That Ed van der Elsken grainy "jazz" look

[oskar_ojala]

Recently I saw some of the "jazz" photos (in a book, not in silver

unfortunately) Ed van der Elsken took in the 50's in the Netherlands

He shot handheld and pushed his film heavily to be able to shoot in

those jazz clubs. Accidentally, he got a very grainy effect which he

later liked (and I like very much). In particular, I'm thinking about

a very graphic close-up of Chet Baker taken in 1955 in Amsterdam. How

does one duplicate that effect without digital means? Obviously, I'd

like to post the image, but I couldn't find it on the net and I don't

know about the rights issues with scanning and posting (moderators,

what do you say?)

 

I know from experience that APX100 doesn't push well (long story) and

that HP5+ does, but would a very graphic - almost lith - effect be in

part due to extreme pushing (eg. HP5+ or Tri-X @3200 or 6400), in part

due to contrasty printing? It would really help if you've seen the

photo that I'm talking about.

[chris_waller]

I haven't seen these actual photographs but I know the style. Try HP5 or Tri-X at 3200 ASA and dev in Ilford PQ Universal diluted 1+6, 20 C, 8 minutes. Or you could try Kodak TMax 3200 pushed 1/2 or 1 stop in Rodinal. Rodinal is not a speed developer but it gives very high acutance and emphasises grain and it should manage a 1 stop push.

[art_haykin]

An easier approach would be to print through any of dozens of grain and texture negs or screens available in various sizes and patterns from modest grain, to 'gravel' to various other pattern and textures such as linen, silk, various line patterns, wood grain, stucco, and reticulation, etc. You can even make your own.

[ann_clancy3]

I have not seen these photos either, however in the 50's, it might have been TRI- X. Which may have been pushed to 800 to 1600 which was the common technique at that time. THere may have been another 400 speed film around at that time, I have just forgotten. It is what was being used in my neighbor.

[nacio_jan_brown3]

Use a fast film. Don't push unless the lighting demands it. Better if you can overexpose a stop or so. Use a wide lens so you have to crop down to a smaller part of the frame. Overdevelop, using Rodinal for sharp grain. You want to enlarge a dense, flat negative. njb

[lex_jenkins]

Can you tell from looking at those photos how they might have been exposed? For example, pushing would likely be indicated by lack of shadow detail and, possibly, some odd tonal separation characteristics.

 

If, however, the photos seems to have good shadow detail they were probably normally exposed, not pushed, and some other trick was involved. Possibilities include development tricks, printing through a grain or texture screen as Art suggested, or other darkroom tricks.

 

I can even imagine someone using good practices for a straightforward photograph using a large format camera and carefully adjusted studio lighting, then reproducing the photo to appear as tho' it was an offhand, grainy grab shot. This may not be the method used by van der Elsken but it's another method that could be used to emulate such work.

 

There's usually several ways to skin these cats.

 

BTW, Oskar, rather than copying the photo on this forum you could provide a link where we could view these photos. That would avoid any copyright problems.

[oskar_ojala]

<i>BTW, Oskar, rather than copying the photo on this forum you could provide a link where we could view these photos. That would avoid any copyright problems.</i>

 

<p>I searched for it on the web for this exact purpose, but didn't find it. But if I upload it to some other site I'm getting copyright problems myself (chances are I won't get into trouble, but I think it's prudent to respect other people's copyrights, especially since I photograph myself).

 

<p>I'll give more info and hope you'll continue dicussing since you've given me good ideas. I regularly push HP5+ in DD-X and use Delta3200 from time to time (in DD-X), but the look is different: the Chet Baker -image is very contrasty: very few tones, a posterized look. His white collar is pure white, the bg and his suit jacket detailless black. All the 'zones' are represented on his face: from the black in the wrinkles to featureless white in the highlights, contrasty sharp grain and only a few tones. The image was taken either with a Rolleicord or a Leica with a tele-lens (those were what van der Elsken used) hand-held.

 

<p>A quote of van der Elsken when talking about an image of Ella Fitzgerald from two years later: <i>"We experimented with very little light and films that weren't very fast. You had to push process these to produce a decent picture. I remember mine were underexposed at first, and I had to intensify the barely visible negative afterwards in in the darkroom, yielding an extremely grainy negative which I really like now"</i>. Unfortunately, the image he's talking about is taken two years later than the Chet Baker image and they look slightly different; while the Fitzgerald image looks like it's all grain, the Baker image is more captivating due to contrast. Also, I have no experience of intensification so I can't say anything about that.

 

<p>Note that van der Elsken had at this point been a printer for Magnum, so he knew something of the trade. So after reading your comments I'm wondering about two things: 1. How do HP5+, Tri-X and APX400 push in Rodinal? 2. Could he have done part of the effect by printing with a high paper grade?

