Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: eitanwaks on April 29, 2007, 01:07:03 pm
-
Hi,
I'm currently taking a photography class that goes over the history of photography. In each lesson we learned about a different style of photography. In the first week of the course we were given a list of 35 photographers. We were supposed to look at their works and choose one in whose footsteps we are to walk for the duration of the course. As you can tell from the title, I chose Yousof Karsh.
I have already purchased two of his books from Amazon. I will be studying his photographs very closely. I have done an extensive Internet search however I have several questions unanswered.
These are mainly technical questions. Which camera did he use? Which lenses did he use? Which film did he use? If the film that he used is not available, what is my best alternative?
As of now I do not own a 4 x 5 system. I shoot predominantly with 35mm cameras. I'm seriously looking into a large-format system. Due to my handicap I'm not sure that I am able to fully operate one. Does anyone know about a 4 x 5 camera that has geared motions (for everything) and that is not very expensive?
Thank you very much for your help,
Eitan Waks
-
Hi,
I'm currently taking a photography class that goes over the history of photography. In each lesson we learned about a different style of photography. In the first week of the course we were given a list of 35 photographers. We were supposed to look at their works and choose one in whose footsteps we are to walk for the duration of the course. As you can tell from the title, I chose Yousof Karsh.
I have already purchased two of his books from Amazon. I will be studying his photographs very closely. I have done an extensive Internet search however I have several questions unanswered.
These are mainly technical questions. Which camera did he use? Which lenses did he use? Which film did he use? If the film that he used is not available, what is my best alternative?
As of now I do not own a 4 x 5 system. I shoot predominantly with 35mm cameras. I'm seriously looking into a large-format system. Due to my handicap I'm not sure that I am able to fully operate one. Does anyone know about a 4 x 5 camera that has geared motions (for everything) and that is not very expensive?
Thank you very much for your help,
Eitan Waks
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=114885\")
you can find some answers here;
[a href=\"http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003kYg]http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fe...l?msg_id=003kYg[/url]
good luck
-
you can find some answers here;
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fe...l?msg_id=003kYg (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003kYg)
good luck
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanks for the link.
-
Does your assignment really require that you use the same technology as Yousof Karsh? After all, you probably cannot purchase the same film and paper. You might have to mix your own chemicals. The 4x5 camera is, in a way, just a box. Will you use lenses from the same era as Karsh?
I just visited an exhibition of photos by Yousof Karsh. All were large B/W prints. I was most impressed by the lighting.
Do your own interests and final products require 4x5 negatives?
If I were giving or receiving your assignment, I would allow/use digital equipment -- even if for no reason other than the immediate feedback on lighting.
-
One of the most basic areas of study in the art of portrature is lighting. Since you have 2 books of Karsh portraits you should study where the light comes from and how it enhances the subject.
Since I don't believe that there were any camera movements (4x5) in his work trying to duplicate the camera would not be all that necessary. So the only real reason you would need a large negative would be for making large prints or for the negative retouching that Karsh obviously did.
So I would shoot with whatever you have, and the best chance of "copying" the style would come from the lighting as well as obviously how he engaged his subjects.
Michael
-
I hope I'm not being rude in asking, but what is the nature of your disability that would prevent your working with a 4x5?
-
steelbird,
Don't feel bad about asking that question. About six years ago I was involved in an accident which left me paralyzed from the neck down. I had a C 4/5 dislocation and partial break. In the beginning I could not breathe on my own nor could I move any of my limbs. With time some of my functionality has returned. I can now breath on my own and move might deltoids and biceps. I have had to adapt cameras so that I can use them. I've made a special tripod which I connect to my wheelchair. Up until half a year ago I used mainly Nikon SLR's. I always used them on a tripod because handholding to them was out of the question. With a lot of work and physical therapy I had become strong enough so that I can handhold a camera. I purchased a Contax g2 which was lighter than my SLR. I have had success using this camera without tripod. I am now starting to use my Nikon SLR (N90s) with a 50 mm lens [the 20 mm and 85 mm lens are on the way]. I have also tried using medium format cameras such as the mamiya rb67. Obviously, I could not handhold this camera. I found it to be a little too large and cumbersome for my needs. It is very difficult for me to use an external light meter. Due to my past experiences I believe that using a 4 x 5 camera would be very difficult, especially with movements. I enjoy the automation I get from my SLR's (I used mainly aperture priority mode).
