HCB film

[LeicaBraz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone knows which film (or films) Cartier-Bresson used?

Tks

[giordano]

I can't imagine him being very fussy about it. Contact prints reproduced in The Modern Century show (Kodak) Super XX, Agfa Isopan ISS and another Kodak film. Later presumably Tri-X.

[aesop]

I can't imagine him being very fussy about it. Contact prints reproduced in The Modern Century show (Kodak) Super XX, Agfa Isopan ISS and another Kodak film. Later presumably Tri-X.

 

 

...I can't imagine it mattered. Or matters. Any more than van Gogh's specific combinations for his oils.

[LeicaBraz]

Agree, doesn't. Just curious.

Thanks for the info.

[pico]

...I can't imagine it mattered. Or matters. Any more than van Gogh's specific combinations for his oils.

 

Van Gogh's materials are certainly significant to his work.

 

Regarding the question of HBC's film, perhaps the author would like to know what kind of spectral response the films had, and perhaps the grain structure and development chemicals. Films did have a specific and different look.

[BobYIL]

Up to mid-sixties it was HP3, from then on HP4 until he stopped shooting in 1974. He was rating his film at nominal (400 ASA) and the favorite developer was Harvey's 777. Most of the prints you have seen on the exhibitions were on Ilfobrom paper.

 

Hope this helps...

[aesop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Van Gogh's materials are certainly significant to his work.

 

Regarding the question of HBC's film, perhaps the author would like to know what kind of spectral response the films had, and perhaps the grain structure and development chemicals. Films did have a specific and different look.

 

 

...ah, the old art v. science conundrum, pico? Let's not even go there. Suffice it to say that a true artist is always able to produce with available materials.

[pico]

...ah, the old art v. science conundrum, pico? Let's not even go there. Suffice it to say that a true artist is always able to produce with available materials.

 

No, it is not art vs. science, and I see no reason to suggest I asserted such. 'True Artist' is your expression, not mine.

 

Films were different, and significantly so. If a person wants to understand why there was a certain look, perhaps for historical information, or to emulate it, he should look into the spectral response of the films.

 

Plain sense. You do know that B&W is, in a sense, color without hue. Put a blue filter over your lens and do some images to see for yourself.

[Xmas]

Well you can still get double-x as movie stock (5222 I think), a collapsible cron, hood, M3, set focus to 12 feet, aperture to f/8, 1/125 and prowl the streets of Paris.

 

Double-x has an nice signature.

 

It is not that easy to get his style of shots, and it wont hurt anyone.

 

At the very least the french constabulary would (could) not be any more annoying than the Met or BRail Plod.

 

Noel

[adan]

Just for the record, you'd not only have to use his film, but also be rather - shall we say - vague about exposure.

 

Back in the 70's, Camera 35 magazine ran an interview with a top NY print-maker, who did HCB's printing for him. He mentioned one shot that was so overexposed that he turned on the enlarger and then went out for lunch - it took 50 minutes for enough light to penetrate the negative to register a print.

[nhabedi]

Just for the record, you'd not only have to use his film, but also be rather - shall we say - vague about exposure.

 

Back in the 70's, Camera 35 magazine ran an interview with a top NY print-maker, who did HCB's printing for him. He mentioned one shot that was so overexposed that he turned on the enlarger and then went out for lunch - it took 50 minutes for enough light to penetrate the negative to register a print.

 

Interesting. I have a copy of an article lying around somewhere, also from the 70's and from some American photography magazine, where the author wrote that he tested HCB's claim that he didn't need a light meter. He said that he asked him to estimate various indoor and outdoor situations and he was always accurate to half a stop.

 

I guess there are lots of stories floating around about him and we'll never know which are true and which aren't. But the contact sheets I've seen from him all looked properly exposed - a lot better than some of Robert Frank's.

[aesop]

No, it is not art vs. science, and I see no reason to suggest I asserted such. 'True Artist' is your expression, not mine.

 

Films were different, and significantly so. If a person wants to understand why there was a certain look, perhaps for historical information, or to emulate it, he should look into the spectral response of the films.

 

Plain sense. You do know that B&W is, in a sense, color without hue. Put a blue filter over your lens and do some images to see for yourself.

 

 

...OP was just curious and agrees it does not matter, pico. It would appear you take an alternate view. Incidentally, I shoot B&W only. Chaqun à son goût, non? I rest.