 

<p>The idea of printing through some sort of "mask" sounds interesting, but while he liked doing halos, I haven't seen any image that would obviously use a mask.

[lex_jenkins]

Oskar, I've just looked at the handful of photos taken by van der Elsken that are readily available on the web. Frankly, I don't see anything remarkable about the technique. The photos themselves are fine but nothing about his technique jumps out at me.

 

In one photo I what amounts to either some pretty hamfisted dodging of his subjects or, conversely, burning of the nonessential image areas.

 

In another I see a normal range of tones indicating normal exposure and processing.

 

I suspect that if you stick with films similar to those available at that time - nothing rated faster than around ASA 250 or DIN 25. If the light is simply insufficient you'll have to resort to pushing. Use developers of that period, many of which are available today, some of which may have to be custom made or approximated. For example, "universal" print/film developers were commonly used back then, especially by photojournalists.

 

Considering that van der Elskin appears to have barely gotten by on the edge of poverty early in his pursuit of documentary photography it's unlikely he used any sophisticated or tricky methods.

 

My first trials would be with a film similar to Plus-X or Tri-X in something like Ilford Universal print developer. Even better, try some Efke, Foma or other film that's likely to more closely resemble the films available to van der Elsken.

 

While it won't be absolutely necessary for you to use graded paper it's important to keep in mind during printing that he *was* confined to graded papers.

[oskar_ojala]

Lex,

 

First of all, I'm not sure how many pics of the type I'm after are on the web: some of the "jazz" pictures I saw on the web were pretty ordinary. I'm just going after a special look. I have a rough idea about it, but would like some pointers from people who have experience with traditional films and pushing. Remember that while van der Elsken was poor, he did know something about photographic processes and equipment. I was particularly impressed by the posterized look of the image I saw...

[gary_watson]

I've always been partial towards William Claxton's work. Ranging from formal portraiture to candids, Claxton's shots are among the best I've seen of the 50s and 60s jazz world, particularly that part of it located in S.California.His book, Jazz, by Chroncle Press(1996)covers a huge range of personalities and technical exercises that show Claxton learning and growing. Worth a look.

[lex_jenkins]

Whatever happens, Oskar, please do keep us updated on your progress. Perhaps all you need is a tiny darkroom beneath an overturned boat on the Left Bank to recreate that "look!"

 

Also, if you'd like to e-mail scans of the particular photos you have in mind I don't see how anyone could object.

 

In fact, even scanning to this forum might be considered okay by a publisher because we're using it for discussion purposes, not to derive any sort of other tangible benefit or profit. I'm no expert in the subject of fair usage but we might be on safe ground for a limited usage or, if nothing else, a limited display period after which I could delete the image from photo.net's public archives.

[magic_rat]

To get your Elsken fix go here: http://www.edvanderelsken.nl

Maybe digital doesn't do them justice but I found the highlights in most of the guy's images blown out. Even the color ones. Maybe it's what he likes. As far as Lex's comments on his dodging and burning I think the self portrait with the TLR in the "Paris" folder is an example.

[lex_jenkins]

Hmm...I couldn't get the photos on the site to load yesterday, but today they're loading.

 

A few offhand observations of the "Amsterdam" series:

 

1. Die Halbstarken - A very "normal" looking image; normal exposure and processing, slow shutter speed to compensate for the low light with consequent motion blur and camera blur as well as the possible use of maximum aperture which might also account for the overall impression of softness.

 

2. Woman and trash can - same as above.

 

3. Man surrounded by birds - same as above. Apparent dodging of central area or, possibly, light falloff accounting for darker edges. I'm inclined to lean toward dodging.

 

4. Men in uniform (policemen with arrestee?) - Looks like a poor exposure with "rescue" techniques used to salvage the negative. Some very clumsy dodging at lower left.

 

5. Young men facing right (one poised to throw...stone?) - Again, looks like a fairly mediocre exposure with rescue techniques used. Shirt of man crouched to throw something has been dodged.

 

6. (Skipped a photo) Three men, two women - very clumsy, hamfisted technique used here. No effort made to disguise dodging of central area. The dodged area isn't even symetrical with the upper left corner left very dark as tho' the printer didn't even care how it looked.

 

"Jazz" series (I'm not a jazz fan so you'll have to bear with me when I don't recognize these musicians):

 

1. Sax player and horn player - Appears to have been pushed. Grainy. Low contrast paper used. The horn player's face has either been dodged or flare is responsible for the "halo" around his head.

 

2. Same two musicians, horn player appears to be holding his ears! - I hope this is just a poor quality scan otherwise it's one of the worst prints I've ever seen. Evidence of truly graceless, unskilled masking.

 

3. Conductor in light colored suit looking at drummer with raised sticks - Same as one; pushed film; low contrast paper; probable lens flare; probable dodging to bring up some detal in back of drummer's suit.