blansky,
I completely agree with you. I believe that I will spend the majority of my time trying to understand and copy his lighting techniques. I just felt that if I use the same equipment I would more readily "step into his shoes". Which type of film would you recommend me to try?
gordonsbuck,
the assignment that we received does not dictate that we use the same equipment. Unfortunately, I do not own a digital SLR. A digital SLR would have made my trial and error with the lighting much easier, or at least make the learning curve faster.
I love printing very large prints (50 x 70 cm and up to 1 m x 1.5 m and even larger). I would love to have more detail in my prints and therefore I would like to use a 4 x 5 camera, may be even an 8 x 10. I'm just frightened that I cannot use such a camera. My photography experience has taught me that I have to use the appropriate camera gear for each situation. I believe that when I'm working in a studio environment (after I am competent with my lighting skills) I could use a large-format camera. When I am traveling and participating in geographical photography I will obviously use my rangefinder or SLR camera. I also believe that when I'm treating landscapes I could use my large-format camera. I think I would enjoy the "laid-back" more contemplative style of photography that a large-format camera dictates.
I have been looking at FOTOMAN 45PS cameras (no movements) and Shen-Hao cameras as well as Arca-Swiss.
-
blansky,
I completely agree with you. I believe that I will spend the majority of my time trying to understand and copy his lighting techniques. I just felt that if I use the same equipment I would more readily "step into his shoes". Which type of film would you recommend me to try?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115676\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not all that technically minded but if you want some good opinions on film types and their characteristics and what today might look the same as what he used, I might pose the question over at APUG.org .
The films that were available when Karsh was making those prints probably are not available today but there are many ways to manipulate film in development that may be able to come close to the look he had.
Also with todays films a camera like a Hasselblad for instance "may" be able to give the same look as what he was getting with a 4x5 and older style film.
I'd still try to concentrate on getting the "look" through lighting and posing which will be your main dilemma and not worry too much about his equipment and film etc.
Michael
-
I can handhold a camera. I purchased a Contax g2 which was lighter than my SLR. I have had success using this camera without tripod. I am now starting to use my Nikon SLR (N90s) with a 50 mm lens [the 20 mm and 85 mm lens are on the way]. I have also tried using medium format cameras such as the mamiya rb67. Obviously, I could not handhold this camera. I found it to be a little too large and cumbersome for my needs. It is very difficult for me to use an external light meter. Due to my past experiences I believe that using a 4 x 5 camera would be very difficult, especially with movements. I enjoy the automation I get from my SLR's (I used mainly aperture priority mode).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115676\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you consider the use of a 6 x 6 TLR? Yousof Karsh did use a rolleiflex, they are lighter than a rb67, if you can't find a rollei there is always the posibilty of a cheap russian version of a TLR, 120 film is a lot larger than 35mm, in your case that type of cameras may prove easier to aim and focus also.
cheers.
-
Have you consider the use of a 6 x 6 TLR? Yousof Karsh did use a rolleiflex, they are lighter than a rb67, if you can't find a rollei there is always the posibilty of a cheap russian version of a TLR, 120 film is a lot larger than 35mm, in your case that type of cameras may prove easier to aim and focus also.
cheers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116347\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With a TLR camera though, focus is by looking down from the top, not front to back as with a 35mm viewfinder and reflex mirror. That may be an issue given the physical constraints...
Mike.
-
If you are not required to use the same gear as the photographer you're studying, then you don't necesssarily need the 4x5. It would be better, as previously mentioned, to study the lighting technique - when it comes to portraiture, lighting is often more important than the camera that is used. I think, however, that Karsh used the 4x5 largely in neutral position, though.
Considering the "neutral position," however, and using a 4x5, perhaps a field 4x5 might be an option. I don't know if this would be suitable for you, though.
