PDA

View Full Version : What films and film developers does Paul Caponigro use?



Stephen Quale
4-Feb-2009, 17:53
I'm currently really interested in Paul Caponigro's work and I'm curious about what sort of film/developer combinations he has used. I understand he uses all kinds of different papers and paper developers to get the precise look he is after in his prints, but after looking all over the internet I couldn't find any mention of film developers.

I'm trying to delve into the subtleties of b&w tonality I think his prints show a kind of mastery over print tone that is really remarkable.

Anybody have any ideas?

Caroline Matthews
4-Feb-2009, 18:45
Why don't you call him? He is listed in Cushing.

On the other hand, if you have good work, it does not really matter. Just do your work with good materials.

Merg Ross
4-Feb-2009, 19:53
Stephen, I think what you are responding to may have more to do with Paul's printing technique, and less with his film and developer choice. He is a master printer, who combines developers and toners to get the look he wants for a particular subject.

When I met him in 1959, he was printing on Kodak Medalist paper, and may have been using FG-7 as a film developer. Medalist is long gone, and most likely the film he was using has also disappeared. However, he has continued to turn out beautiful prints with the available materials. Also, many of his prints involved the Polaroid process.

Mark Sampson
5-Feb-2009, 05:55
One place that Caponigro talks about his technique is in the book "Landscape: Theory", published by Ralph Gibson's Lustrum Press about 25 years ago. There he mentions using Kodak HC-110, but I agree with the post above that it's more in the printmaking than in the actual materials used. I'd highly recommend that book for anyone on this forum; it's long o/p but can easily be found through the on-line used book sellers.

hmf
5-Feb-2009, 06:13
If your goal is to produce work like Paul Caponigo's (a lofty goal!), it will not be enough to use the same materials as his.

To elaborate on Caroline's post, there are many excellent films, papers and developers to choose from. Pick a combination and start refining your vision and technique. Look at the work of as many photographers as you can - originals, not reproductions. This will help you learn what good photography, in your mind's eye, looks like. With time and patience, you can do the work and learn what it takes to make your materials perform the way you wish.

That's the path we're all on, or should be. Good luck.

Steven Barall
5-Feb-2009, 09:02
The question has become whether or not it is "ok" to want to know what films and developers Caponigro has used. Well of course it is. All of these techniques become part of your tool box. They can increase the depth of your understanding. There is a visual language and there is also a technical language. Photography is completely a visual medium so to say that these mundane technical things don't and shouldn't matter is just wrong.

Not everyone wants to sit around and philosophize about every shadow or about what the photographer had for breakfast. For some people, given where they are at in their own artistic lives, the knowledge about films and developers will inform them in some important way. That also holds true even if the original photographer in question, in this case Caponigro didn't necessarily think it was important for him when he made the photos.

It's like saying that you shouldn't read Shakespeare if you want to be a writer. To analyze his use of language and how he makes his sentences, to look behind the curtain, is somehow wrong and in fact self destructive. The fact is that in photography everything that affects the "look" of the photo becomes part of the visual language of that photo. The film and developer question isn't comparable to whether Shakespeare used a goose quill or a swan quill. It is comparable however to how he actually wove his words and sentences into ideas and emotions.

Live a little. Cheers all.

Eric Rose
5-Feb-2009, 09:16
Well said Steven.

David Vickery
6-Feb-2009, 11:45
Like Eric, I agree with Steven. For most of us, film is still the starting point, especially with black and white photography, and to understand how a master works in any craft it is a good idea to start at the beginning.

asnapper
7-Feb-2009, 06:16
I suggest like a previous poster that you get the 1980 Lustrum Press book “Landscape Theory” ISBN 0-912810-32-7. I also have kept the article “How They Work” three master printers and their assistants, taken from the December 1982 edition of Popular Photography which recounts Warren Hanford’s experiences working for Paul. It also quotes Paul on his printing technique.

“There are no formulas, I’m not interested in formulas, I’m interested in discovery”

Here is another snippet from the article.

“Caponigro is an intuitive printer and keeps no records at all of exposure or printing information, each time he enters the darkroom he begins afresh”.

Bill_1856
7-Feb-2009, 07:29
Fp-4, Hc-110

Mark Sawyer
7-Feb-2009, 10:30
The film and developer question isn't comparable to whether Shakespeare used a goose quill or a swan quill. It is comparable however to how he actually wove his words and sentences into ideas and emotions.


I'm going to agree with Steven too, but note that the original question might be more comparable to a question on a guitar forum about what strings Carlos Santana might use. No, the strings won't make your playing sound like Santana's, no more than the film/developer combination will make your prints look like Caponigro's.

