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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:14:59 -0500, pico wrote:
Does this have the look? http://www.digoliardi.net/broken.htm Is that you John ? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:57:00 -0400, Adam
wrote: Thanks, David! I spent a while this afternoon looking through a binder of new prints made from 1930s-40s negatives (for sale at the FDR Visitor Center), trying to figure out what they had in common. Most were low contrast, a few were high contrast. In general the whites were a very light grey and the blacks were a dark grey. There wasn't much shadow detail. Most were sharp, but a few weren't. I think one difference is the range of greys -- modern images have all shades, but these had maybe only five or six distinct shades of grey between the lightest and darkest. Does this sound plausible? If so, is there an easy way to simulate this? Adam Also condensor enlargers were the norm then and they caused a lot of this type of look. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
Adam wrote:
pico wrote: Does this have the look? http://www.digoliardi.net/broken.htm Thanks! I'd say it does -- only maybe six or ten gradations between the lightest and darkest greys, and not much shadow detail. Is that an actual photo from the 1940s or 1950s? If it isn't, how'd you get it to look like one? Nikkor 105mm lens at F4, Tri-X at 320, FG-7 with 15% sodium sulphite underdeveloped (I forgot how much). 1972. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
OH, it has a bit more shadow detail in the original print. It is printed
down a bit but works well when viewing IRL. Someone else help me here - it was printed on Agfa Brovira #111. I think that paper had a brightener in it to enhance reflectivity. I wonder if that's one reason I have trouble scanning such prints. 'course, I'm not very good at scanning anyway... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
John wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:14:59 -0500, pico wrote: Does this have the look? http://www.digoliardi.net/broken.htm Is that you John ? Yes. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
John wrote:
I've found that (depending on the paper) images that are given a slight treatment in ferricyanide (Potassium Ferricyanide) first tone much better. And it really is extremely simple. Pot. Ferricyanide 50g Pot. Bromide 50g Water 1.0L Now that's a stock formula that works quite well. If you bleach the image back with this solution and then "redevelop" it with something like a sulfide toner, you'll have an incredibly stable warm-toned image. I know nothing about toners yet... I assume those are after the fixer. I don't even know if the college photo lab has facilities and ingredients for mixing one's own. Remember, my darkroom experience is only a matter of weeks and we are still doing things "by the book." I have my father's 1951-1952 edition of CRC's "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics," and it has nearly 50 pages devoted to photographic formulae. One is a reducer for lessening density and contrast of heavy negatives, Potassium Ferricyanide 35g, Potassium bromide 10g, Water to make 1000 ccs, which is a similar solution to your suggestion. If I knew what I was doing, and the lab had the facilities and ingredients, this book would be a wonderful source of period solutions! In general the whites were a very light grey and the blacks were a dark grey. There wasn't much shadow detail. Most were sharp, but a few weren't. I think one difference is the range of greys -- modern images have all shades, but these had maybe only five or six distinct shades of grey between the lightest and darkest. Does this sound plausible? If so, is there an easy way to simulate this? It's called "soot and chalk". No good clean whites but also no good highlight details. Same for the shadows. You can get a similar look by shooting that TX400 at EI64 and shortening development by about 50%. Well, this afternoon I decided to combine that with Laura's suggestion about using period equipment. I wandered around another local college that has many older buildings, and tried to get essentially the same shots with my SLR (Tri-X @ ISO 400) and with an Argus C3 (Tri-X at EI 100). Unfortunately my college is closed this week (Spring Break), so I won't be able to get into the darkroom until next week. This will be the first time I'll be developing film at anything other than standard time and temperature. The lab uses Sprint Standard film developer (standard dilution, 1:9), and Sprint's FAQ says that for two stops overexposure, subtract one letter from the chart recommendation. They recommend letter "O" for normal Tri-X (e.g. 10:00 at 68F/20C) but our instructor told us to use "N" (e.g. 8:30 at 68F), and subtracting one letter would be "M", e.g. 7:30 at 68F. I guess I ought to use something between 5:00 (half their recommendation for normal exposure) and 7:30 (their recommendation for two stops overexposed), maybe 6:00 or 6:30 or the equivalent for the temperature I'll be using. Does that sound reasonable? Many thanks to you and to everybody who's shared suggestions here! I'm pleased to see that my first post in this NG has generated such interesting and knowledgeable discussion. Adam |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