As for getting better detail without the size of a 4x5, maybe the camera to be used should be a Mamiya 7 rangefinder - or if you can find them, Fuji made some medium format rangefinder cameras a number of years back, but unfortunately, their model numbers escape me at the moment.
Good luck with your endeavours - and I would like to add that what you're doing and what you've accomplished is very admirable, indeed.
-
With a TLR camera though, focus is by looking down from the top, not front to back as with a 35mm viewfinder and reflex mirror. That may be an issue given the physical constraints...
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Most TLR had a feature knows as; "sport finders", (The focusing hood has an open frame plus a pop-up magnifier). All you had to do was set the distance to the subject and then aim through the "open window" at eye level, pictures taken with a old rollei, (2,8 or 3,5) will blow anything taken with a 35 mm camera, those carl zeiss-rollei lenses where as sharp as the hassy version of them, (same planar 80mm).
I had a rollei 2,8 in the old days, and the b&w prints of up to 50x60cm were just incredible!
Again, is just and idea since Yousef did use a rollei.
cheers
-
I still have an old TLR that I take out from time to time. For me anyway, the sport finder is a waste of time since it doesn't allow very good composition and focusing is a guess. I use the top down hood with the magnifying lens for more accurate focusing and I can see directly what's in my viewfinder.
As has been suggested already though, if the intent is to study Karsh I would 'focus' (no pun intended) on what he achieved in terms of lighting, composition, position, depth of field, etc. - what made the photograph work - and less on what equipment he used to achieve those results - unless someone can make a valid argument that his results could ONLY be achieved with the same equipment. Every film, every sensor, every lens has a 'look' to it but equipment will only take you so far. Not everyone with an expensive camera is an Ansel Adams or a Yousef Karsh, and many don't want to be. To me, what made Karsh brilliant was how he revealed the real heart of his subjects in his work. It was his way of seeing that stands out. He wouldn't use the same setup to photograph a ballerina and a bullfighter.
Mike.
-
I still have an old TLR that I take out from time to time. For me anyway, the sport finder is a waste of time since it doesn't allow very good composition and focusing is a guess. I use the top down hood with the magnifying lens for more accurate focusing and I can see directly what's in my viewfinder.
As has been suggested already though, if the intent is to study Karsh I would 'focus' (no pun intended) on what he achieved in terms of lighting, composition, position, depth of field, etc. - what made the photograph work - and less on what equipment he used to achieve those results - unless someone can make a valid argument that his results could ONLY be achieved with the same equipment. Every film, every sensor, every lens has a 'look' to it but equipment will only take you so far. Not everyone with an expensive camera is an Ansel Adams or a Yousef Karsh, and many don't want to be. To me, what made Karsh brilliant was how he revealed the real heart of his subjects in his work. It was his way of seeing that stands out. He wouldn't use the same setup to photograph a ballerina and a bullfighter.
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
agree with you 100%, but still think that you need at least 21/4" square to replicate his work.
cheers
-
Thank you all for all of your responses. They have been very insightful.
I've decided to continue working with my 35mm SLR until I feel confident enough with my lighting techniques. I believe, as many have stated in this thread, that the most important part of this project is learning how to shed light on the subject the way Yousuf Karsh did. This will be much cheaper and easier for me using my SLR.
Once I feel that I have mastered the technical aspect of this project I might consider using a larger format so that the results could be enlarged to the sizes that he used to print (40 x 50 cm) in a pleasing fashion.
I have a question regarding metering studio lights (strobes). Let's say I have a setup using to strobes. The first is my key light, and the second is my fill. Let's say that I want a one-stop difference between my key and my fill. Do I take my light meter and meter the scene with both strobes going off, or do I meter the scene first with my key light only, and then with my fill light only?
Thanks for the help,
Eitan Waks
-
There are different ways to do it but I'd turn off the key light then meter the fill light. Depending what kind of depth of field you want (blurred out background etc) maybe set the fill to about F5.6. Then either turn off the fill or block it with your body and meter the key light and set to say, F8. That would be a 3:1 lighting ratio or one stop difference.
