what <strong>focal length </strong>these beautiful photographs are taken to get this feel. Last two images by Avedon. Is the focal length 50mm or more about 100mm? (Full Frame equivalent) <br /> And yes, I know that I will not get this look by buying the same focal length and clicking the shutter..<br /> I'm asking because there definitely seems to be some distortion going on, but I don't know what causes it. Thanks!<br /> Wave</p> <p><a href="http://www.unique.dk/CropUp/580x-M/media/720791/Scandinavian_-17s.jpg" alt="" />One</a> <a href="https://jointhebreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bianca-jagger-woman-in-the-mirror-photo-richard-avedon.jpg" alt="" />Two</a></p> Mod: Images changed to links. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post images you did not take.