But it's still a valid question. With so many possible combinations, it gets a newer photographer into materials appropriate to the look he wants, eliminating that big question mark so he can concentrate on other things. And for some, there's an appreciation to knowing you're working with the same materials as a master whose work you admire.

Merg Ross
8-Feb-2009, 09:52
What I find missing in this thread are specifics. Which prints by Caponigro are being referenced? As a purely academic exercise, it might be interesting to make a list of all the materials that he used in his fifty-plus years as a photographer and print maker. The result would be, that the majority of those materials no longer exist. So, what real purpose is there in knowing what he used? It strikes me as being about as relevant as knowing that Weston used Isopan film and printed on Haloid paper. Try that combination today.

cobalt
8-Feb-2009, 10:57
The purpose is irrelevant. Nobody has the right to decide that the poster should not want to know what he wants to know. If you don't know, or don't want to tell him, why bother even responding?

Merg Ross
8-Feb-2009, 11:21
The purpose is irrelevant. Nobody has the right to decide that the poster should not want to know what he wants to know. If you don't know, or don't want to tell him, why bother even responding?

Besides being rude, I do not believe that you have read, or comprehend my post. Who has decided that, "the poster should not want to know what he wants to know"? Read again my response to his query, and then, perhaps you will be able to contribute something to the thread.

cobalt
8-Feb-2009, 11:59
Telling you to stick your opinion up your nose would have been rude...

My comment was alluding to the fact that all too often, threads that ask simple questions are not answered directly. Instead, they are taken as an opportunity to open debate upon a completely different subject. Like this one.:)

Merg Ross
8-Feb-2009, 12:19
Telling you to stick your opinion up your nose would have been rude...

My comment was alluding to the fact that all too often, threads that ask simple questions are not answered directly. Instead, they are taken as an opportunity to open debate upon a completely different subject. Like this one.:)

Simple questions sometimes have complex answers. I was pointing out the difficulty in answering this particular question, as it was posed.

I have a Caponigro print from 1959. It is printed on Kodak Medalist paper. That begs the qustion of what film or developer was utilized. However, I doubt that Paul could make a print with present day materials that would match his 1959 version. For that matter, I doubt that he would even care to try. Most likely he would use available materials and make a stunning rendition.

I rest my case. Back to the darkroom.

cobalt
8-Feb-2009, 12:32
Simple questions sometimes have complex answers. I was pointing out the difficulty in answering this particular question, as it was posed.

I have a Caponigro print from 1959. It is printed on Kodak Medalist paper. That begs the qustion of what film or developer was utilized. However, I doubt that Paul could make a print with present day materials that would match his 1959 version. For that matter, I doubt that he would even care to try. Most likely he would use available materials and make a stunning rendition.

I rest my case. Back to the darkroom.

I still think you're wrong.
I am not a big fan of Caponigro's work, but that is neither here nor there, i.e. not relevant to the original question.

I do like your work, however. So... I pick up the gauntlet, and offer the olive branch. :)

Lenny Eiger
8-Feb-2009, 14:03
I'm going to agree with Steven too, but note that the original question might be more comparable to a question on a guitar forum about what strings Carlos Santana might use. No, the strings won't make your playing sound like Santana's, no more than the film/developer combination will make your prints look like Caponigro's.

But it's still a valid question. With so many possible combinations, it gets a newer photographer into materials appropriate to the look he wants, eliminating that big question mark so he can concentrate on other things. And for some, there's an appreciation to knowing you're working with the same materials as a master whose work you admire.

It is a valid question. I was interested in the answer myself. I'm a big fan of Caponigro's work. I think there is a lot to learn there. It's an odd thread. Why people choose to answer by saying the film and developer isn't enough, or whether he should even ask the question is beyond me. Obviously, film and developer isn't enough to make a great print. However, as another suggested, materials available today may not do it. I tend to agree. The film might just not be capable. In which case, all the inner spirit and darkroom expertise won't work either.

I have been doing tests for the last 4 years and haven't gotten results that match the old FP4. (Or old Tri-x, SuperXX, etc.) Of course, the last thing I want to hear is some other poster telling me the film will do this or that. I haven't specified my criteria, and I won't in this post... all I will say is that film post-1990 is different and so far not to my liking. I am running another series of tests this month and will try again. Maybe the 40th time will be the charm.

Knowing that Caponigro used HC-110, as another poster suggested, will make it certain that I include that in my testing. (I hadn't before as I am not going for the Ansel Adams look, no disrespect to him intended.)

So thanks Stephen for asking the question, and thanks for having the depth to pick a photographer like Caponigro to emulate.

Lenny

Merg Ross
8-Feb-2009, 21:34
I still think you're wrong.
I am not a big fan of Caponigro's work, but that is neither here nor there, i.e. not relevant to the original question.

