Nicolas Sant
Tahiti
When I’m in Tahiti, I don’t have to let go from preconceived ideas tinged with heaven and exoticism. I don’t have any. I have never believed in the Garden of Eden, but I don’t believe in Hell either…
As I go all over the island, ever changing feelings keep crossing my mind. They break off any plot, deny the very idea of a story and prevent any bias from happening. I can hesitate and never choose between passion and disgust.
Only a kind of melancholy seems to cling to people, to things, to me.
Bio
I was born on october 22, 1977.
I live in France with my wife and my two children.
With photography I want to keep a personal approach, and try to find what defines myself. This is about memory and experiences, with the obligation to stay connected with the outside world.
This work was shortlisted for the Emerging Photographer Fund 2014
Related links
Almost seems like two sets. I prefer the more blurry ones, the pictures with the cock is super.
I don’t think the 2475 Recording film processed in hot Dektol look added anything to this essay.
JIM POWERS
ha ha funny…i was just mixing Dektol a few days ago…but for prints…i know it could be used as a film developer as well…but i never tried it….but you must have!! i am a D76 1:1 type
cheers, david
HHARRY
yes, the flying rooster is the best shot…i just moved it to the lead…less predictable for Tahiti
cheers, david
Rodinal 100:1 overnight stand deleopment can work if you want controlled grit.
d76 1:1 is lovely with Trix or HP5
Microphen for 2 stop pushes.
or for all the younger audience out there…. silverfx pro and Potatoshop CS8 :)
JOHN GLADDY
somehow i never developed in Rodinal…i guess because it just wasn’t in my local shop….and never heard of 100:1 overnight development…hmmmm
but yes hard to beat D76 1:1…for Tell It Like It Is for some reason (i do not remember why) i was shooting both Plus X and Tri X…sometimes for other things i shot Panatomic X and developed in Microdol X which basically was the finest grain look i could get…in the end though, TriX was the film for me…and still is….
for the Leica Monochrom i find Silver to be terrific and i must say that combo looks more like film than film…..i have now taped to my wall as a test print a 60×40 inch Monochrom printed os a silver gelatin print…that thing at 60×40 looks better than an 11×14 TriX from my Leitz enlarger….just amazing this look….
so i print in the darkroom for collectors who want a print made by me in the darkroom….and they are special….yet the direct digi monochrome to silver fibre paper is just magic…..inkjets from the monochrome do offer more paper choices and also amazing…
i do hope another camera manufacturer makes a monochrom..like Fuji…something i can afford…the Leica monochrom is a loaner…at 12k its just a bit over the top…on the other hand the look is sooooo good that it is tempting to find a way to afford….they gotta fix that buffer though…i have almost thrown that 12k camera on the ground a few times when after taking 5 pictures in a row, and not that fast, the damned thing just stops….
cheers, david
David…
and how about the Monochrom against the Mamiya 6×7 Tri-X negative?… have you hung them side by side? I usually shoot Tri-x with 35mm but it’s just too xpensive in 120 format so I always shoot Hp5 with my Fuji 6×7 but all developed in D76 which round here is quite cheap.
BTW isn’t there an Ilford developer which is very similar to D76?
PAUL
i have not done a side by side comparing the monochrom to my Mamiya VII or Bessa…but that should be done and i will do it…because of the dynamic range of the monochrom it sure looks like it was taken with a medium format film camera, BUT that could be an illusion i admit…so i will let you know when i test it …i would be very happy to think that my medium format film cameras would be better than any of my digi stuff…in my darkroom i can make 20×24 inch prints which are the most collectable and if i could process my own film and make 20×24’s at home in the darkroom, that would be great…for larger sizes which i wd just drum scan and have silver gelatin prints made by any number of labs who are doing that these days…although the truth is the b&w pigment inkjet prints theoretically have the longest life of any photo print medium ..by far…..longer than pigment inkjet color prints…by twice i think..200-400 years they say…who knows?
