"1940s look" on B/W enlargement

David Nebenzahl wrote:

These things all change; those are really old figures. The films I
remember from the Good Old Days (the 1970s) were Pan(atomic)-X at ASA 25
(I think, or maybe 32?), Plus-X at 125, and Tri-X at 400. Verichrome Pan
was 125 too (but not available in 35mm, just 120/220).

Verchrome PAN was a PANCHROMATIC film, Verichrome was an ORTHOCROMATIC film.
Verchrome PAN replaced Verichrome around 1956. AFAIK in the 1960's it was
available in 126, 127, 828, 116, 616, 120 and 620 but don't count on it.

It was intended to replace Verichrome, but was significantly faster. It
did not matter much as the exposure latitude was wide enough that you
could expose it in cameras with fixed exposures for Verichrome.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

David Nebenzahl wrote:

All this is quite academic at this point, of course.

Sort of. The original question was "how do I use modern materials to produce
a print that people will think was made in the 1940s. (to paraphrase it).

Since the original poster had no idea of what made a photograph look
that way, or even how "that way" looked, the discussion has been about
the look, the techniques and the materials used at the time.

The more product names, the more information about exposure, processing, etc,
the more he can research further.

One question I had that was never answered (and maybe no one knows) is can
you still buy a general purpose orthochromatic film? I know there are still
orthochromatic lithograph films out there (albeit harder to get than a
few years ago), but is there a general purpose one?

I think the closest modern equivalent to a 1940's film is (whatever it's
called this week) KB25, which was sold as Adox KB14. It's panchromatic,
so it's not the same as Verichrome and similar films, but it's not
as red sensitve as other modern films.

However I don't know if it matters. one may be able to get a similar
result with panchromatic film and a green or blue filter.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

"Adam" wrote
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
the secret is to make a real balls-up of the whole
process
That sounds too easy

Ah, but it is very hard to do, first you have to know
how to do everything right before you can consistently
know how to do everything wrong.

to be a valid technique!

Getting it wrong is the basis of all comedy and all
tragedy. How much more valid can one get?

Maybe I should try printing some of my severely underexposed/overexposed
negatives to see what I get.

Just overexpose them in the enlarger and jerk them out
of the developer after 15 seconds, dilute the developer
4x if you are using RC paper. Or use really smelly old
tar-like developer. If you have trouble getting the
highlights fogged just flick the room lights on for a
short flash, exposing the whole sheet of paper.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Adam" wrote

[How do I get a 40's look in a photograph using modern
materials...]

Push, don't pull.

The 40's was a decade with three very distinct periods: Pre-WWII, WWII and
Post-WWII. Let's try for a 30's look, a 30's drugstore processing look as I
take it you aren't looking for Weston, Lange or Hurell [or Capa].

I would try for featureless gray shadows and fogged featureless highlights.
This example was done in Photoshop and is the look I am talking about:

Nicholas is right-on. Most of the photographic prits of that period were
horrid, and just as he cites.

I guess you had to be there. I was.

Adam wrote:

Thanks very much for posting those! That's pretty much the "look" I had
in mind. Maybe the "secret" is digital photo enhancement.

Oh god, shoot me! Digital enhancement to reproduce crap! It's time to die!

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:27:17 -0500, "Ken
Hart" wrote:


"pico" wrote in message
...
Lloyd Erlick wrote:

Yeah, lots of button pushing. I employ a
device with but a single button on the end of
a short cylinder, out of which protrudes a
tiny pointed tip suitable for writing with
the digits whenever the little button is
pushed.


Most excellent. Thanks for that!

Mr Erlick (whose knowledge of photography, IMHO, ranks right up with Mr
Richard K.!) forgot to mention that his high tech record keeping device
requires no battery or AC adapter. Also, the "Mark I" version of his device,
which has no button and the point is always exposed will work upside down or
in zero gravity. The "Mark I" version does require an accessory honing
device, which may require a power source; manual honing devices are
available.




March 21, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

Thanks for the kind words! But I can assure
you the breadth of my knowledge is but a
pencil smudge next to Richard's...