I do like your work, however. So... I pick up the gauntlet, and offer the olive branch. :)

Point taken, thank you for the good word, and we move on.

I did find an interview with Caponigro where he explains his approach to printing. This, in my perhaps awkward way, is what I was trying to express in my comments. No, it does not answer the original question, but it does tell us about the subject of the query and how he thinks and works.

http://www.steveanchell.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=98

asnapper
9-Feb-2009, 00:22
Point taken, thank you for the good word, and we move on.

I did find an interview with Caponigro where he explains his approach to printing. This, in my perhaps awkward way, is what I was trying to express in my comments. No, it does not answer the original question, but it does tell us about the subject of the query and how he thinks and works.

http://www.steveanchell.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=98

"PC: Alright. I may play with as many as six different paper types. I will mix LPD with Dektol, or Dektol with Selectol, in search of a combination that will give me a particular contrast or color. My photography is not black and white alone, it is very colorful. I'm talking about subtle gradations from warm to cool. Green-blacks, blue-blacks, warm-blacks."

From the 1982 Popular Photography article he used the following papers Kodak Polycontrast, Medalist, and Kodabromide, Dupont Varilour, GAF Cykora, Iflormar, Ilford Galerie & Oriental Seagull, along with the following developers Agfa Ardol, Dektol, LPD & Bromophen.

Most of the above papes have long gone, along with Ardol, but he's replaced it with Selectol and I'm not sure if Ilford still produces Bromophen.

As for the 6 current papers he uses I can only guess, but I would expect him to have freezers full of his old favourite papers, it mentioned in the article that he bought a huge amount of Dupont Varilor when it was discontinued. Thomas Joshua Cooper bought a lifetime supply of Agfa FB MC when it was discontinued a few years ago.

Mark Sampson
9-Feb-2009, 11:33
About 10 years ago, when I worked for Kodak, I attended a 'Voice of the Customer" seminar. EK had brought in both Paul and John Paul Caponigro to let the employees learn from their experiences and opinions. It was a 3-day class, with around 40 attendees. We looked at pictures, listened, and did lots of Q&A. Quite an inspirational experience! I don't know where my notes are right now, but this thread is causing my mind to dig up the memories... perhaps the notes will surface and perhaps they'll be worth sharing.

Stephen Quale
11-Feb-2009, 13:07
Thanks for the responses.

I ordered "Landscape: Theory" from the library and look forward to reading it. I think it is helpful to know that Paul Caponigro uses HC-110 and maybe FG-7. I wasn't even aware of FG-7 before this post (I must have glossed over that information in Adams' "Examples"), but as I am now in a period of trying out different materials I may give it a shot.

I wanted to throw in my two cents regarding the usefulness of my original question. As I see it, Ansel Adams was at one end of the spectrum in terms of discussing technique: His "Examples" plus his other technical books are full of I used X film with Y developer and gave Z development. I find it very helpful to know that for example "Moonrise" was developed in D-23, "Aspens" was developed in pyro, and "Sand Dune, Oceano" was developed in HC-110. I think that for those particular images the film developer was an important part of what makes those images effective. Even though the films Adams' used to make those images are long gone I have the option of using those same developers with a modern film and seeing what happens and then comparing it to what Adams got. I'm not really interested in emulating either Ansel Adams or Paul Caponigro, but I am interested in understanding how they each used materials to arrive at effective images. As Steven suggested, this information can inform my own film/developer trials.

Meanwhile, Paul Caponigro is at the other end of the spectrum in terms of discussing technique. However, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a highly developed understanding of materials. From the interview Merg mentioned (http://www.steveanchell.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=98):

"I've got bags full of technique, but I know enough not to trip all over them."
and:
"I know as much about different materials as I possibly can and reach for the appropriate one to offer to the idea of the subject."

I get the impression that he just doesn't think discussing materials is what will be most helpful to other photographers. Perhaps he is saying find out for yourself (and besides that aspect of photography was covered in detail by Adams). Still, I think the information from this post is helpful: Many of Paul Caponigro's images have a kind of "clarity" that suggests a high acutance developer and its helpful to know that FG-7 and HC-110 are probably a big part of Caponigro's tool bag.

Keith Tapscott.
11-Feb-2009, 13:30
I'm currently really interested in Paul Caponigro's work and I'm curious about what sort of film/developer combinations he has used. I understand he uses all kinds of different papers and paper developers to get the precise look he is after in his prints, but after looking all over the internet I couldn't find any mention of film developers.

I'm trying to delve into the subtleties of b&w tonality I think his prints show a kind of mastery over print tone that is really remarkable.

Anybody have any ideas?I suggest that you also look at the work of John Blakemore.

asnapper
13-Feb-2009, 16:35
Thanks for the responses.

