Advice On Achieving Similar Effect... Pushing? Lighting? Overexpose? All?

[a._robert]

<p>My favourite b&w photographer of all time is Lillian Bassman. I love her ultra-contrasty fashion shots that graced Harper's Bazaar in the 40's and 50's. I'm looking to achieve a similar effect in just about every respect with the grain, contrast, tones, blown highlights but black blacks, etc. I've asked just about everyone around me who knows anything including my boss, teachers (plural), and my local pro lab, and have received different answers from everyone. First let me give you a link to show a couple examples of what I'm talking about:</p>

<p>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZRS2VbptV4E/R0hYyLiX4qI/AAAAAAAAAAU/SNTOvz2ilWw/s1600-h/bassman+collage.jpg</p>

<p>I've been told, of course depending on the shot, she's using hard tungsten lights or natural light. I'm fairly good at working with natural light, but in the studio with tungsten how would one suggest she lit a shot like the bottom left?</p>

<p>Next on the list would be the exposure. A guy at my lab said that he thinks the shots are taken with a normal exposure then manipulated in the darkroom (or now PS), but a few others think that the highlights were deliberately blown, so overexposed the shot by about +1 or +2. If it were overexposed, I don't quite understand how the blacks would still be so black. Wouldn't they be grayer if that were the case?</p>

<p>Next, for the grain it was suggested to naturally use higher speed film, like 400, and then push it 2-3 stops, maybe to 1600 or so, to increase grain size and contrast. Does that sound about right?</p>

<p>What I'm really looking for is how to get the blown highlights, yet still retain a large amount of detail in other parts of the shot, in addition to keeping blacks BLACK. I know that this can be posted in several categories like lighting or whatever, but since I get the feeling a lot of it has to do with processing I thought that this might be a safe bet. Any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for all of the help. </p>

[mohammed_abidally]

<p>I ain't no expert but these look digitally done, possible use of the dodge and burn tools.</p>

[a._robert]

<p>Knowing no history, I might agree, but these I know for a fact are from the 40's and 50's. No PS here.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>An excerpt from the <a href="http://www.womeninphotography.org/archive07-July01/gallery/f2/book.html"><strong>Women In Photography</strong> </a> website:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the darkroom, she experimented with printing through gauze, tissue, careful ‘burning in' on certain image areas, and <em>bleaching sections with ferrocyanide</em> , to create an image that resembled a cross between a water color and a photograph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've italicized the phrase regarding her post processing technique because this was key to the unique looks achieved by several notable fashion photographer of past decades. Like many of her peers, she probably used techniques that she developed on her own based on experience and not all may have been well documented. Some used a lot of retouching of the negatives and prints, sometimes rephotographing the heavily retouched prints to make a second generation negative. (Obviously, those same photographers would readily have embraced digital editing today, just as their contemporary counterparts have done.)</p>

<p>If you want a fine grain technique, try a slow film like T-Max 100. Rated at EI 50-100, exposed with hard lighting and overdeveloped, it will be contrasty. Additional contrast adjustments can be made during enlargement using variable contrast paper and filters.</p>

<p>Overexposure will not necessarily create "gray" shadow detail. It will ensure better shadow detail, but overdevelopment to block up the highlights will also influence shadow detail to some degree. More can be done with selective use of magenta filtration during printing.</p>

<p>If you want more grain, almost any 400 film pushed to 1600 will deliver reasonably good tonal range to give a foundation to the look shown in her photos. I prefer T-Max 400 or Tri-X at 1600 in Microphen. However, the skin tones will still show remarkably good gradation and additional work will be needed in the darkroom and possibly retouching afterward.</p>

<p>While I haven't used any of the Fuji Neopan films myself (still in the fridge waiting to be tried), I've seen some excellent results online indicating that they may also be useful for approximating this technique.</p>

<p>I wouldn't recommend ultra fast films like Delta 3200. Besides being a low contrast film that requires a lot of pushing to get extreme contrast, it also has rather soft, fluffy popcorn grain that probably won't resemble anything of that era in which those photos were created. There really wasn't anything comparable to Delta 3200 or T-Max 3200 then.</p>

<p>Some folks might suggest more elaborate methods such as using copy film and developer for even higher contrast. It's worth a shot, but I have little experience with those materials apart from a commercial printing service (for publication, not darkroom) many years ago, and hardly remember the process.</p>