(Note: Some people call a one stop difference a 2:1 ratio and some call it a 3:1 ratio but it is really just semantics on how they were taught to evaluate this.)
One thing that is important with lighting is the "quality" of the light. Softboxes give a soft quality to the light and reflectors will give a harder quality to the light. The CLOSER the light is to the subject the SOFTER it is. Since I don't recall Karsh using softboxes you may want to stick with "harder" lights and perhaps just use an umbrella for the fill.
Michael
-
I didn't read the whole thread and honnestly not very familiar with Karsh'd work, and please forgive me if I state the obvious, but one aspect of 4x5 that does impact the feel of images compared to native 35 mm is the aspect ratio. The image is much more square.
Cropping the 35 mm images a bit will easily enable you to simulate a 4x5 aspect ratio of course.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Note: Some people call a one stop difference a 2:1 ratio and some call it a 3:1 ratio but it is really just semantics on how they were taught to evaluate this.)
A stop is always a change with a factor of two, either a halving or doubling. A 1-stop lighting ratio is always 2:1, and a 3:1 ratio is ~1.7 stops. Nobody would call going from 1/30 to 1/10 shutter speed a 1-stop exposure difference, why would you do so with lighting?
-
Traditional portrait photographers taught generally by Professional Photographers of America instructors in the last 30 years were taught that a 3:1 lighting ratio was a one stop difference and was attained by the following.
The fill is set at say f8. That means that the overall face has one unit of light on it. The key lights is set at say f11, which is twice as much light as f8, therefore 2 units of light. Hence the fill light or shadow side of the face has one unit and the highlight side has 2 units plus the one unit from the fill light equals 3 units of light.
That makes a 3:1 ratio. If the key light is f16 then the "math" equals 5:1.
Whether this is "correct" or not from the way you were taught I don't know. I never ran into anyone calling it a 2:1 ratio until a few years ago. Since then I sort of see it as "you call it tomato and I call it tomAto" kind of thing.
Michael
-
Hi,
yesterday I got a lot of the studio advice that I needed from a local photography school. There are hosting a studio photographer and I had a chance to sit down and talk with him over pictures from the new book I got from Amazon. It's one about Karsh. We analyzed several of his photographs from a lighting standpoint. It was very helpful.
After looking over more of his pictures I noticed that a lot of them had the silvery look to them. It reminded me of Sexton's prints that I saw. How do they get to that quality? I understand that they print in the traditional darkroom. Is there any way to mimic this in the digital darkroom?
Regards,
Eitan Waks
-
Eitan:
To copy or emulate a respected photographer like Karsh is going to be a difficult task. Start by trying to see how he lit his subjects. That should keep you busy for some time. Then move on to how he related to his subjects. That should take a while as well.
When you get that part down then maybe move on to how he printed, what he used (if still available) and how he manipulated his processes.
The look of pictures in a book (printed by a printing press) will always be different than what his real prints looked like. If you wish to replicate the look of a traditional darkroom by printing digitally you will have your hands full.
Start slowly and get the essence of his style and then perhaps move on to the nuances later on.
Michael
-
After looking over more of his pictures I noticed that a lot of them had the silvery look to them. It reminded me of Sexton's prints that I saw. How do they get to that quality? I understand that they print in the traditional darkroom. Is there any way to mimic this in the digital darkroom?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 'silvery' look some portraits get is probably mostly lighting rather than postprocessing (either in a wet darkroom or carried out digitally). If you use a big, diffused light source, skin looks smoother in B&W, pale skin looks quite chalky. I use a couple of bigish Westcott lights with softboxes -- with the front diffuser in place and the lights relatively close to the subject, this tends to be what you get. But if you remove the front diffuser, exposing the silvered interior of the softbox reflector, skin suddenly starts to show a lot more specular reflection. With the right lighting setup, and the right exposure, contrast, etc., you can indeed get 'that' look. I don't use umbrellas personally, but I'd assume that a silvered umbrella reflector would also work. Note that the Westcott has a smaller, inner diffuser that stops direct light from the bulbs hitting the subject -- I suspect that this is probably essential, otherwise you'd just get a very harsh (as opposed to 'silvery') look. Sharpness is another significant factor -- the specular reflection is quite fine grained, so will probably get lost if the camera and film doesn't have quite enough resolution to capture it. You'll probably also need to very carefully tweak a curves layer to get exactly the right result.
