10x8's of the Hollywood Greats

[alanps]

Hi Brian, can that really be true though. To be honest it has been a long time since I was in a darkroom - but when I was I took my printing very seriously. The silver content in the paper was for me a big differentiator.

In fact that was the whole thing really - well exposed negative on good negative stock (again high silver content) - printed on good paper....

Just handling these older prints is amazing - even the single weights are of a higher quality than anything we get today.

And back to the skin tonality - sure, wonderful lighting, heavy retouching and 10x8 negative.....but frankly even the best 10x8 portraiture today struggles to get to this level of depth and luminosity...

Personally I think the skills of the photographers - lighting - retouching etc are all important (obviously) - but I remain convinced that the materials used were significantly different in the 1920's and 30's. My collection (not that it is huge) also has examples of contemporary prints (Lewis Baltz etc) and though I love those prints to bits - and they are printed to a high standard - the print quality of contacts made in the Hollywood period appear better.

By the way they are not that expensive - some of the best can go for a couple of thousand dollars, but if you are savvy you can still pick up stamped originals for $50 on ebay...

[rknewcomb]

Maybe 15 years ago I saw some 16x20 enlargements from Hurrell's 8x10 negatives. The prints were absolutly so beautiful they made my eyes water up. Been that many years ago and I still remember them as some of the most beautiful prints I've ever seen!
Robert N.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The materials were different, and in the earlier days of photography, silver content was more of a factor, but there are modern technologies that have made it possible to achieve higher density with less silver (by manipulating the crystal shape, for instance), or more efficient emulsions with less silver in the unexposed emulsion but as much silver in the final image. Some older emulsions like Ektalure had cadmium, which was eliminated due to environmental regulations, and this changed the look of many B&W emulsions.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I have a few original stills, 8x10s, circa 1940s and 50s from Hollywood, and the quality is incredible. you can see the lighting was immaculate, but even on the "news shots" - that is a group on a sidewalk outside a theatre, etc, the quality and even lighting was amazing.

so amazing, it makes you wonder if these "candid" shots were really that candid or staged to a degree to begin with. But I do agree with other posts, i've not seen that many, but the ones I have seen are incredible. Totally different from seeing them on TV or in books, in person makes a huge difference.

It also has the side effect of making you go home, look at your own work over the past 20 years, and say to yourself "what a pile of sh*t".

[Alex Tymków]

Hi, Where can you buy original 30s/40s prints?
Alex

[Brian Ellis]

Hi Brian, can that really be true though. To be honest it has been a long time since I was in a darkroom - but when I was I took my printing very seriously. The silver content in the paper was for me a big differentiator.

In fact that was the whole thing really - well exposed negative on good negative stock (again high silver content) - printed on good paper....

Just handling these older prints is amazing - even the single weights are of a higher quality than anything we get today.

And back to the skin tonality - sure, wonderful lighting, heavy retouching and 10x8 negative.....but frankly even the best 10x8 portraiture today struggles to get to this level of depth and luminosity...

Personally I think the skills of the photographers - lighting - retouching etc are all important (obviously) - but I remain convinced that the materials used were significantly different in the 1920's and 30's. My collection (not that it is huge) also has examples of contemporary prints (Lewis Baltz etc) and though I love those prints to bits - and they are printed to a high standard - the print quality of contacts made in the Hollywood period appear better.

By the way they are not that expensive - some of the best can go for a couple of thousand dollars, but if you are savvy you can still pick up stamped originals for $50 on ebay...

It's true that I remember a test by Henry deatailed in his book that dealt with silver content of paper and he concluded that it had no effect on something. I'm not positive it was tonal range or tonal separation he was testing for, might have been something else (e.g. dMax) but I know that his test showed that silver content wasn't important for whatever it was he was testing for. Unfortunately I sold my copy of the book several years ago and I don't recall the details, just the result.

[alanps]

All the good auction houses sell them (Christies & Burlington for example) but you can also try eBay. There are hundreds on eBay - tip is to be very careful....

Not that people are ripping you off - its that they don't really know what they are selling a lot of the time - so it can be a bit hit and miss. I have bought for $25 and sold for $350 but I have acquired some junk too :-)

$200-300 though can get you an outstanding print by Hurrell, Richee, Bull, Bachrach etc

eBay for serious collectors is a glorious minefield of opportunities and let down's - at least with Burlington Auctions you have a documented and well understood article for sale...

Seriously though for those of you who haven't handled an original doubleweight print from that era - you are missing out on a visual and tactile experience

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

"Maybe 15 years ago I saw some 16x20 enlargements from Hurrell's 8x10 negatives. The prints were absolutly so beautiful they made my eyes water up. Been that many years ago and I still remember them as some of the most beautiful prints I've ever seen!"

Just think, those were taken with uncoated lenses and printed with uncoated lenses and a condenser type enlarger. It wasn't just the paper that is different.

A large size studio, props, large negs, perfect lighting, custom exposure and development, professional hair and make-up, costumes and jewelry, professional models and retouchers, dedicated printers using whichever techniques worked for the print and the LENSES. It also helped that they had never heard of the 'Zone System' or gave it a thought.

('The same is the same, different is not the same.' Fred Picker)