i will get all of this testing down down down by mid summer…now i have three books in various stages of development which is crazy and coincidence….i am night and day working on them for the next 8 weeks…yet that is over by mid June….all books i have been working on will be done by LOOK3.org…….Tell It , Haenyeo, BeachGames….all 3 so radically different than the other..in subject matter and in feel….
so by fall i will embark on something new….the table will have been totally cleared..a first for me…usually i have some book on the back burner….yet somehow they all got done at once…so i could launch out there with my Mamiya or i could launch out there with the monochrom….i am very very tempted to do something at home, or rather obx my territory….or go back to my American Family work which i abandoned….or i could end up back in Cuba as i mentioned before…or i could pursue more my “fiction” works but i only have about 3 of those after 3 years, so that is more of a gallery set than a book at the rate i am going….those are really really hard…to get to the highest level anyway…
cheers, david
I like this easy a lot; I couldn’t (can’t) make my mind up whether it was film or digital or a mixture of both. Often this type of chiaroscuro processing is taken to extreme but the processing here – film or digital – is very good. I like the rooster photograph but I like number 19 too: I think I could live with it on a wall for longer than the rooster. Great work Nicolas; thank you.
David, a Fuji or Leica T monochrome would be great, and you could use your M lenses.
Mike.
Best rooster shot I ever saw – best chicken shot, period.
I don’t fool with film and chemicals anymore and while I can’t say for certain (a couple of weeks ago I built a new darkroom in a dream) I don’t think I ever will again and so I will stay out of the technical discussion, except to say I think that the artist used exactly the right materials to convey the story as he wanted to convey it and he did an exquisite job of it, all the way around.
He showed me Tahiti as heaven, hell circulating through it.
I always wanted to go to Tahiti, but doubt I ever will.
Thank you very much.
Mike R, i used 135 tri-x film, D76, and Dektol. The paper is Ilford Multigrade. I use an enlarger with direct light with filters under the lens. More at nicolassant.com
Thanks to Burn Magazine who gave me the opportunity of showing this work!
David,
FWIW, my guy in Montreal has new Monochrom’s in stock for $7495 CDN-practically a steal if
buying with $US :)
New Monochrom,loosely based on the 24Mp M240 is just around the corner.
Improved buffer,rangefinder,etc but will be CMOS and not CCD
Also, you mentioned ‘silver fibre’ paper in a previous post.
Could you be more specific as to brand/style if you have a chance
Thx
Mark
So much of digital processing takes the same discipline as darkroom developing. The main difference is that if you f it up digitally, you can start over and try again. You can push things without fear because command-z exists. I see videos of darkroom masters making prints, and I see parallels, but I am still in awe.
Much like the discussions of spending too much time in photoshop, trying to make a photo better than what it is, do those same parallels exist in the darkroom? Does the process become more important than the photos? Or does it all push towards one grand art form? Do these questions mean a damned thing?
A couple examples to look at in this essay. The rooster image. It is killer, and I think that it would be killer no matter how it was processed, but with the beautiful grain and the blacks pushed to the extreme makes it better than (I’m guessing) what was captured in-camera. This is not a criticism of Nicolas. As I see it, this is an example of the push towards the great art. The sixth image is the second one I thought stood out in the processing. In digital, I would say that the man’s right eye is opened too much, and lost the correct contrast. It does not fit the natural shadows and tone of the rest of the image. To me, that eye is a distraction from what is an image of an interesting character.
As I look through, there are many images that are a wondrous combination of capture and processing (7 & 13 are glorious). There are also some others where the processing seemed off or a bit heavy-handed. Maybe it’s me and my digital processing ways. I respect the effort taken to get the shots, and the further efforts to spend hours in the darkroom. I don’t have the patience for it, and I continue to be in awe of those who do.
very very nice, simple series. I like 13 and the first one most.
Good this is not digital. Simple message, simple tools.
