How do you do this (warning, nude images)...

How do you get this type of look in B&W... is it the lighting, the film, developer/

development, filters? (I know... probably a little of each along with actual

talent)<p>

 

The photos are by Andreas Bitesnich<p>

 

<a href="http://www.bitesnich.com/books/woman/w06alessia.jpg">Picture 1</

a><br>

<a href="http://www.bitesnich.com/gallery/g15alina.jpg">Picture 2</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bitesnich.com/gallery/g05lydia.jpg">Picture 3</a><p>

 

Jeff

Sorry to be so mundane, but it's mostly about the cute models and the make up artists. Example #1 is nothing special (good exposure with fine grain film), Example #2 is made is studio with lots of make up and the BG is added is PS; Example #3 is mostly about having a nice model and a good make up artist (perhaps a blue filter was also used to bring out the freckles).

 

I doubt that film choice or processing would make any significant difference (unless you look at the actual prints from very close).

I agree. There are plenty of strong porn-glam shots on this site and elsewhere that are powered by really good models and elaborate makeup/painting. Being a photographer, not a make-up artist or model's agent, I immediately wondered what exotic photographic armaments were used... none, really.

 

I would suppose that APX100, Delta 100, Xtol, and digital would be on the shortlist of natural materials for this kind of work.

 

More productively, have you considered going to the source-- asking Bitesnich directly?

green filter (especially for the freckles), and creative mix of lighting (ambient/flash) I doubt #2 has the background added in ps, this look is easily done on film with the lighting suggestions mentioned above. Jeez, there was such a thing as special effects before ps you know.

Do you think picture 1 has a yellow filter? If a flash/strobe was used, I

guessing it was used with a high shutter speed.

 

Looking at the picture more closely it looks as if there is a "halo" around the

entire model. Do you think he just burned the areas around the model to get

the darker background (rather than a high sync speed lighting)?

 

Thanks,

Jeff

Heck not even that, example 1, overexpose the print and dodge the model...seen pretty clearly in the print.

 

 

Example 2 same deal with a "sunset" background in the studio.

 

Example 3 negative developed to high contrast and print overexposed...

 

How I know this, the skin tones are not natural, way too dark. He might even done some local bleaching to bring out the highlights.

Vaseline on the skin gives it that shiney glow.

There's a strong glow around the model in the first image - whether the entire model was dodged to correct for exposure or the glow was done simply for effect, I don't know. My guess is it's mostly for effect and to give some separation from the sky.

 

The second image is just old school glam, straight out of the Peter Gowland handbook. Take a peek at Gowland's website for plenty of examples, tho' he works mostly in color.

 

If you want to see the difference film alone can make, shoot a roll of Tri-X, Pan F and a chromogenic monochrome (XP2 Super or some of the Kodak stuff) of the same model/subject under identical conditions and compare the results. Sometimes it doesn't require anything more than finding just the right film for a given situation.

yes the first image is badly burned around the edges, but my observations still stand, I have done this plenty of times, and so have many others......try it sometime.

Hi Jeff, I'll give you my two cents for what it's worth. So this will cost you at least a roll of film, that's if you have the zone system down, and if you don't then probably a couple more. OK. Doing this the tone range lies within the subject, are you with me? And I think you will find with your meter a face will have about 3 zones from darkest to lightest. I think the trick is to know that the only subject you care about is the person. So, if you are shooting 100 ASA, push to EI 400 (about two stops). Then you have to cut back development approprately. Place your subject in front of a dark back ground or a light back ground. If outdoors you can use a clear sky as a back ground. This constrast will give you an apparent greater range of tone in the subject. You will find this approach will give you an unusually thin neg. Don't worry about it. If you need to calibrate the shot, what I did is to put a grey card and a Kodak grey scale on a black cloth. Then I shot several rolls of film at EI 400, and then I developed them at different times until I got the best balanced grey scale. And the way you do this is to find minimum enlarger exposure through a clear section of neg. to absolute black, and then expose the test neg. to that time. Hope you can understand the above. Best, David

This is a very easy thing to do. No special anything. Over expose and over develope the film. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok, maybe some doging to bring out the details in the model in picture number 1. Over exposure of the film gives you lots of density to work with and over development drives the highlights over the shoulder of the curve and makes the highlights unprintable so that they stay white. Easy.