<p>Hope this helps get you started. Most of it will depend on personal experimentation.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Unlike many conservative, so-called "purists" (puritans might be more accurate), I admire Bassman's work very much, and see Ellen Von Unwerth as her stylistic successor. Lex has cut right to the meat of the issue, and I would only add my suggestion to try TXP pushed to EI 640 (1 stop) as a starting point for your experimentation. Good luck!</p>

[a._robert]

<p>Hi Lex, thanks SO much for the detailed response. That was just what I was looking for. I've actually got her self titled portfolio book (which I paid a fortune for and had shipped out from Zurich), but unfortunately the printed parts are in German so any kind of informative text is lost to me. So then from what I gather above, you think that the initial exposure was spot on and not under or over? And lastly with regards to the hard tungsten lighting, what do you think the setup generally was (I know that each shot kind of differs...)? I purchased the book Hollywood Portraits http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/0817440208/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238780683&sr=8-1 and it has given me a much better insight to early lighting techniques and has been really helpful. Very different from the techniques of today. Just curious. Thanks again Lex and thanks Jay for the tip.</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>It may also be helpful to shoot with an old-style emulsion. IDK what film Ms. Bassman used, but film has changed a great deal in the decades since she took those photos. Emulsions like that aren't made anymore; maybe the Efke and Foma films, but they no doubt have improved to some degree over the years.</p>

[stephen_taylor13]

<p>I've never used it, but what about orthochromatic film?</p>

[a._robert]

<p>Jim, what attributes would those films offer? I'm also not sure what IDK is.<br>

Stephen, I'm not sure what that film is. I just looked it up and it says a film that is sensitive to green, blue and violet but how would that change the final product? Is it still made?</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>IDK is "I Don't Know". Older emulsions have more grain for one thing. Grain was often quite visible in photos of the past. Newer films are a lot less grainy.<br>

Older films had thicker emulsions which may lead to a degree of light scatter within the emulsion. I'm guessing this would lead to a less-sharp image.<br>

In a nutshell, older films had a different look to them than today's films. If you want to recreate an older style, old-style emulsions might be a good place to begin.<br>

You might try using uncoated lenses on an old camera. Old lenses were not coated (or at least not multi-coated) to reduce flare, improve colro, etc.<br>

This subject comes up from time- to -time. do a search and you'll find globs about old-style emulsions, and uncoated lenses.</p>

[a._robert]

<p>Thanks Jim, that book I had previously mentioned actually stated a similar thing about the non-coated lenses. I will definitely see if that might help. As far as the old-style emulsions go, what would you suggest?</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>Efke and/or Foma. </p>

[geoff_r1]

<p><em>I've actually got her self titled portfolio book (which I paid a fortune for and had shipped out from Zurich), but unfortunately the printed parts are in German so any kind of informative text is lost to me.</em></p>

<p>Have you tried putting it through a language translator? I find the google translator works quite well, although the literal translations given can be interesting to make sense of at times.</p>

[stephen_taylor13]

<p>Adam,<br>

Ortho film is a high contrast black and white film that is often developed in lith developer (though you can use other developers as well for different contrast effects). Yes, you can still get it. I know that Freestyle photographic has it. I bet you can get it at B&H photo as well. </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>These pictures are not the result of complex processes. They are the result of simple processes. Review my portfolio, and you will find similar effects from my homemade, very simple, recipes.</p>

<p>Your teachers are too used to using sophisticated materials. Tell 'em to get a lab balance and call me in the morning. Downshift on the technology supporting your pursuit. This is not advanced, but very simple, and considered "unacceptable" and "outdated" by today's standards. Just build a simple developer. Shots are made at normal exposures; maybe one stop under or over, but exposure controls are best done in the darkroom if you are using them for editing purposes.</p>

<p><strong>Not hard, simple!</strong></p>

<p>This looks like a hydroquinone only developer to me. I use hydroQ in my homemade recipes, and it does not yield the same look as metol-hydroQ. Since you said it's from the 40s and 50s, I think it is hydroquinone only. I have this suspicion that it is easier for physical chemists to build hyrodquinone than it is for them to build metol, but I don't know for sure. At any rate, I'm a fan of hydroquinone only developers. Although, I think the best of the homemade combinations can easily occur with a metol only negative developer like D23, with the print done in a hydroquinone only developer like Plain Jane Beta Chi, below.</p>