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--

Adam wrote:
Joe Makowiec wrote:
One suggestion I haven't seen yet is to research the Zone System.

Thanks, Joe! I have a copy of "Zone System Manual" by Minor White (4th
ed., 1967) but haven't really looked at it seriously yet.

If you are at all scientific, you will not like that book. I know the zone
system quite well, having studied Ansel Adams' Basic Photo Series books,
both the early edition, and the "new" revised edition. But Minor White's
book is just about incomprehensible. The later one, by White, Zakia, and
Todd is even worse because it seems more scientific. I wonder if Zakia even
read it; he is known as a good photo scientist and sensitometrist, but the
book is very sloppy technically.

Minor White was a great photographer; perhaps he was a good teacher, but he
was way too much of a mystic to teach the technique of photography.

In fact, I
have a small pile of books about photography that I've acquired over the
years, and keep meaning to read. The most imposing is the textbook for
the course I'm in ("Photography" by Bruce Warren, 2nd ed.) which is 600
pages!

Adam

Well, if you really want an imposing textbook, consider "The Theory of the
Photographic Process" third edition, edited by T.H.James. Out of print, but
well worth looking for.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:45:01 up 33 days, 3:10, 3 users, load average: 4.39, 4.16, 4.11

Ken Hart wrote:
"pico" wrote in message
...
Lloyd Erlick wrote:

Yeah, lots of button pushing. I employ a
device with but a single button on the end of
a short cylinder, out of which protrudes a
tiny pointed tip suitable for writing with
the digits whenever the little button is
pushed.

Most excellent. Thanks for that!

Mr Erlick (whose knowledge of photography, IMHO, ranks right up with Mr
Richard K.!) forgot to mention that his high tech record keeping device
requires no battery or AC adapter. Also, the "Mark I" version of his device,
which has no button and the point is always exposed will work upside down or
in zero gravity. The "Mark I" version does require an accessory honing
device, which may require a power source; manual honing devices are
available.


Some even come with an integrated error-correcting device.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:50:01 up 33 days, 3:15, 3 users, load average: 4.10, 4.15, 4.11

On Mar 21, 3:52 pm, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Adam wrote:
Joe Makowiec wrote:
One suggestion I haven't seen yet is to research the Zone System.

Thanks, Joe! I have a copy of "Zone System Manual" by Minor White (4th
ed., 1967) but haven't really looked at it seriously yet.

If you are at all scientific, you will not like that book. I know the zone
system quite well, having studied Ansel Adams' Basic Photo Series books,
both the early edition, and the "new" revised edition. But Minor White's
book is just about incomprehensible.

Too kind, your words are. The book is a disaster, unscientific from
beginning to end. It would be laughed out of any philosophy of science
class, by the poorest students in the class.

The later one, by White, Zakia, and
Todd is even worse because it seems more scientific. I wonder if Zakia even
read it; he is known as a good photo scientist and sensitometrist, but the
book is very sloppy technically.

Minor White was a great photographer; perhaps he was a good teacher, but he
was way too much of a mystic to teach the technique of photography.

He may have got one or two things right, but that was only when he was
reporting what photographers actually did, not why they did it.

In fact, I
have a small pile of books about photography that I've acquired over the
years, and keep meaning to read. The most imposing is the textbook for
the course I'm in ("Photography" by Bruce Warren, 2nd ed.) which is 600
pages!

Adam

Well, if you really want an imposing textbook, consider "The Theory of the
Photographic Process" third edition, edited by T.H.James. Out of print, but
well worth looking for.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:45:01 up 33 days, 3:10, 3 users, load average: 4.39, 4.16, 4.11

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Sort of. The original question was "how do I use modern materials to produce
a print that people will think was made in the 1940s. (to paraphrase it).

Since the original poster had no idea of what made a photograph look
that way, or even how "that way" looked, the discussion has been about
the look, the techniques and the materials used at the time.

That's an accurate summary. I may try playing around with prints from
that one negative, but what I really ought to be concentrating on is how
to make the best possible prints using modern materials.

Adam