Thanks for the info, Nicolas. Knowing that you used film and a traditional darkroom increases my appreciation of your work. I was half expecting to hear that you used ferricyanide to bleach back the highlights of some of the photographs. A few of your photographs reminded me of some of the W Eugene Smith technique of burning down the image and then bringing back the highlights with ferricyanide.
I checked out your website. Impressed: thanks again.
Mike.
David, I’ve used M9 and M240 Leicas (among others) and the newer M240s buffer is much better; as is the frameline accuracy. I missed a killer shot with the M9 while using the LCD to check the accuracy of the frameline on a particular scene. While I waited for the buffer the photograph literally ran past me! It still hurts that I missed the shot. I’m using a Leica T (jury is still out) but I’m not investing Leica M money on a digital camera that will depreciate significantly within a couple of years.
MARCIN
In my view, wholly, and sublimely, irrelevant whether this wonderful series was made on film or digitally. While I appreciate that any individual photographer may prefer or enjoy one more than the other, only the quality of the results matter — and whether one or the other was “manipulated”, or needed manipulation, also does not matter, no matter how interesting it is to read about the materials or post-processing used.
—Mieczsław (Mitch) Alland/Potomac, MD
From one side, film or digital it is completely no matter. We all have to agree with that.
From other side everything is matter, I suppose. Everything what is behind the scene is matter. Otherwise who care Beethoven was deaf when he compose 9 symphony, or Mozart was so young and creative, or Capa was close enough, or Trent Parke makes his discoveries when he take out films from tank? Isn’t it put a bigger perspective to someone work?
Unfortunately I work as a graphic designer, for me it’s matter that someone who take simple photos, do it in simple way. It make more complete story for me.
Of course digital can be as simple as film, but not when image is so pushed. But this is only my opinion.
“While I appreciate that any individual photographer may prefer or enjoy one more than the other, only the quality of the results matter — and whether one or the other was “manipulated”, or needed manipulation, also does not matter, no matter how interesting it is to read about the materials or post-processing used.”
I think you are right Mitch.
Mike R, i use ferricyanide sometimes, often with a brush.
Nicolas, ‘i use ferricyanide sometimes, often with a brush.’ – you use it well. If I had room for a darkroom I’d have a film Leica, one lens, darkroom. I’m missing my film M already and actually thinking about knocking down my garage and having a brick one built with integral darkroom.
Mike.
Good idea! My darkroom is my bathroom. It’s a 5 square meter room. I remove some of the elements after each session because we are four at home.
This essay rocks. Love the images, it’s got soul.
My youngest son has invaded my darkroom and is currently turning it into a bedroom with the full cooperation of my wife. But all is not lost, as I’ve managed to convince my wife that a darkroom is a necessity. So we are currently building a little room on one of our terraces.
I’ve practically given up digital photography.
I’ve come to realise that I cannot keep up with all the safety procedures with backing up my files on numerous hard drives. I think many don’t realise the hurdles we’ll begin to encounter over the years once things for example like USB connections become obsolete. Yes of course there will be options but I can’t be bothered to be worried about files I shot ten years ago that need copying to a new system. I’ve got a nice and large cupboard where I store my negatives and contact sheets which I’ve been using for the last fifteen years where I can find everything I’ve ever shot on film.
Developing film:
1. Gather rolls of film together.
2. Put them as many as will fit in a 6×9 envelope.
3. Insert check into envelope.
4. Mail to California
5. Wait.
I am never going to Tahiti to see the flying chicken either; this is because I don’t see dropping nearly $7K US on anything as practically a steal. It’s nice to know people who think so, though; it makes the world more interesting, I think.
Why film? Because film, unlike digital, has an existence independent of the technology that created it.
AKAKY_IRL: Wow. Did you think of that yourself?
AKAKY: Hell no, I stole it.
AKAKY_IRL: Thought so. It sounded vaguely intelligent and you’ve already said something vaguely intelligent in this decade.