I've not seen any Yousof Karsh prints up close, so I can't say whether obvious chemical toning was used, but my suspicion is that it probably wasn't the main factor.
Hope this helps.
-
I don't know whether Karsch used this effect or not, but a green filter makes reddish skin more porcelain-like. I think Maplethorpe used it for many portraits.
-
I don't know whether Karsch used this effect or not, but a green filter makes reddish skin more porcelain-like. I think Maplethorpe used it for many portraits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Howie -
Sorry to see you unregistered; that isn´t how you change the world for the better!
Anyway, silver-looking prints are also given that look if you use old developer. In the days of wetness I used D163 for as long as I could find it, but Kodak had set the self-destruct mechanism into motion even way back then, and I was forced into using other brands whose names have long escaped me (I´m thinking of the very early 80s here). This was not a precise science, but it did have its benefits, even if by virtue of serendipity alone!
So, if you have the storage space and are also willing to work with the revealing properties of glossy paper well glazed, try keeping a bottle or two of used developer. Not when it´s already brown, of course, but whilst it is still pee-coloured. Fresh pee.
Much of the work I did was studio stuff with umbrellas (white) and yes, they do give a soft light, but even that varies with distance, of course. The trouble with much studio-based work is that it is often used for speed, something which leads to standardised lighting setups, which can become boring (to the photographer) even if delightful from the client´s point of view.
Perhaps a large problem is present today (in copying ´look´) by virtue of the fact that it´s often done via different print routes: digital does not look like photographic (wet) when held in the hand - reproduction is something else and not everyone can tell with certainty whether a print in a magazine or book comes there via desktop or darkroom. I assume that the silvery look concerning the original post is with prints, not reproductions via the press...
As for Maplethorpe - the least (in my humble opinion!) said the better.
Ciao - Rob C
-
This is a fascinating thread.......
I once spent half an hour closely examining an original Karsh print of the famous wartime shot of Winston Churchill,....the one where Karsh suddenly took the great mans cigar just before making the exposure. I think it was at Chartwell that I was able to get right up to this print and really look at how it had been made.
The interesting things about the print which have not been touched on here so far were that it had remarkably little depth of field as really, only the eyes were actually 'pin sharp'. The general texture of the print other than the rivetting eyes, was smooth and 'glowing'.
Secondly, the 'look' of the shot suggested that photo floods, ie., tungsten light bulbs were used. This could account for the small depth of field as the amount of light was probably at a premium.
Also, this was a large print which showed no discernible grain and my feeling is that, allowing for the emulsions of 65 years ago, it was made with a larger camera than 4x5. Could karsh have used perhaps a whole plate camera?
I know very little of the technique used by Karsh but having seen the print I feel that much of it's 'look' was probably due to the equipement (lighting type, lens, format size) being very different to anything which is commonly used now.
-
Karsh used floods and spots. Full plate cameras (8 x 10) were widely used for portraits in 1941. His uncle Nakash used 8x10 for groups as late as the 1960s.
The large format would account for the shallow depth of field.
From Karsh's book, "In Search of Greatness": "The evening before the speech, I went over to the Speaker's Chamber and set up my lights, floods and spots, . . ." U. of Toronto Press, 1962, p. 65. "I switched on my floodlight and Churchill ejaculated [exclaimed], "What's this, what's this?" (p. 66)
-
Karsh used floods and spots. Full plate cameras (8 x 10) were widely used for portraits in 1941. His uncle Nakash used 8x10 for groups as late as the 1960s.
Actually, I note that Josef himself used 8X10 probably into the 1960's because he is mentioned on the Gowland site as having been one of the buyers/users of the giant 'Gowlandflex' twin lens reflex 8X10 camera.