 

4. Pianist - Same as 2. I hope this is just a poor scan, otherwise it's an awful print of a good photo.

 

5. Solo horn player by ropes - Loads of lens flare; really bad scan.

 

Well, that's enough unless someone knows of a source of better quality scans. These are mostly dreadful.

 

Oskar, the man took some good photos but those prints look pretty pedestrian. I don't see anything in there that I haven't done hundreds of times and that you couldn't reproduce using techniques I've already described.

 

OTOH, why not *improve* upon those techniques and use better films, better developers and most of all, *much* better printing? Unless you're itching to reproduce the look of a specific era - which I can well understand. If that's the case, go for it. You can probably do much better work, tho' capturing the essence of the man's feel for subject matter is another matter altogether.

[oskar_ojala]

I'll try to scan and post the image when I get home tonight (won't be easu cause it's in a softcover book). Lex, I hope you can use your judgement about having the image here.

 

When I first tried the 'elsken.nl website I didn't get the images to load but now I did. The scans are indeed terrible, especially the jazz photos. Granted, the originals have some blown highlights but these look like they were taken with a 1Mpix digicam - I do not want that look!

 

I shoot 35 mm, medium format and 9x12 (and occasionally digital). I have no trouble producing technically perfect shots, eg. I've recently been shooting still-life in 6x7 with my view camera (mostly color) and it looks great. But photography is not all about technical perfection, it's about aesthetics and expression. I want to try something like I've been describing just to try different "looks" (I probably don't end up exactly copying Elsken, rather stealing some ideas from him). Oh and I want the images as pin-sharp as my Nikkor primes make them: sharp images, tight, pronounced grain...I must try something different once in a while :)

[david_goldfarb]

Another film he could have been using was Royal-X Pan, which was faster than Tri-X. I tried some 1960s Royal Pan not long ago, which was a 400-speed film that came in sheet sizes (Royal-X I think was ASA 1000 and came in rollfilm sizes). Base fog was so high on the old film as to make it unusable, but the grain pattern was really interesting--very even and sharp and chunky (as opposed to "clumpy"), producing an almost chiseled look. I'll see if I can dig up a test neg and post a scan.

[david_goldfarb]

Here's a 35mm-sized (1x1.5") fragment of a 4x5" neg. Royal Pan EI 640 in Acufine (which is to say, about a half stop underexposed--I finally decided that the film was about EI 400 in Acufine or maybe a little less).<div></div>

[oskar_ojala]

Here it is...© 1955 Ed van der Elsken. The grain and texture doesn't come out completely in this small version (sometimes I wish we could discuss this at a table with the actual prints in front of us...), but I tried sharpening a little to bring out the grain (without overemphasizing it).

 

<p>I'll get back to you tomorrow.<div></div>

[oskar_ojala]

Having now re-read all of your replies and digested them (was a bit busy the last few days, sorry that I didn't get back earlier), I'm going to start investigating a +1 push with Rodinal using various films (TMZ, APX400 and something slow). The rationale is that Rodinal will give sharp grain (and I'm used to using Rodinal) and the push will build up the contrast. Then I'll try to print it on a somewhat hard grade. Besides this, I'll try heavier pushing with faster films. However, if suitable pushing with Rodinal and printing would turn out good, this would have the advantage of being able to control the grain size with film speed.

 

I've shot HP5+ up to 2000 in the past and it looks good but not really the same as on the image I posted. Perhaps I should just try some different printing? Anyway, I have a roll of Delta400 @1600 in my camera, with the intent of seeing how this film pushes in DD-X, so it's only going to get more interesting from now on...

[lex_jenkins]

Oskar, to get that "look" in the Chet Baker photo I'd bet van der Elsken combined techniques:

 

1. Fastest film available to him at that time;

 

2. Pushed it in a developer from that time;

 

3. Printed on a hard grade paper.

 

I'm betting the latter step, combined with pushed negs, is key to getting this look, assuming the book reproduction is faithful to the original print. A hard grade paper would help throw shadows into blackness while retaining that flavor of tonality for the skin tones.

 

Best wishes in your pursuit. I'm a big fan of push processing myself for theatre and "available dark" photography so you have my full support. Technically imperfect, maybe, but there's a certain flavor to such photos that's mighty tasty.

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Lex,

 

<p>Yes I think those three are the key elements. But it's interesting to compare different films and developers to control the appearance. The original has very well defined grain, which I like.

 

<p><i>Best wishes in your pursuit. I'm a big fan of push processing myself for theatre and "available dark" photography so you have my full support. Technically imperfect, maybe, but there's a certain flavor to such photos that's mighty tasty.</i>

 

<p>Thanks. This is one of the great parts of working with traditional BW and processing at home. The grain and steep contrast can be used to an advantage. I have some nice pics taken on 2 stop pushed HP5+, but I still haven't went as "extreme" as van der Elsken with the contrast and tonality.