Joel Meyerowitz-Tuscany Book

[bob_mac]

Hi Guys,

 

My first post in the LF forum. I'm a big fan of Meyerowitz's work and

was just wondering what film he used for his (& wife's) new

Tuscany-Inside The Light book. A very nice book if you have not seen

it yet.

 

I would like to know the technical side of his works.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Bob

[Troll]

Have you seen Michael Smith and Paula Chanlee's B&W Tuscany pictures? Their book should be out soon, also.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Joel shoots with (last time I talked with him) a 1920's vintage 8x10 Deardorff with a

10" or 12" Commercial Ektar lens and uses Kodak color negative film -- probably now

Portra 160NC.

[jim_shanesy]

I know that all those large format color guys used to use Vericolor II Type L as long as Kodak made it. When they discontinued it, many of them did what Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee did with Super XX Pan - buy all they could and stick it in the freezer.

 

The Meyerowitz book certainly looks to me like a tungsten balanced film from the long scale and gentle color balance. I don't think it could be Portra of any kind. Portra's much too harsh to yield such beautifully delicate photographs.

[tim_atherton2]

Well his Tuscany workshops were generally 35mm biased - so maybe it's not even large format... :-)

 

He photographed the WTC work on a 5x7 Deadorff as well, it being more compact. I seem to recall that a lot of that work was Portra.

[mark_sampson]

The reason we LF color-neg shooters used VPL was that in those days it was the only color neg film that could tolerate a long exposure. The only alternative was the portrait film VPS which although "softer' in color than VPL, only worked at speeds shorter than 1/10". Long exposures with that film turned everything brown...I shot VPL outdoors with an 85B filter at an EI of 50, and it worked well. In his book "Cape Light", Meyerowitz speaks of using it unfiltered in daylight. This works too (obviously) but makes it more difficult to print, and sometimes there are color shifts that cannot be corrected. Sometimes those shifts help make a picture work, sometimes not, and the practiced eye can sometimes discern them in other photographers' prints. Suffice it to say that when Pro 100 daylight film was introduced around 1996, I was happy to change over and have never looked back. Today you can use Portra 160NC and get cleaner color without excess contrast- to me a more pleasing rendition than was ever possible with VPL. I hadn't heard of Mr. Meyerowitz' new book- I'm looking forward to seeing it, regardless of his film choice.

[bob_mac]

Good morning,

 

Thank you all for the positive responses to my post. I have and old Linhof 4x5 that I'm going to dust off and get to work with. I have been shooting Leica M's for years, Hasselblad, and others, but in the recesses of my mind have been wanting to settle into the 4x5 format and enjoy it for everything it has to offer.

 

So as a newbie to LF, I hope to contribute here in the near future.

 

One other thought: The Hasselblad Flex Body...any opinions about this camera body. I have one, but never really have given it a chance to prove itself.

 

Thanks again.

 

Bob

[geoffrey_swenson]

This book was a waste of ink and paper. The images look like dull, mostly overexposed photos and NOT �Long Scale� or �Delicate� by any means.

[wayne_crider4]

I give the man credit for the project, but have seen other work I prefer. Some of

his shots just don't click with me. (Pardon the pun.)

 

One thing I was reflecting on recently, was the fact that although a scene

looks like it would produce well on film, it-just-sometimes-doesn't. It's like

some people who look average can look great on paper while others may not

no matter how good they look in life. And another thing that I have noticed is

that the ambience of the scene can play a big part in the overall feel of an

image making it standout as an opportunity, but when that same image is

alone on paper without it's surroundings it's as if the picture is somehow

diluted and not up to the potential once viewed. Certain pictures in the book

give me the impression that you needed to be there to understand what the

feeling was that warrranted the picture being taken. It's like a "sense" is

missing that contributes to the picture.

[steve_mutchler]

As a side note...

 

I think it was in 1984 or so, Joel came to St Louis to shoot the Arch...A friend of mine, another "art" photographer met Joel and they worked together a bit on this arch project...They were shooting 8x10 type L neg film...My friend was struck by the idea of unfiltered type L film...and started shooting his own stuff the same way...

 

I owned a commercial photo lab at the time and my friend brought us those 8x10 type L negs for my lab to print...

 

Printing unfiltered type L is pretty tough until you get used to it...but I think some of the "unexpected" results in color saturation and shift are really quite pleasing...

[Troll]

I just went down to Barnes and Noble to have a look-see. It ought to sell well -- it was one of only three books featured in their front window, and on the big Christmas book table right inside the front door. Unfortunately, it looks like he must have shipped his exposed film back to the states as checked luggage, and it got zapped with really hot X-Rays, burning out the highlights, and changing that blazing Tuscan sun into Cape Light.

[julian_browne]

This book was a waste of ink and paper. The images look like dull, mostly

overexposed photos and NOT �Long Scale� or �Delicate� by any means.

I could not dissagree with you more. My opinion is that Mr. Meyerowitz has

succeeded again in establishing that wormhole to the 'time and place'. I was

completely drawn in again to that familiar memory. His choice of colour

palettes and tone is most deliberate and most often can be seen as an

exquisite subject in itself. He is certainly aware of how quiet or loud! silence

can be, I am quite certain he was not seeking more 'Cape Light' out in the

Tuscan Hills.

"Les gouts est les couleurs ne se discutes jamais"

[geoffrey_swenson]

<i>"Les gouts est les couleurs ne se discutes jamais"</I> Hahh!

I went to look at this book again. It is DULL� DULL� DULL� DULL� DULL� DULL�!

<p>

Too bad for Toscana (Tuscany), but at least the other very often mentioned book�s printing will be exquisite. This one is blunder on all counts!

[tim_atherton2]

took a quick look at the book in the airport on my way to sunny Cuba -looks very nice - catches a lot of what I recal of Tuscany from some years ago. It also manages to avoid the appaling photogorpahic cliches of most books on the region (overstaurated Velv(eet)ia tones, all those rows of trees and quaint little villages etc). Nicely done

[scott squire nonfiction]

Another thread on this book, posted a few months later:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1547

 

I like Meyerowitz's work as well, and admired the pallette in that book too. I also noticed a

photoshop manipulation in the book, which is the subject of the thread above. I'm linking

it not because I think my thoughts are so important, but to keep discussion of this book

consolidated.

[tim_atherton2]

I recently spoke to a friend who attended a show of the Tuscany work - his main point was that it was both stunning and also that the book just didn't do justice to the prints.