I get the impression that he just doesn't think discussing materials is what will be most helpful to other photographers. Perhaps he is saying find out for yourself (and besides that aspect of photography was covered in detail by Adams). Still, I think the information from this post is helpful: Many of Paul Caponigro's images have a kind of "clarity" that suggests a high acutance developer and its helpful to know that FG-7 and HC-110 are probably a big part of Caponigro's tool bag.

Perhaps the clarity comes from using a Durst condenser enlarger to print his 7x5 negs

sgelb
13-Feb-2009, 22:20
just from looking at the prints, there is a lot of contrast adjustment going on. whether thats in film development or printing, I cannot say.. just from looking there is also some color filtration going on too.. Seems he experimented with different chemical developer mixes too.

heres a little school project you can do on your own:

start by shooting matthews color chart with a 120 of TP, TMAX100, PAN-X, TMY, Tri-X, Acros, Ilford FP4+ Delta 100, HP5 and what ever other B&W film you want.

meter the chart, shoot 12 exp of each in the following sequence: properly exposed, +1, +2, -1, -2, maybe shoot a landscape subject (or whatever subject you want) with the other 7. Then you can also do this with 3 rolls of the same film. then process one roll flat, one roll -1 stop, one roll +1 stop. sooner or later you will start to see what the film + developer does on different colors, different development contrast adjustments. you could also just shoot one roll and do clip tests, if your lab (or you) can. If you want add in filters and you will see the light!!! there you go, you can just reverse engineer his style, OR EVEN BETTER, DEVELOP YOUR OWN !!!!!!!!!!! once you have this kind of understanding, and control, you can step out in the field and bang your exposure every single time!

Andrew Tymon
1-Mar-2009, 09:41
Thought this may be of interest- I don't know if anybody has linked to it before
http://www.vimeo.com/2817629

Jerry Flynn
1-Mar-2009, 10:26
I agree with the general view that it is not the film, or developer, or paper that makes the photographer or their style.

Paul Caponigro has been around a long time and has used many materials (including Polaroid). I remember when DuPont went out of the photo business hearing that he was buying up all the Varigam he could get his hands on. As materials change with the times, however, his images still bear the umistakabel stamp of his vision.

I was at his house last summer, and at that time, he said he was using Tri-X and HC-110. HIs point in disclosing that was that he is using the most commomplace materials around - there is no technical secret.

For what it's worth, I saw a lot of cans of LPD and pouches of Selectol-Soft in the darkroom.

He said he approaches printing as a brand new expeirience each time he selects a negative to print. He does not attemt to replicate an old print: he makes the best print he can today.

Stephen Quale
8-Dec-2009, 18:00
This is an old thread but I wanted to follow up...

I've found the recommended book "Landscape: Theory" very inspirational. So far I've checked it out of the library twice- I don't actually own many books but I do intend to eventually buy a used copy and put it on my shelf next to Ansel's "Examples".

"Landscape: Theory" is full of practical information straight from some really great photographers. There's the expected technical information such as what lens, film, developer, etc. Perhaps even more helpful is the information about how each photographer approaches their work.

To answer my original question of what films and developers Paul Caponigro has used:

As far as films he mentions Tri-X, Plus X, Pan X, FP-4, and Ansco Versapan. For developers he says that "years ago" he used D23 (the book was published in 1980) but wasn't satisfied with the resolution of big enlargements. He uses HC-110 1:31 "for a sharp image".

Obviously the films he used are long gone. I've looked through his "Masterworks from forty years" and I do remember thinking that his earlier work has a softer feel. Take a look at his 1958 Frosted Window (http://www.scottnicholsgallery.com/artists/paul-caponigro/p201.html) for example. I'd probably be getting ahead of myself by assuming that the softer feel is because he used D23 (I've read HC-110 was introduce around 1965).

I guess I see the point of the posters that suggested much of his look is in his printing skills. I still think that while a good photographer can convey their message with a variety of materials, depending on the materials the end result will be different. Paul Caponigro is an interesting photographer in that I think his "message" is extremely clear in his images. But still, if he had stuck with using D23 I think his later work would certainly look different. It would probably have the same "message" but would have a different "feel".

I think that the selection of materials is probably even more important today than it was in the 60s. If I want to go after an "old look" that probably means using a single-coated lens and trying some of the older technology films like Efke and Fomapan 100. Back in the 60s or earlier photographers got the "old look" whether they wanted it or not. :) Its taken me a long time to come to terms with the reality that I probably have to give up the shiny APO multicoated lens to get the look that I'm after.

A nice quote from the Paul Caponigro's section of "Landscape: Theory":
"Discovery is essential to my photography. But only when you've done your homework, and your materials are functioning for you, can you put them into the service of what inspires you"