How to make a photo that looks old

[Michael E]

Sepia toning isn't too complicated if you are feeling adventurous.

Many prints of that period have yellowed and/or had less than perfectly white paper stock. You can give your paper a hint of yellow or brown with a toning bath of tea or coffee.

[Bill Burk]

You should pick up some authentic old prints that show "silvering out."

I don't know. Is there a way to deliberately cause that effect?

Or at least simulate it with a little purple oil coloring and some limited-area "ferrotyping" (press print with hot iron but not all over, just where you colored.).

[tgtaylor]

Take a look at the images in the Cyanotype, Kallitype, and Van Dyke Brownprint Gallery on my website below. Each was created using a nineteenth century printing process which gives them an authentic 19th century look. To create the impression that the photo is old, you can print them on "aged" paper.

Thomas

[ic-racer]

Large format images tend to look 'new. For example I was looking at a full-page reproduction of a Wes Montgomery color image taken on 4x5. It was so clear and vivid, it looked like it was taken yesterday. A big difference from the grainy B&W images of many jazz musicians from the 1940s.

[Tin Can]

Pinhole shot last June, added sepia in post.

[Gary Beasley]

You could locate a deckle edge paper trimmer or deckle scissors to get a period look to the print. That wavy edge is a prominent feature of 50s era prints from your drug store processors.

[Maris Rusis]

The key thing isn't cameras, lenses, or film, it's subject matter. For a picture to look old all modern things, cars, powerlines, tall buildings, tv antennas, etc, have to be excluded. Then "brand-new" old things, horses, carriages, chimney pots, period garments, etc, have to be included. Once that's done it's time for large format cameras, old lenses, blue-sensitive film, sepia toning, etc. It could be said that since photography is a factive medium it's harder to fake the picture than it is to fake the subject matter.

[Michael Clark]

I think Maris suggestion of subject matter will present the most convincing proof then add the other suggestions.

[Pierre 2]

The reason I mentioned old photo paper is that the back, if printed with Kodak or whatever paper producer name, will show this in a typeset that fits the era. Thanks for the reminder about deckle edge paper. A sepia tone won't make the illusion if the paper trade mark is modern. Of course, it depends how old you want the print to look. The back of the photo is the first thing I would look at.

[javidson]

Many thanks to all for the suggestions so far.

I see how in photographic terms the paper is the main sticking point - subject matter is going to be relatively easy in this case as it's an image of a couple of people outdoors in a forest, so posing and costume can be copied from existing period photos.

I love the idea of these old, alternative processes. Obviously there's plenty of information online, but all candidate processes seem to be beyond me. I have no darkroom (not even any rooms in my apartment without windows facing outdoors, into strong city street lighting) and would find it hard to obtain the chemicals and equipment necessary. In any case, experimenting with an antique process seems like a serious investment just to make one print (or a few, but certainly no more than six).

When I do searches for alternative processes, I find a vast amount of how-to information, but next to nobody offering them commercially - I've only come up with the Chicago Albumen Works as any kind of possibility. I'd be hugely grateful for any information on companies or individuals able to make a small number of contact prints with an antique process for a non-excessive price. Perhaps even a forum member would be willing to discuss terms...

Meanwhile, rather than trying to make modern paper look old, it should be pretty easy to get hold of actual old base paper. My immediate idea is to look through my old but largely valueless books for sheets that have nothing printed on them, and just cut out any blank pages (thank you an episode of CSI or one of those shows from a few years ago!).


Finally, to clarify: I'm hoping to make a print that a laymen would consider old-looking and that experienced and sharp folk such as yourselves, with your suspicions aroused, could examine and not find flaw with. It's just for a one-off event, so it needn't pass any kind of lab analysis or microscopy, but something you could peer at closely, touch, smell, etc, and not find any technical aspect to prove it's from 2016, rather than 1916 (or even earlier, if we can get there).

If I shoot modern normal 4x5 film (say HP5+, because I've got some anyway) with a modern lens at a small aperture, with a blue filter, of subjects with no technological items in view and in period costume, and find a way of contact printing it onto old paper with an era-appropriate process, will there be anything about that print to make you shout "Ah ha! It's modern!"?