brambor Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I just browsed Aperture's coffee book on Salgado's portfolio of manual labor around the world. What a treat. Simply amazing. Looks like he shoots primarily 35mm lens or similar wideangle (pardon my ignorance) but I was wondering whether he was partial to a specific film choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006NBj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Thank you. I should give tmax 3200 a try then. ;-) I never shot anything faster than Tri-X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Rene - My limited experience with super fast film (Neopan 1600 and Tmax 3200) tells me there's more to it than just shooting it as it's rated, and handing it over for processing. My results are considerably more 'flat' than Salgado's. I'm sure that his results owe much to testing various developers and times, and then there is the contribution of excellent printers. There were some other links to his work, technique and equipment, but i'll have to look for them later.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 I develop my own. It took me about 6 rolls of tri-x before I started getting acceptable quality. I'll give tmax a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulr Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Hi Rene, This thread has some interesting information about Salgados technique. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B2kH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_brewton Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Rene, I've only shot Delta 3200 and was quite disappointed with the large amount of grain. It could be my scanner (Minolta 5400) which some have mentioned to be poor with very fast film, however even Noise Ninja was no help. By the way, I noticed a thread link to Jorge Trevino. He hasn't posted here in months and I tried to email him about six weeks ago with no response. He was always been very helpful and I wonder if anyone here has been in touch with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulr Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 John, I have wondered the same. I will be near his home town in Mexico next week. I will try and give him a call. Maybe someon else knows what happened. Nice person and very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 There was a BBC documentary about the great man when Workers came out. There were a few shots of him in action and he used SLRs the entire time (35mm and 60mm). Could have been faked footage, I suppose. Earlier work (A Certain Grace) was shot more on the M6. More recent stuff is shot on medium format Pentax although I'm not sure whether it's 645 or 6x7. From reading various articles about him, I get the impression that Tri-X is his first film choice. The calibre of his printers cannot be overestimated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Hmm. I scan with minolta too. I develop with hc110. Looks like I'm doomed from the getgo. The minolta scans 1 stop darker. I guess rating it at 1600 might be a better idea. Perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kik Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Andrew, Salgado now shots with Pentax 645, i've read it in Photo Reponse. Rene, does the minolta have an analog gain like the nikon V??? maybe you could use it. Jonh what do you mean by the minolta being "poor with very fast film", what i've read is that it as a litle bit sharper than the nikon maybe thats why you see more grain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtdnyc Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Don't want to start a fight, but I have to wonder if he switched to medium format to avoid some of the very qualities of grain and tone that his fans try to emulate. I've seen some of his actual Leica prints (which, it almost goes without saying, are simply spectacular), but none of his medium format work. Given his style of shooting and the hallmarks of his prints, I wonder what he intends to gain from the larger negative. Has he discussed this in any of his interviews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_brewton Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Rene, I heard from Jorge! He's had a problem with a new firewall system on his computer. About the Minolta 5400. Yes, I believe the problem is that it resolves too much, exacerbating the grain. Also it has been suggested that some of these films are not really designed to be digitally scanned (!). I've since gone almost completely to 25, 50 and 100 ISO films with absolutely no problems. Oh yes, still scanning Agfa Scala with good results also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Hi Francisco, the only thing that made me think that Salgado was using a 67 was a comment in the recent New Yorker profile on him. The writer refers to the noise of the camera, which made me think it was the big Pentax but I am guilty of guessing! I suppose, in the stillness of the Antartic, a 645 would be just as loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 If you're experiencing too much "grain" or noise with your Minoltas, you might try Vuescan. I find it much better for B&W with my Nikon V, and some say that's true for Minolta as well...no need for noise reduction, which means no loss of sharpness due to extra post processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert goldstein Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 If you're scanning ISO 3200 film at 5400dpi, you should expect grain--lots of it. Don't blame the scanner or its software for doing its job and revealing this. Grain can be minimized, but not eliminated, by using the Grain Dissolver feature of the 5400, and digital noise can be reduced by multi-sampling. You can also apply grain/noise reducing software, but use it sparingly unless you like the smeared plastic look in your photos. Best of all, just accept the fact that ultra-fast film is inherently grainy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now