pico wrote:
Does this have the look? http://www.digoliardi.net/broken.htm Thanks! I'd say it does -- only maybe six or ten gradations between the lightest and darkest greys, and not much shadow detail. Is that an actual photo from the 1940s or 1950s? If it isn't, how'd you get it to look like one? Nikkor 105mm lens at F4, Tri-X at 320, FG-7 with 15% sodium sulphite underdeveloped (I forgot how much). 1972. Here's another. Maybe. http://www.digoliardi.net/warm.jpg I think your first example was closer to what I'm looking for. Your second example seems to have a complete range of greys between its extremes, which are admittedly low contrast. OTOH I am admittedly new to all this darkroom stuff, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about! I tried something different today. See my reply to John for the details (to save bandwidth). Thanks for your help with this! Adam |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement
Adam wrote:
Well, this afternoon I decided to combine that with Laura's suggestion about using period equipment. I wandered around another local college that has many older buildings, and tried to get essentially the same shots with my SLR (Tri-X @ ISO 400) and with an Argus C3 (Tri-X at EI 100). Unfortunately my college is closed this week (Spring Break), so I won't be able to get into the darkroom until next week. I'm sorry I can't remember how to remove and replace it without damaging anything, maybe someone else can, but you can take the lens off of the C-3 and use it as an enlarging lens. It's not as good as a lens designed to be used for enlarging but it works and may give you more of the results you seek. As for using Tri-X at ASA (let's get into the terms of the period) 100, I'm not sure it will do what you expect. You could try films that are similar in design to period films such as Plus-X (how different is the "new" anyway?), Ilford Pan-F (similar to the late Panatomic-X) and Adox/Orwo/Efke KB-25, which was sold as KB-14 at one time. KB-14 is Orthopanchromatic, so it has less red response than regular panchromatic film. It may make a difference. You could also try to find an orthochromatic film that works for general subjects, I have no idea if they are still around. Most roll film cameras in the U.S. in the 1940s used Verichrome (NOT the later Verichrome Pan) which was orthocrhomatic. Possibly a green or blue filter will duplicate the results on panchromatic film. You could also try developing your film in dilute paper developer. I started out with Kodak "Tri-Chem-Packs" which included Dektol, a stop bath and fixer. Dektol is a paper developer, but it was in this case used for film. 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/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"1940s look" on B/W enlargement: Suggestion
Adam spake thus:
Hi everybody! Would someone be able to help me with a darkroom question? I've been "shooting pictures" for several decades but this semester marks my first actual darkroom experience. I have one nice shot (35mm Tri-X) of an old (restored) vending machine in an old (restored) train station, and nothing in the image gives any clue that it was taken recently. What I'd like to do is make an enlargement that somehow looks as if it was shot (and even printed?) in the 1930s or 1940s... at least something that would fool a casual viewer at first. Does anyone here have any suggestions on how to (inexpensively) simulate that '30s/'40s "look"? As I said, I'm a beginner in the darkroom, and my paper on hand is Ilford Multigrade IV RC De Luxe Pearl. Adam, let me make a suggestion here. Rather than try any of the fancy, esoteric solutions that people here have proposed (toning, etc.), why don't you just do the following, which you can do with what you already have: make a series of prints from your shot, using your RC paper, at various contrasts and of varying density. (You do have access to a set of contrast filters, don't you? If not, they're inexpensive.) For each contrast grade, make a set of prints ranging from light to dark. Be sure to mark each print with the contrast grade and exposure data. When they're dry, you can spread them out and see if any of them have that "30s-40s" look you're after. It won't cost you very much, and you'll probably learn more about darkroom technique than you bargained for. -- Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) |
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 |