How to Create the Weegee Look

Weegee? You might ask... well, this would refer to Arthur Fellig. Not sure who I am talking about? Have a look at wikipedia to find out.

Old days

Weegee's was best known for nighttime photography of crime scenes. His technique involved the use of flash bulbs, giving a very harsh look to the pictures. There is usually a hard shadow cast on the left side of the subject, which is a "dead" give-away that the flash used was on the right side of the camera; very common to large format press cameras.

Over the years, off-camera flash moved to the left side of the camera, in particular when flash brackets are used. Many point & shoot cameras of today have their flash mounted on the left side, the reasons of which is totally unclear to me. Anyway, the on-camera flash is too close to cast any meaningful shadow at regular photographing distance.

Modern age

So, here is what we need to do to create the typical look of the illumination typically used in Fellig's crime scene photograph:

• mount a speedlight on a flash bracket
• 1 foot to the right of the camera lens
• 1 foot above the camera lens

For the flash bracket, I got myself one that looks essentially like this one. Everything is adjustable with the bracket...

Having the bracket on the right of the camera is a bit awkward, since cameras are designed for right hand use, with the shutter button on the right, which is, where the bracket is now. That of course means, that the camera now will be operated by the left hand.

What the shutter release is concerned, there might be an option: a shutter release cable, with the button fixed to the flash bracket (I guess, I will build something alike in the near future).

Digital solution

Obviously, the above is all nice in theory, but, what about putting this into digital reality?

Here is my setup:

• Fujifilm X-M1
• Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-f/5.6
• Fujifilm EF-20
• flash bracket as mentioned above
• flashgun cable for Canon by PIXEL Inc.

Now to the technical settings, which are different from my usual way of configuring a camera:

• AF illuminator ON
• flash exposure compensation -1
• exposure compensation -1
• red eye removal off

Here is why. With flash, there is not stealth photography, so, there is no reason to not use the AF illuminator. Flash bulbs were not that strong and weaker flash allows for a wider open aperture (see below). Further, lower flash power shortens cycle time of the speedlight. Also, we are still talking nighttime photography, despite the use of flash.

And the "artistic" settings:

• RAW+JPEG
• film simulation B&W (obviously)
• highlight tone +1
• shadow tone +2
• sharpness +1
• noise reduction -1
• auto ISO limit 6400
• f=30mm
• f/4.7 (i.e. as wide open as possible)

This will need some more detailed explanation, I figure.

Highlight tone +1 gives medium hard highlight details, resulting in slightly more contrast in the highlights.

Shadow tone +2  results in very hard shadow details, enhancing the black feel of the JPEG image.

Sharpness +1 in combination with N.R. -1 obviously adds some noise, similar to film grain. This effect could be further enhanced by forcing the ISO up.

My present setup employs a kit zoom lens. 4x5 press cameras are usually equipped with a 135mm, slightly wider than normal primes. On an APS-C system, 30mm comes pretty close to the angle of view that a 135mm would produce in 4x5 LF. Using the XF 27mm f/2.8 (considered on of the best lenses in the Fujifilm system) could the solution.

Finally, the aperture. Due to the long focal length of a large format "normal", the depth of field is pretty shallow. 

In absence of any corpses in front of my house (thanks God!), I took two photographs of a bollard on my front yard. Both pictures are JPEG straight out of the camera. 

Despite using the AF illuminator, the camera struggled to auto-focus. Anyway, I hope that the images prove that a Weegee-look is possible with the equipment listed above.

When using an X100, X100S or X100T, obviously, one might want to use the TCL-X100 for the normal perspective, which would allow for f/2. The 23mm (35mm equivalent) would not be too far off, so any of the series would still be OK w/o the conversion lens.

Conclusion

Weegee used a flash with a relatively large reflector. Although I feel that the initial results look pretty decent, I will experiment to add a soft component to the flash, as to mimic the large reflector.

PS

Shooting with flash requires re-thinking of your exposure parameters, I am aware of that. Exposure for the flash is usually done by the aperture. Distances of 2m to 4m would suggest relatively closed lens, even with lower ISO sensitivities. The creative choice of shooting wide open therefore seems counter-intuitive. Since this look is not affected by ambient light, shutter speed is entirely irrelevant, so the faster syncs speed found on the X100 models won't help. However, the X100 models have a built-in 3 stops N.D.-filter, which could help expose correctly with the lens wide open.

Unmatched Pairs

Sometime you wonder what is going on in the head of marketing and sales departments.Usually, the confusion between marketing and sales opens some opportunities for bargain hunters.
Fujifilm did just that this very year.

Since my very first steps in photography, during the 70s and 80s, I used Fujifilm products. To that time, this was limited to film, the cameras were beyond my reach.
However, lately, having returned to film, I was able, thanks to ebay, to obtain some still expensive secondhand medium format Fujifilm cameras. Wow, what beauties, what an image quality!

Concerning digital, Fujifilm made some remarkable cameras, e.g. the X100S, which I am lucky to own. As much as I like the X100S and its tele-converter, the camera is still limiting, since it does not allow for shooting with my old glass from the film days.
Even before the X100S, Fujifilm sold a camera, called X-Pro1, for a professional price. No way I will ever buy this camera, I thought. Time proved me wrong, in the middle of 2015, I actually bought the X-Pro1, as a special sales, due to the announced advent of the new X-Pro2 in fall the same year. Well, the X-Pro2 is yet to appear on the market.
Anyway, the offer of just €900,- including the X-Pro1, the XF 18mm f/2, the XF 27mm f/2.8 and a leather case, was just too good to not take. The prices of the 2 included lenses added result in a greater sum. A no brainer!

So, the X-Pro1 combined with the XF 18mm is a nice moderate wide angle camera. However, the 27mm never made any sense, in particular I felt it was important to get a XF 35mm f/1.4, which now is my favorite lens with the X-Pro1.
The 18mm and the 35mm, both add to the old school feel, due to the aperture rings of those lenses. The 27mm, lacking an aperture control ring falls short in this respect and consequently has not seen any action with the X-Pro1.

I consider the X-Pro1 and the XF 27mm an unmatched pair, not making much sense other than emptying warehouses filled with soon to become obsolete and unwanted products.

Along came another offer, the entry model into the X cameras, the X-M1. A local store got those on outlet, including the XC 16-50mm zoom for just €290. Seen that another local store offers a secondhand XC 16-50mm lens for €300, this is a lens with a free X-M1 body... which I could not resist!
Picked up the package today, just to find out, that this was yet another unmatched pair. This time, not Fujifilm's strategy... The X-M1 body came in black, as ordered, the lens came in silver, despite the offer said black. Of course, having a silver lens on a black body looks crap... however, I decided, that I should not care about the looks, in particular since the X-M1 will be used with the XF 27mm anyway.

By the way, the X-M1 with the XF 27mm not only looks killer, it creates superb images, just what I was hoping/shopping for. Splitting 2 unmatched pairs might still result in matches at end.

Finally, the X-Pro1 and the X-M1 share the same battery format. So, the X-M1 body really add to a X-Pro1 bag.

Concerning the remaining ugly duckling, the silver XC 16-50mm, I put it in front of the X-Pro1, despite looking stupid, the lens balances nicely. I also learned that the frame-lines in the optical viewfinder change with the zooming. On the wide end of the lens, the X-Pro1's optical viewfinder is just not wide enough, but only by a fraction.
Despite of not looking good together, the XC 16-50 might fit the X-Pro1 just fine as an all purpose walk and shoot about lens.