What developing or printing technique makes these photographs for striking?

[Light Guru]

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.

And there you go. Thanks for adding that info, my film history knowledge is mainly pre 1900.

[Michael W]

They are dry plates that were sitting mostly forgotten in a Sydney warehouse until rediscovered by some researchers a few years ago. Now their social and aesthetic value has been realised and there has been a book produced and an exhibition that ran a few years ago is back again in Sydney. There is also a blog here with some video interviews with the curators.

[Lachlan 717]

Here's a previous thread to this body of work.

If you look at the image of the Messenger boy, it looks like there is some highlight swirling at the extremities of the image. Does this suggest a Petzval-design lens being used?

[jnantz]

thanks michael

i remember the thread but forgot where it was !

the link provided at the beginning of this thread was dead, so i googled the book
some images had the obvious dry plate frilling in the prints but some didn't ...
imust have only seen the oldest images in the group ...

its crazy how dry plates are found in warehouses and in dumpsters &c.
from what i remember many of atget's plates were saved from the dumpster too ...

john

They are dry plates that were sitting mostly forgotten in a Sydney warehouse until rediscovered by some researchers a few years ago. Now their social and aesthetic value has been realised and there has been a book produced and an exhibition that ran a few years ago is back again in Sydney. There is also a blog here with some video interviews with the curators.

[Mark Sampson]

Well, the AP news photographers were sill using 4x5 glass plates as late as 1930. So police depts might have too.
But the available sheet films at the time would not have looked much different.
Ortho, Orthopan, or panchromatic film? that might be the question. Beyond that I agree with John Nanian.

[marshallarts]

I appreciate all of your responses and thank you for offering further insight as to how these photos were made. Funny to see these photos were already talked about here in the forums. It sounds like everyone agrees these were taken with orthochromatic dry plates and Mark Sampson adds available sheet film at the time would not have looked much different. In fact the blog link Michael W shared includes video of curators handling glass plate negatives and later a written explanation stating, "This collection of portraits on around 2500 glass plate negatives (plus some cellulose negatives) documenting police suspects, offenders and detainees was created by New South Wales Police Department photographers between 1910 and the early 1930s."

That said at least the original format is decided, I am guessing the book was made from scans of these plates instead of scans of positives made from the plates (but I don't know) so I would think printing format wouldn't be a variable per my assumption of Albumen printing---would I be correct?

If, as others have said, there is nothing too exceptional about the sharpness and look of these photos all I can say is it's a shame my prints don't come out more like this. I am still a newbie using mostly tri-x. If you guys notice the hats of some of the subject you can clearly see the material is felt. I do not get that degree of realism in my photos. I describe it as sharpness and fine details, and I still feel it's sharper than most LF prints I see here and elsewhere. Is it the contrast that I'm reacting too?

Is there something about the contrast of these earlier emulsions that give it this quality? And what sheet film today would offer that same curve? Thank you all so very much

[jp]

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?

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?

A RR/Planatograph is currently a cheap lens. It was a popular and respected lens in the day. Tessars are good cheap lenses today too. I don't think these have the tessar "look" but it's possible. They are cheap because there were zillions made; they were done right, and aren't rare or sufficiently collectable. It could have been something else like a heliar or something The other common lens would have been a petzval type but these are fairly wide angle and lack the swirl. This doesn't look biting sharp, but you can't really tell from a scan this size. Even a less than sharp lens would have a ton of detail. It's LF after all. The nothing-is-sharp LF photo would usually be of the pictorialist style which wouldn't have been used for normal documentary type imaging.

I think it's glass plate because of the edges of the photos. I've handled and contact printed glass plates, so I see the imperfections.

[James Morris]

You should be able to achieve this look with almost any film and/or developer in LF.

Having control over your exposure & development, and matching that to the paper, as well as an understanding of lighting, scene contrast etc. is 99% of it.

[Peter Gomena]

I agree that there's some kind of big overhead light source, but given the shots where the "perps" are wearing hats and there is good exposure on their shaded faces, I think there's an open flash of some kind at work, either a bare bulb or, heaven forbid, flash powder. This would explain the well-lit rooms, sharp, even detail and lighting. As for exposure and development, it would always be the same once the system was tuned. Always the same f/stop, always the same shutter speed, always the same development. Look carefully at their eyes for telltale signs of a catchlight - I didn't before I typed this, but I'll bet it's there. The lighting looks very similar to basic bounce-flash-off-the-ceiling.

[Jim Galli]

What you have here is first generation non-coated anastigmat's. Bausch and Lomb Tessar's and their ilk. I like them too, and feel that, yes, something is lost.

You might enjoy Michael Disfarmer's work. Painfully ordinary, but wonderful.