<p>Try this recipe, with borax to help preserve the softer grays in there: http://www.agxphoto.info/agxphotoinfo/AgXphotoinfo_PhotoBlog_March_2009/Entries/2009/3/18_Plain_Jane_Beta_Chi_Recipe.html<br /> The results will be similar to Dektol, but harsher.<br /> Or this one, which is a little more high contrast:<br /> http://www.agxphoto.info/agxphotoinfo/AgXphotoinfo_PhotoBlog_March_2009/Entries/2009/2/16_Plain_Jane_Hydroquinone_Alpha.html</p>

<p>or, simply soup a negative in Dektol to see if you are getting close. Idea is, off the shelf negative developers will have a pH of around 9. Paper developers will be higher in pH, at 10 or 11. Simply switching over to a paper developer like Dektol will keep you close to traditional results, but still give you some high contrast elements. Try allowing for one stop's worth of development overexposure; that is, pull the development time by a stop; compare with a similar shot developed normally in D76 and you will see the effect of the developer chemistry, at about the same exposure value for chem.</p>

<p>The guys who are telling you to do a bunch of <strong>crazy stuff aren't matching what would have been simple to build yourself </strong>in a darkroom fifty or more years ago. Try one of my homebrews. The recipes are based on the simple principle of: for every gram of hydroQ, double the activator (sodium carbonate); start off the recipe with more preservative than activator it all under control. If you add a buffer like borax, match the amount of developer installed. Add the ingredients in the order: preservative, developer, buffers and accessories, finally add activator.</p>

<p>Follow those simple patterns, and you can make your own hydroquinone only developers easily. They're usually universal developers. For best results, I find it helps to mix them in a tray at dilution, and then just scoop off the 500mL you need to swamp the negative. Mixing at 4L/1 gallon works best. Mixes best in hot water (120F) because of the hydroQ; you can run the print in hot water, but hydroQ responds to hot, developing the print in 120F will usually add two stops to the times; I recommend letting it cool off for about an hour. If you mix up your own, and then load the tank and do nothing for a while, come back, dev the negatives, and then since you'll want to wait until tomorrow to let the negatives dry, just print whatever in the meantime or let the solution develop the prints you will make from that roll tomorrow. The solutions will only keep for about three days. There will come a point when you see it turn rust brown; there is an interesting transition stage when you can actually watch it happen over about 30 minutes; after that rust, chances are it's oxidized too badly to do anything reliably; discard.</p>

<p>I have used these combinations throughout my work for the past few months, and recommend it. I love using it; and I think it may be about as close as you can get to a "litho" style developer, but without quite as many hazards; really the only harmful stuff in there is the hydroQ, and that would be by volume anyway. Well, hope this helps.</p>

<p>You can use it in ortho films; if I remember right, they will come out okay. I haven't used ortho film very much, but my gut instinct on this was that I remember liking the results in ortho. Good luck. J.</p>

<p><b>No photoshop required!</b></p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I thought about what I wrote earlier, and I'd like to temper what I had to say. </p>

<p>Choose what's simpler, for you, first. </p>

<p>I suppose bit by bit, we've given you suggestions, including me, about how we might strive to achieve those effects. What might be simple or direct to us, might not be the best answer for you. In which case I would say, Pick one and run with it for awhile. Sometimes building too many new procedures into an endeavor can cripple it by getting too far away from what you are used to. So, Pick one, and try that. Truth is, any one of the suggestions you've received can probably get you closer; but, if you tried them all at once, you'd probably overshoot your goal. Good luck. J.</p>

[a._robert]

<p>Thanks a lot for your time John. You gave a LOT of information which will some time to implement... But it was really helpful and you all gave such helpful responses. It was just what I was hoping for and gives me a lot to mess around with for the next several months. I will hopefully get something good and post!</p>

[a._robert]

<p>And thanks Jim, Geoff, and Stephen again for your help. Ortho film sounds very interesting in general to me so I will trying some out in the very near future. Can anyone suggest a good developer if I were to shoot either Adox or Efke? We use either D-76 or Arista at school, which I know isn't meant to be used with Ortho film. Anyone tried that combination with successful results?</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>D-76 works with just about anything. It is the "standard" dev. </p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>The "problem" with Ortho/graphic films is that they are very fine grained; almost impossible to get grain from them. Otherwise, they might do the trick for you, provided you learn how to tame their contrast. I'll attach a photo made on Imagelink film and developed in Hypercat. It might not look very good, as I sent it from my iPhone, but it might serve to illustrate the look, or rather, one possible look this type of film can deliver.</p><div></div>