let us now catalogue famous people

looks like he's shooting neopan 400 and/or 1600 xp (just from looking at the tone of the pictures)

yeah i imagine so; i remember some of yours that iirc were pushed from 400 & were getting very stark. i am still not a developer but i guess you have a lil more leeway to go high contrast if you're in the darkroom. he's p out there in blacking out a lot of a shot.

ha:

I've heard his name before. He was an ex-photographer even before he died. Two thumbs down.

ha ha, this is amazing:

HI: I've heard his name before. He was an ex-photographer even before he died. Two thumbs down. For the same reason, Robert Frank and William Klein go down the toilet. These three are quitters. Look at Lee Friedlander or Daido Moriyama who still go out and take obnoxious amounts of bad pictures. They refuse to be canonized but keep shooting. They are, to me, more interesting. But I'll be honest. I love Cartier Bresson. I love Frank and Klein. Who doesn't?

Friedlander is truly the greatest. Loooooove Friedlander.

friedlander and eggleston do that trick of pointing a camera at the most banal thing possible and making it interesting, it's amazing

yeah i imagine so; i remember some of yours that iirc were pushed from 400 & were getting very stark. i am still not a developer but i guess you have a lil more leeway to go high contrast if you're in the darkroom. he's p out there in blacking out a lot of a shot.

― quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:32 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

haha yeah - well, delta 3200 was technically designed to get as much shadow detail as possible in low-light situations. neopan 1600, some say, is actually only about 640 in true speed (people peg delta 3200 + tri-x 3200 at around 1000-1200) - I think fuji was aiming to get completely black shadows. dante stella calls it a 'film noir' film iirc

a moot point, since neopan 1600 is dead and 400 is rumored to be so. :(

i just bought a roll of 3200, i was not bullshitting, & it was $$$, but i'd totally forgotten the thing about neopan 1600 being discontinued, damn. i really came around to it when i p much used to just use those two kindsa film.

Neopan 400 seems to be readily available again. I suspect Fuji slowed or stopped production to dry up the relatively cheap supply out there and raise their prices.

Tri-X @ 1250-1600 in Diafine looks good, if you develop at home

pulling for fuji - knew they wouldn't pull neopan 400. my hope is that the devotion japanese camera users have to film will singlehandedly make sure that 35mm film is produced somewhere for the next, hopefully, 10 years. and hopefully, a roll of basic black and white 400 speed film will not exceed $10 a roll.

http://canopycanopycanopy.com/12/looking_fast

http://canopycanopycanopy.com/static/0000/7627/EgglestonField_clean.jpg

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/the-heart-of-the-matter-love/

ty for that. lovely. hands. some more here: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/essay-6/

hey dayo do you know this guy? allan king, he was canadian. it isn't really much of a link with the above but i wonder if you might like; it isn't some sensationally-shot film, though parts of it are v beautifully framed, & the 'presence' & distance of the camera is sorta fascinating i think, but it seems like it would maybe intersect w/some things that interest you.

no I don't! will look but was just finishing the other link you posted.

http://i.imgur.com/tNe77.png

this is an absolutely amazing photo - and at the risk of being a boor, I would like to point out how seductive (from a technical standpoint) the B&W tonality is here.

never a boorish observation. totally valid and on point.

it took me a while before I realized that there are different 'kinds' of B&W pictures. like, prior to seriously engaging with the medium, they all 'looked' the same to me or perhaps mentally I just conceptualized them all in one big category of 'black and white' in my brain. now, after being told that there are different ways that B&W photographs can look, I can 'see' the difference, and it's very hard to unsee.

the same with color photographs, too. everytime I watch a movie now it's hard for me not to imagine what the cinematographer was doing for each scene in the film.

cinematography always amazes me. photography but it moves! and there are many different conflicting light sources, and the camera might move from indoors to outdoors, etc. after getting into photography, whenever I look at motion pictures I'm aware of how much underexposure they often get away with, just motion on a largely black screen. and considerations about clipping whites can't be so important if the brightest thing in the frame is constantly changing.

the b&w tones that really did it for me were, as I probably mentioned before, Friedlander's. Especially with the more recent medium format work there's so much nice gradation all over. it looks superb.

tbf, film handles clipped highlights a lot better than digital

totes xp to dayo

def for bw movies too. like the first time I saw dr strangelove, the black and whiteitude was just there. seeing it again recently I was just amazed by how artfully composed and deliberate each shot was

oh yeah! I watched citizen kane for the first time recently and WOW

http://i.imgur.com/tZd7Q.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/LnhlR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/MF4X4.jpg

dang

interesting to me that my generation (IMO) grew up thinking that black and white films weren't just not in color, but also lo-fi, just because we only saw them on small tube TVs via shitty transfer and with terrible audio.

kinda pumped to explore blu ray versions of classic flicks

hahaha, i remember seeing ck for the first time a couple of years ago and being so blown away by how modern it still felt, and also there's always that surprising thing when super-cannon things are actually great. like idk i just expect certain things to be massive chores in the end. but i mentioned this to a girl in my class and she said she had had the exact same experience and then it became this thing that this weird cult of citizen kane happened in that class. i mean, obviously this is the most celebrated movie of all time possibly, the ridiculous part was how it felt like we had discovered how good it was in spite of that. like i just wanted to tell people "no i know you know how good its supposed to be, but its like REALLY GOOD"

is it on the netflix I wonder

thinking that black and white films weren't just not in color, but also lo-fi

have had this experience with just "old films" period. They always had such terrible looking video/television transfers that I thought people in, say, the 70s had awful cinematographers. pan and scan was no doubt related to this too.

