What developing or printing technique makes these photographs for striking?

[marshallarts]

Hi everyone much more knowledgeable than myself! I have been very appreciative over the past few years coming here for advice.

There has been a particular "look" I've spent years trying to understand what technique went into making it. I've posted many times different examples and learned a great deal, however there was always a missing part of the equation which was probably mostly due to my using inappropriate samples of what I wanted to understand.

Recently in another forum I found the best example yet of the quality I am after. There are dozens of variables in LF photography and I hope this new example isolates the one I'm after. This quality I've described in the past is in the richness and lifelike quality of the "fine details", not too contrasty, and I believe it may be from Albumen prints. The examples come from a book called 'City of Shadows', a collection of police photographs out of Sydney, and can be seen here: http://imgur.com/a/wj60p

I know lighting, amongst dozens of other variables, can be responsible for the success of these images. Others have told me they look this way clearly from the wet plate process. But they do not look like other wet plate photographs I've seen and want to know what about these make them so real and lifelike. If it is wet plate developing how come they're so clean and are these prints? specifically Albumen prints?

Why do these look particularly lifelike, sharp, and not too contrasty?

[Ken Lee]

Why do these look particularly lifelike, sharp, and not too contrasty?

To this LF photographer they don't look especially lifelike, sharp etc. They look normal

They simply look like what we get when we don't use miniaturized equipment, but instead use moderately sized negatives, competently exposed and developed - and either don't enlarge or enlarge very little. Printing on warm-toned paper - or digitally toning our photos - also helps.

Back in the day, those would be considered normal photos I suspect. Using that old equipment they couldn't shoot as many exposures per second as we can with today's equipment, but the image quality could be quite handsome.

You might find this article helpful.

[alanbutler57]

I'm a LF neophyte, but hadn't the dry plate pretty much supplanted wet plate by the time these were taken? As I recall dry plate is also known for it's very find detail.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The format is probably 4x5, wide open using an orthochromatic emulsion, exposed in bright shadow, contact printed on a typical warm toned paper of the time.

Regarding the observation of orthochromatic - look at the eyes of some of the subjects - blue eyes are very light, almost white. The bloke named Ellis is an example. Shoot panchromatic film with a deep blue filter for a similar effect.

[SergeiR]

nothing.

You just like it b/c its got retro feel added by artifacts.
Other than that there isnt much special about it, you can make those all day long with you average 4x5 and good lens.

[jp]

Looks like broad overhead diffuse light (like from skylight), dry plates (which you could use filtered film on as Jac has stated, maybe even xray film). Use an older cheap lens like a rapid rectilinear / planatograph.

If you don't print onto a warm paper, a gentle sepia toning of the print would provide a similar tone.

The writing is on the plate and is written backwards, thus the unnatural flow to the handwriting.

[Kevin Crisp]

I also think there is a big skylight which enhances these nicely. But they don't seem extraordinary to me technically.

[marshallarts]

Thank you all very much for your thoughts and insights. The fact many don't find these particularly exceptional is actually useful. It may simply be a personal preference that warrants further exploration on my end. I noticed the orthochromatic appearance as well, I wonder if it's something about its curve characteristics that is attracting me...

Some have mentioned dry plates -- would this explain the cleaner look than some wet plates?
Does anyone have an opinion regarding using Albumen for a sharper printed image, or that these may be printed using that method?

Use an older cheap lens like a rapid rectilinear / planatograph.

May I ask what you see that makes you feel it used these cheap lenses?

Lastly and most concerning to me, most have said they didn't find these prints in any way sharper than other LF methods. I've certainly seen plenty of extremely sharp LF photos even with modern techniques. But I've also seen an abundance of LF photos where it appears nothing is sharp, is this simply a personal preference?...

To me these are exceptionally sharp, or maybe it's that no detail is lost in contrast (by being overly contrasty). The felt on the hats, even strand of hair on their heads. You can see everything. This is what I want to know! Anyone know what I'm talking about?

[Light Guru]

Others have told me they look this way clearly from the wet plate process. But they do not look like other wet plate photographs I've seen and want to know what about these make them so real and lifelike. If it is wet plate developing how come they're so clean and are these prints? specifically Albumen prints?

Lets stop just guessing what process were used and use some of the REAL data that is easy to gather from the photos.

They are mug shots from the 1920's. The date is written on the images, but if you didn't have the date you could go off of the style of dress.

Would police in the 1920 be using wet plates and albumin prints?

Wet plate photography was largely replaced by dry plates in the 1880s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collodion_process

Albumin prints were most commonly used between 1860-1890
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albumen_print

Police in the 1920s would not be using photographic processes that were replaced in the main stream 30-40 years prior. They would be using more current and commercially available photographic processes that are faster and easer.

I would highly doubt that they were even taken on glass. 35mm film started bing used in cameras in 1909
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

Why don't you research photographic processes of the 1920's.

[jnantz]

police departments would have used something like a press camera to take mug shots between 1912 and 1948.
the prints were most likely contact prints on gaslight / silver chloride paper. and they would have marked the film with pencil lead.