AKAKY: I only get to say one vaguely intelligent thing a decade? That’s dumb.
AKAKY_IRL: Look, guy, don’t blame me, that just how it averages out. If it’s any consolation to you, you do vague very well.
AKAKY: Thanks a lot.
AKAKY_IRL: You’re very welcome and I will overlook that snotty and largely uncalled for sarcastic tone you’re using, bubba.
“Film, unlike digital, has an existence independent of the technology that created it”
Absolutely brilliant and so very true.
PAUL: “I’ve come to realise that I cannot keep up with all the safety procedures with backing up my files on numerous hard drives.”
I’ve come to the opposite conclusion. What backups of your film do you have? The idea that work will be lost 10 years from now because the technology is gone is a misnomer. What’s more likely in 10, 20, 30 years: an adapter is unavailable for a USB connection, or one of the many elements needed to make a print is no longer manufactured?
AKAKY: “Why film? Because film, unlike digital, has an existence independent of the technology that created it.”
I simply don’t understand that statement. I suppose that yes, without a camera, there would still be film. What’s the purpose of film if a technology isn’t used to create an image?
I shoot digital because I know the technology behind it well. I suspect some shoot film for that same reason. I just get tired of film platitudes. Shoot what you want to shoot, and for whatever reason.
I go from one to the other – film, digital, film …. I’d feel more secure that my digital photographs will survive if camera manufacturers stopped bringing out yet another version of Raw with every new camera release. Surely it’s easier for everyone (them and us) if a standard Raw file was used by everyone?
Mike.
Mike the reason is that camera manufactuers know that most of us along with our photos disappear into obscurity and that is before we are pushing up dasies
On a personal-family level I think it’s important to print some pictures to have in a physical form. My wife has just got her family box of photos and is working out which baby is the young man sending postcards from the trenches. The camera as time machine would not work as well when it’s a bunch of hard drives.
Otherwise I think its all about the end result. I don’t think Black and white pics look right without grain so I add grain. It’s not real but I don’t care.
Uuurggh , another boring discussion about film vs digital , I guess this is how it would have sound like when the discussion color vs black and white was still relevant .
Does the 9 symphony gets better because we know this guy was deaf then , does it change anything about the quality of this piece or is it a trivia after the fact ?
Anyways , back to the future , I quite like this series , the hard and soft both , also like the story with it , not being pretentious but to the point poetic .
Agree with someone above me on 6 , excelent and interesting character but the eye kills it a bit . Easy forgiven and thanks for this beauty .
Yesterday I had a great experience: a youngster approached me, while I was eating. I was eating a roast beef on a hard roll, with salt and pepper and some mayonnaise. Actually, there was too much mayonnaise, now that I think of it. They always do this at the deli; they slather the mayo on like Van Gogh slathering paint on a canvas, and it always causes a problem because the mayo winds up in my mustache and I have to spend the rest of the day cleaning all that gook out of it. I don’t think Van Gogh ever had to clean the paint out of his mustache. There may have been some on the ear he cut off, but I wouldn’t want to speculate on this without investigating the matter further. However, this may be why there are no delicatessens in Van Gogh’s work. Lots of bars and brothels, of course, unless I’m confusing Van Gogh’s work with Toulouse-Lautrec’s; I know there are lots of brothels in Toulouse-Lautrec, but again, as with Van Gogh and Mozart, there are no delicatessens where you can buy a roast beef sandwich that won’t spew mayonnaise all over your face like a culinary Vesuvius. As for the youngster who approached me, a school bus hit him as he crossed the street, killing him instantly. After the students got off the bus and stripped the mangled corpse of his clothing and cell phones, the unfortunate wretch got up and called the police, who came quickly and arrested him for indecent exposure, interfering with the free flow of traffic, and littering. The district attorney’s office may press further charges as the need arises, according to an official spokesperson.