Canonical Works That Aren't A Chore would be a good ILE thread.

I saw a restored print of Vertigo years ago, that was a holy shit experience. Not sure anything has ever looked as good as that movie.

I've seen vertigo in 35mm, holy shit agreed

vertigo is one of of only three or four american hitchcock movies i've never seen

fave movie of all time. see it in a theater whenever I can. boy oh boy do I love vertigo!
ps. restored looks good, but original print (cared for) looks even better!

i have never seen a hitchcock film!

yes you have

can't believe I said "boy oh boy" ...who am I??

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/life-and-kodak-remembered/

the salsa dancing pic is pretty exquisite imo

ha i saw a weird digi restoration of vertigo recently that looked like it was presented in glorious jpeg-2000, it was really strange. def a gorgeous film though; the greens. in the film thread, morbs linked to a 2011 repertory recap that singles out an old marilyn monroe film notable primarily for its print, which i wouldn't mind catching; i sorta get fascinated w/cinematography when it's a rich/inseparable part of the film - can't really think of anyone with whose work this is the case more than kieslowski - more than when it's just an aesthetic bonus (cf that tom ford flick), but it can be nice just to see stuff that's beautifully shot. one of my least fav wong kar wai movies is one of the most striking things i've ever seen:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w147/clubhouse1/ashes_of_time/07.png
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1006/41934757rz5.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w147/clubhouse1/ashes_of_time/10.png
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1215/12988917lj5.jpg

i think i had the 'this is so modern!' reaction w/stuff like the misfits, which is kinda a weird text anyway but looks like it's from space or something

http://www.ernst-haas.com/archive/misfits/misfits06.jpg

it took me a while before I realized that there are different 'kinds' of B&W pictures. like, prior to seriously engaging with the medium, they all 'looked' the same to me or perhaps mentally I just conceptualized them all in one big category of 'black and white' in my brain. now, after being told that there are different ways that B&W photographs can look, I can 'see' the difference, and it's very hard to unsee.

yeah this is so true!, & it's hard to think it isn't tangled up with the hierarchy of images related to how colour was phased in as an 'advance'. looking at the life essay you linked is interesting, the scans of the slightly distressed photos are really soft, almost sepia. looking at any of this stuff, like the gednes archive linked above, makes me feel like i should be a better photographer, stop fucking around shooting 100 speed film indoors & getting blank prints back.

ps milo, re:

Canonical Works That Aren't A Chore would be a good ILE thread.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 20 January 2012 02:23 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

try to catch the bfi rerelease of l'atalante if it's playing near you, it's great to watch

http://books.google.com/books?id=rEoEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA88&ots=IOvOjkZnlz&dq=grey%20villet%20%20Lash%20of%20Success&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q=grey%20villet%20%20Lash%20of%20Success&f=false

the grey villet photo essay mentioned in that lens post

i think of the subsequent creepy ads i pick 'the proving ground', p102, as the narrow victor over the weird auto-syrup dog food bowl

Schlump, thanks so much for that 'Looking fast' link, fantastic stuff there!

yes!, it's interesting. i generally think 'familiar but finite things' vs 'endless sprawling potential newness' is a p big debate ~of~our~time~ & it is pretty well embodied by books versus the rabbit hole of the internet.

hey btw le bateau ivre, i can't remember seeing any phots of yours on ilp, do you drop in here much?

I'm a big photography lover, buy way too much photography books I can't afford and go to exhibitions etc. I don't take much photographs though, or at least don't share much. I think only once I shared some here. So yeah I'm probably a lurker here, but soaking up all the wonderful links and photographs and discussion!

ha i'm glad, i feel bad for asking, it feels like maybe a product of how cosy ILP is, WAIT IS SOMEONE ELSE READING THIS EVERYONE BE QUIET I THINK THE CURTAIN JUST MOVED.

cool beans anyway. post some phots if you ever feel inclined, i think everyone here just likes looking at photos of other places/lives as much as anything.

i think also that a few people decided to "get into film" at around the same time and this ushered in the particular era of ilp we're in now

I don't have that incrowd feeling with ILP at all Schlump, I feel fully at home! :)

yeah its super nice

it's still surprising to me to see an ILP thread that has 50+ new answers regularly

oh sure, i didn't so much mean cosy as in cliquey, more just familiar, like the brady bunch setup that is i love vinyl, etc. i generally don't know who everyone is on other threads, let alone feel familiar enough to sense stranger danger when someone new is around. there was that thread about why people use ILX/what it means to use ILX recently; how well being able to think about & see photography here is a v good example of its appeal

gbx: szarkowski published a book of his photographs before he became famous photo critic. it's title? the face of minnesota.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fgw6ArCYqv8C&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20face%20of%20minnesota&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=the%20face%20of%20minnesota&f=false