Saturday, May 01, 2010

Photo Archeaology - Anatomy of an Image


Rue Foyatier, this oft-photographed stairs, climbs up the Butte Montmartre in Paris, ending near Sacre Couer basillica, the highest point in the city. On a stopover following a business trip in December 1977, I had walked here from a Metro stop a few blocks to the south, and found myself at the bottom of the staircase. I liked the disappering-into-infinity pattern of the steps, railings, and trees, but by itself, the scene looked to static.

So I did what I now realize is a frequent trick of mine - I anchored myself and waited for someone to walk into the scene. The strip of exposures above is the sequence of photos as I took them (click on the image to see a larger view).

Back home on East 83rd Street, I developed the film and checked the contact sheet with my trusty 8x Agfa Loupe, the 20th-century equivalent of the "magnify" button on the back of our digital cameras.

The first three images didn't do anything for me at all. The fourth was a "maybe"... the woman caught ducking behind the fence seemed to lend a tiny bit of mystery. But the fifth photo gave me an aha! feeling.

The position of the woman within this frame, as well as her relative size, works well compositionally. Also, her slightly bent-over and schleppy look at this moment suggeted a tired struggle up the long staircase that matched the somber, lonely look of that soggy, gloomy December day.

Here's the "new" version of that fifth photo, newly scanned from the negative after more than 32 years, slightly cropped, straightened, and lightly adjusted for blacks in Photoshop.

I think it's a great marriage of new and old technology: Epson V500 scanner combined with 1970's Tri-X film and D-76 developer, a 1940 Leica iiiC body, and a 1952 50mm f/2 Collapsible Summicron lens.

Labels: , , , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Lea said...

Interesting to have the chance to sort of 'walk through' your thoughts on the final image. You were adding more and more of the staircase in subsequent photos. A unique post, I like it :)

Sunday, May 2, 2010 at 10:51:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Warren T. said...

Steve, nice article about the thinking and work that goes on behind a good image. Your "new" version is very nice :)

--Warren

Monday, May 3, 2010 at 10:13:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Photo Archaeology

Man By TracksHere's a scan of a 37-year-old negative. If I remember correctly, I tried to print this one back in the day, but never got a good image out of it. The negative actually is fine, with a lot of detail. If I had to guess, I didn't have paper that was high enough contrast to do it justice.

I took this picture one Sunday at Penn Station in Baltimore, back in the days when you could wander around the platforms without causing anyone any anxiety. It was just a few days after I bought a Leica IIIc and a Canon Serenar 50mm f/1.8 lens.

Tonight, I scanned this negative, along with some others, on my Epson V500 scanner. I've only used the scanner for documents up until now, but its raw specs implied it would do a good job on negatives and slides. I cranked up the resolution to its maximum, 4800 dpi, and it yielded a 28-megapixel file. I noticed in Photoshop that it was 26" x 17" at 240 dpi. Just a little manipulation in Photoshop to adjust the blacks was all it needed to make a compelling image. I didn't even apply any sharpening, as the scanned image just didn't need any.

On-screen and on the web, I think the image looks great. I'll have an 18x12 print made from this file to see how that looks, but for the time being, I'm very happy with the film-scanning ability of the V500.

Labels: , , , ,

7 Comments:

Blogger Warren T. said...

The scan looks great. Re: the image, a really nice use of converging lines, and a nice, vintage feel overall. It could have been a scene from the 40's :).

--Warren

Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 5:05:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Warren T. said...

Steve, are you still printing enlargements at home? Just curious.

--WT

Friday, April 23, 2010 at 9:24:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Steve Rosenbach said...

Hi Warren,

Not lately - I want to calibrate my screen and printer - I have the equipment and software, but just haven't gotten around to it yet :-(

Meanwhile, when I need a really good print I go to my local Costco - they do an excellent job, up to 12"x18".

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 10:59:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Warren T. said...

Steve, just curious, is 12x18 a standard print format? I haven't had big prints made lately, so I'm out of touch with reality on this :).

The sizes I know from the old days are:

4x6
8x10
11x14
16x20

are there more modern equivalent standard print sizes, and are standard frames available for the new sizes?

--Warren

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 11:07:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Warren T. said...

forgot to mention 20x30...

I had a 35mm image blown up to 20x30 before too.

--WT

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 11:23:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Steve Rosenbach said...

Hi Warren - 12x18 happens to be the size of paper they use at Costco. Before I blew up my larger Canon printer, it printed up to 13x19 - that seems to be a standard paper size you can get nowadays for inkjet paper.

Monday, May 3, 2010 at 5:46:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Steve Rosenbach said...

Oh, I forgot to answer your question about frames for this size.

I took a $25 class a few years ago where I learned to cut my own mats. What I do with the 13x19 or 12x18 prints is to use a 24x18 frame (easy to find,) cut a 24x18 piece from a standard mat board you can buy at art supply places (I think they're typically 32x40 or so,) and cut a "window" for whatever the size of the image is.

Monday, May 3, 2010 at 5:52:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment