I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

[marshallarts]

I have posted this question numerous times in the past on many different forums. Unfortunately every time the responses I get back are as if I'm some novice and they are teaching me very fundamental principles, which is very frustrating.

I am a long time photographer, and I work mostly in digital (). There is an aesthetic in specifically older large format prints which I am most attracted to. So I come to forums and give an example and people respond with very basic thoughts on what it must be that attracts me. I do not need these 'lessons' in rudimentary photography, but have gained a little bit of insight from those who have answered with deeper observations. (i.e. please don't teach me about how much greater resolution LF has... I know this )

I need to bring this subject up again here and try to fish out the information I'm looking for. Please observe the first example below. Two things come to mind.

1.) Curves - What are the curve characteristics with this film used for this photograph? Does anyone know the film used and what the curve values may be?

2.) Sharpness - This example is pretty extreme, but it easily displays a characteristic about older LF photographs were sharpness rolls off in a way very much highlighting the intended subject. Assuming this picture hasn't been touched digitally was there heavy unsharpmasking done in the darkroom to achieve this or does this look come from a certain type of lens?

The second example was a screenshot I took from a DVD, you will not see the sharpness here but I still very much like the curves to use this photo as an example.

Before commenting further on my thoughts, which may lead the discussion off course, I look forward to hearing your responses.

[Brian C. Miller]

1.) Curves - What are the curve characteristics with this film used for this photograph? Does anyone know the film used and what the curve values may be?

There is really no way to tell from a print exactly what film was used to make an image. There can be a lot of guesses, but unless the data was preserved, i.e., written notes, then you'll never know. You can do a Google search of the Kodak web site for various emulsions, such as Panatomic-X or Double-X or Super-X, and then take a look at the curves in the documentation.

The look of a print comes from both the film and the paper, and there's a lot of chemistry that affects the curves. This darkroom workmanship and artistry can obscure any curve definition in manufacturer data.

2.) Sharpness - This example is pretty extreme, but it easily displays a characteristic about older LF photographs were sharpness rolls off in a way very much highlighting the intended subject. Assuming this picture hasn't been touched digitally was there heavy unsharpmasking done in the darkroom to achieve this or does this look come from a certain type of lens?

Possibly an 8x10 camera with the lens wide open. For more current examples, look in the Image Sharing forum for the thread on "Wide Open." Additional selective focus is easily achieved using front lens movements.

[Vaughn]

Part of the look is also a function of the lens -- the curve of the lens adding to the curve of the film/developer, so to speak. The bottom image looks to have been taken with a Brownie or other camera with an uncoated, low contrast lens. Flaring in the lens fills up the shadows. Something that just adjusting "curves" may not be able to match.

Good luck in your quest!

[Robert Tilden]

The first picture is of a glassblower and is by Lewis Hine... A paragraph on answers.com states:

"Hine did his work initially with a 5x7 view camera with rapid rectilinear lens, using a magnesium flash at night or indoors. He worked with glass plates, and later 4x5 sheet film. About 1920 he began using a 4x5 Graflex, adapted for either a five or eight inch lens."

[Bill_1856]

When you post other people's images, you should include attribution. If the photographer is unknown, you should give your source.

[Pawlowski6132]

When you post other people's images, you should include attribution. If the photographer is unknown, you should give your source.

Geez. Who cares.

[bigdog]

Originally Posted by Bill_1856
When you post other people's images, you should include attribution. If the photographer is unknown, you should give your source.

Geez. Who cares.

The owner of the photograph?

[darr]

My advise to you is to start shooting 4x5 film and lenses and print in a darkroom. I say this because your questions are coming from a "digital mindset." I also shoot digital (medium format Phase One back + view camera, Nikon D700), so please do not think I do not know a little bit about digital. I started as a film photographer 30+ years ago. The comparisons you are using are not equal. Curves=computer/digital, H&D curve=film/paper. The answers you are looking for may be found when you become fluent in the 4x5" or > film + lens + darkroom working environment. Are you shooting 4x5" now?

[marshallarts]

Thanks for the replies!

There is really no way to tell from a print exactly what film was used... Google search...various emulsions, such as Panatomic-X or Double-X or Super-X, and then take a look at the curves in the documentation....The look of a print comes from both the film and the paper... Possibly an 8x10 camera with the lens wide open. For more current examples, look in the Image Sharing forum for the thread on "Wide Open."

Thanks for reminding me how many variables go into the final result, especially in developing, you are absolutely right. Does anyone know of the common emulsions that were used during this time for large format? That would be a great place to start finding photos we know used a certain emulsion in my efforts to find that look I'm after.

I will definitely look at that forum thread! I have experimented extensively with shallow DoF and feel the effect has less to do with that. For example, in this photograph to the left and right side of the frame along a similar focal distance the focus looks different, but it's not so drastic to indicate it may have resulted from a front lens movement nor does the background blur out in a way suggesting it's from an extreme shallow DoF. I was hoping someone would be able to spot if selective unsharp masking may be this effect.

Part of the look is also a function of the lens...The bottom image looks to have been taken with a Brownie or other camera with an uncoated, low contrast lens. Flaring in the lens fills up the shadows. Something that just adjusting "curves" may not be able to match.

Just as flaring may fill up the shadows so could a curves/exposure adjustment (although in a different way). I think your guess that it was a Brownie is pretty good, but more specifically the way it handles the light, low contrast as it may seem, I get the feeling of an image with much greater dynamic range presenting itself in the most modest fashion.

The first picture is of a glassblower and is by Lewis Hine... A paragraph on answers.com states:

"Hine did his work initially with a 5x7 view camera with rapid rectilinear lens, using a magnesium flash at night or indoors. He worked with glass plates, and later 4x5 sheet film. About 1920 he began using a 4x5 Graflex, adapted for either a five or eight inch lens."

Thank you! Do you think he used the flash in this scene or is it illuminated by the windows to the right? A flash must be a distance away from the camera I thought not possible for that time period.

When you post other people's images, you should include attribution. If the photographer is unknown, you should give your source.

I'm not going to say too much in defense of your one-noted reply other than that I didn't know either photographer---you need to lighten up.

My advise to you is to start shooting 4x5 film and lenses and print in a darkroom. I say this because your questions are coming from a "digital mindset." I also shoot digital (medium format Phase One back + view camera, Nikon D700), so please do not think I do not know a little bit about digital. I started as a film photographer 30+ years ago. The comparisons you are using are not equal. Curves=computer/digital, H&D curve=film/paper. The answers you are looking for may be found when you become fluent in the 4x5" or > film + lens + darkroom working environment. Are you shooting 4x5" now?

Darr, it's true, I come from a mostly digital background but I did developing and printing throughout the 90's. I do shoot 4x5 occasionally but digital is my space. I understand my terminology reflects my current methods, and it is helpful to be reminded of the old ways, but eventually there will be digital processing equivalents. Regardless I'm curious about what I may be seeing in this film example so my terminology is simply terminology.

[Eric Rose]

Has anyone considered that the kid was added to the picture from another neg? Check the shadows of the plant stand to his right and his shoes.