Frederick Sommer's Technique And Technical Choices

[Andy F]

I would love to know how Frederick Sommer made such beautiful images. The images have great detail and beautiful gradation. I wish I could find out what camera, lens, film and most importantly developer that he used. If anyone out there has any good information on this it would be helpful. I would love to figure out what choices he made while developing his film.

Thanks,

Andrew

[Richard Wasserman]

I own 3 Frederick Sommer prints and I don't know what his exact process was, but you can be assured that the film and paper he used no longer exist. In terms of prints think 8x10 contact prints made by an extremely talented and hardworking artist with very, very high standards. I assume his camera and lenses (when he used a camera, which he didn't always do) were by today's standards nothing out of the ordinary.

I don't know if this is still being supported, but you might try asking here— http://www.fredericksommer.org/

Good luck!

[nolindan]

The film developer is the least important part of the image chain.

Subject, point of view, timing, lighting, and to some extent printing, count for something. As does a skill in arraigning chicken guts, honed in a childhood devoted to annoying one's mother.

Camera, lens, film ... are minor points. A plebeian triplet lens will take the same stunning/execrable (as appropriate) picture as a super symmetric apo aspherical Utragon.

'Art' photographers, like artists in general, are usually rather poor and so their equipment is, well, adequate to their needs but nothing more. Chances are Mr. Sommer used simple uncoated triplet or casket lenses, an 8x10 camera and a contact frame. Worked for Weston, worked for Adams.

A sad part of becoming an acknowledged and wealthy artist, and able to afford the above mentioned Ultragon, is that first you have die.

[Mark Sawyer]

A plebeian triplet lens will take the same stunning/execrable (as appropriate) picture as a super symmetric apo aspherical Utragon.

One can currently buy a 210mm Eskofot-Ultragon on eBay for $49, free shipping. But to your point, it will give results indistinguishable from the atmospherically-priced Voigtlander Ultragon. But if that "plebeian triplet lens" is a triplet Cooke Portrait Lens, it's likely priced well beyond the Voigtlander.

A sad part of becoming an acknowledged and wealthy artist, and able to afford the above mentioned Ultragon, is that first you have die.

That's my plan, and every day I'm slowly, inevitably working towards it...

[interneg]

I wish I could find out what camera, lens, film and most importantly developer that he used.

The link that discloses a lot of the known detail has been already given upthread. Nothing particularly exceptional by the standards of baseline professional practice of the era - and if you cannot get exceptional tonality from an 8x10 contact print and standard issue film/ film developers (avoid staining developers, or other things that can be left where they belong in the first half of the 20th century)/ papers/ chemistry today, you are doing something massively errant in the baseline exposure/ process relationship.

[Drew Wiley]

There's nothing wrong with sleuthing prior specific technique. Go over to a following like Bostick & Sullivan has, and you'd think it was a religious cult. All kinds of techniques get revived. Yes, in most cases, that just ends up mimicking things from the past apart from the same skills of perception which put the most notable practitioners on the map to begin with. But heck, who can look at on old EW chloride print, or a fuzzy lens early Steichen portrait, or in this case, a Sommer print, and not get curious? I even got obsessed with the beauty of certain early silver prints which were improperly fixed, with their lovely random bronzing and bleached out two-toned effects, until I learned deliberate and permanent split-toning skills of equal beauty.

[xkaes]

I would love to know how Frederick Sommer made such beautiful images. The images have great detail and beautiful gradation. I wish I could find out what camera, lens, film and most importantly developer that he used. If anyone out there has any good information on this it would be helpful. I would love to figure out what choices he made while developing his film.

Thanks,

Andrew

Separated at birth???


https://www.largeformatphotography.i...%96-Paper-Used

I've been thinking about the prints made by Mark Ruwedel, who’s work I was very taken by when visiting his show at the Tate Modern in 2018. I love his work, the concepts and places he investigates as well as his approach to image making and series.

I've was struck by how important the photographs are as objects, not just images, which is a quality I so often see lacking in the output of others. Mark's prints had very smooth tonal gradations that maintained subtle detail all the way from extreme highlights to deep shadow, and the creamy / ivory tone of the paper amplified their feel. They were of a look and material quality I couldn't pin down.

Thanks!

[Andy F]

Hi,

I love that phrase "image chain". It goes to the heart of what I am looking to understand. I did not realize that they were 8x10 contact prints. That probably explains a lot. I think the next thing I would like to learn is how Jock Sturges photographed and printed the images at the beach. They show so much detail that they are quixotic to look at. i wonder if they are also contact prints. I struggle with that reference to being "talented". It might be true but on a certain level what does that mean? It tends to end the conversation. The reference to "image chain" is a great phrase because it is about the choices you make.

So hay, does anyone know anything about how Jock Sturges developed and printed his images?

Thanks everyone for all the good information.

[Andy F]

I also did a deep dive into Mark Ruwedel's photographs. I had never heard of him before. Really interesting work.

[jnantz]

I struggle with that reference to being "talented". It might be true but on a certain level what does that mean? It tends to end the conversation. T

Hi Andy F

being talented when one is talking about a portrait photographer might be multi faceted ... first it means having command over your camera, film and lens and knowing everything about it like you can do it in your sleep. if you don't do it yourself you'd have an assistant who is well trained to do things as intuitively as you think, like ESP .. it's directing the people / having conversations before and during the photographs are being made. it's a dance between the person with the camera and the person being photographed (they are being directed )
and it's having and IDEA. there aren't many new ideas in this world .. but some people are able to recycle and recirculate things magnificently ... but getting the latent image on the film isn't all of it .. then the photographer has to work with that lab of theirs to get them to develop the 8x10 film so it has the grain and tonality and snap you like or don't like, and the paper+developer+toner combination that is the idea of the photographs taken ... or you have your own skills and time to develop the film and print it the way you want.
Jock Sturges knew and worked with people for a long time so they were familiar with him and what he did so it might not have been difficult for him to direct people ( im not familiar with the beach sorry ) ... if he wasn't familiar with these people it's a talent to get people to trust you enough to make portraits of them, they have to want to do the dance .. probably didn't answer your question because talent is one of those words that means nothing, like "cute" or "nice" ...