A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"1940s look" on B/W enlargement



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old March 22nd 07, 03:07 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Adam[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default "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  
Old March 22nd 07, 03:07 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Adam[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default "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  
Old March 22nd 07, 03:30 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
pico
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default "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  
Old July 22nd 07, 06:02 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default "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  
Old July 22nd 07, 06:07 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default "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  
Old July 22nd 07, 07:04 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default "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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.