If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
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. In that case I will move it to the bottom of the pile! The most imposing is the textbook for the course I'm in ("Photography" by Bruce Warren, 2nd ed.) which is 600 pages! 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. I'll have to wait until my budget recovers from the course I'm in now! This is by far the most expensive course I have ever taken. NOT counting tuition, college fees, and the textbook, I have spent over US $400 on supplies so far, and I already owned a suitable camera (some students had to buy a camera as well). Thanks for all your suggestions! Adam |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
pico wrote:
Adam wrote: Maybe the "secret" is digital photo enhancement. Oh god, shoot me! Digital enhancement to reproduce crap! It's time to die! Don't worry about me -- I don't even know HOW to manipulate digital images. Remember, I chose the "film" course, not the "digital" one! Adam |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
UC wrote:
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. So UC is cashing in his three-credit class in Philosophy, and I'll bet it bounces. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
pico wrote:
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. I don't know what you have been looking at but even drugstore prints of this period were not as bad as you describe and prints made by amateurs and pros were about as good as modern materials, at least as far as tone rendition. Technical data for old materials is available and does not show the kind of limitations being described. Too often people who want a 30's or 40's look are getting their ideas from either poor photomechanical reproductions in magazines or books or from badly degraded prints, or bad scans on the Internet. Reprints can be poorly made and all too often are. BTW, Edward Weston made some pretty bad prints. For instance the Huntington has a collection of overly dark, just plain bad prints Weston made over a rather long period of time. Please find someone who has a collection of family snapshots from the periods you are interested in and see what they really look like. Photography is a very old technology and, while it has certainly been improved in the last seventy years, it was pretty much perfected before that. Even in the 1880s photos with good tone reproduction were being made. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
pico wrote: Adam wrote: What does "professional" mean on B/W film? I know what it means on color film, regarding the color shift. For Kodak B&W films it means a film base that can be retouched. It also means different exposure/development. For example I have no idea if Tri-X and Tri-X Pan Proffessional are different emulsions, but but the exposure (ISO 400 vs 320 for proffessional) is different. The difference in development may just be compensation for the greater exposure. Geoff. Tri-X 400 and Tri-X Professional 320 are completely different emulsions with different tone rendition. The ISO-400 film is a general purpose, medium toe, film. The ISO-320 version is a very long toe film intended for obtaining brilliant highlights in commercial work. It is useful for some types of portraits. The difference is not large but quite noticeable if a direct comparison is done. At one time Kodak made a number of films with the long toe type characteristic, for instance, many of its portrait films had this sort of curve. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
"Richard Knoppow" wrote
pico wrote: Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: "Adam" wrote [How do I get a 40's look in a photograph using modern materials...] 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. 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. I don't know what you have been looking at but even drugstore prints of this period were not as bad as you describe and prints made by amateurs and pros were about as good as modern materials Yes, but what is sought is not the reality of old photographs but the perception of old photographs. Too often people who want a 30's or 40's look are getting their ideas from either poor photomechanical reproductions in magazines or books or from badly degraded prints, or bad scans on the Internet. Exactly, they are looking for just that: bad reproductions of bad photographs. The question is "how to do it in PhotoShop?" I imagine it changes by family, but the photos in my family albums are, almost without exception, technical junque. I think it has something to do with Scottish genetics: "Ye'll no be wantin' that two-penny lens, this old bit o' broken whisky bottle will do you fine. And no be gettin' those expensive 'enlargements' -- the Lord d'nae take with graven images and flattery." Though, to tell the truth, the countenances of my forebears are of a quality that is best not preserved. -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | February 1st 07 03:25 PM |
Is this Alexander "Dink" Cain in "Warm Springs"? | Jennifer | Digital Photography | 0 | December 21st 06 03:44 AM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 10:00 PM |