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.

[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?

[SpeedGraphicMan]

The pictures you posted were undoubtedly shot with uncoated lenses, this lowers contrast considerably, and often introduces flare.

I might take a guess that the picture of the little boy was perhaps developed in pyro? that would account for that "sharp edge" look.

I will agree that a little experience with large format will do wonders for finding the answer you are looking for.

After all, it not like film bites or anything.

[rdenney]

You'll probably think this is too fundamental for you, and you'll be annoyed. But free information is worth what you pay for it.

Larger formats have less depth of field than smaller formats (edit: because they use longer lenses), and I think that explains the bulk of the effect I see in the first picture, at least. In large formats, a fast lens is f/4.5 or f/5.6 in many cases--and these will blur the unfocused image more than faster lenses on small format.

Some old lens designs transition smoothly from focused details to unfocused details, even at small scale. Others drop off less smoothly, or show different artifacts. Old lenses were more constrained in their design--in the types of glass available, in the computational ability of their designers, in the need for few air surfaces (because of lack of coatings), and in the smaller knowledge base of alternative designs. Thus, they render details differently than modern lenses.

Most older films had more of an "S" in the characteristic curve than modern films and digital sensors. More specific than that I cannot be. But it meant that tonal separation was most pronounced in the middle values, and least in the extremes. This effect was perhaps moderated by the veiling flare in uncoated lenses.

If you are looking for the same effect, you will probably struggle with any modern small-format lens for digital cameras. They will be too contrasty and too sharp, and the digital sharpening process will probably find sharpness at the limits of depth of field, which will render the transition from sharp to unsharp less smooth. You might have better luck with old, fast lenses adapted to your camera, though probably at the expense of being able to use a focal length of similar relationship to the format as what you show. The shorter the lens, the faster it must be to show the same quantity of background blur. Quality of background blur is a different issue, but that's where art comes in.

I do not know when manual unsharp masking was first used, but I doubt it was ever used for the types of pictures you show. I would think those are as they were straight out of the camera. The lens was probably a triplet or maybe a tessar, just because they were the most common for so long and it's going with the percentages. Both would be sharper in the center than at the edges.

Rick "manual unsharp masking is a pain in the butt" Denney

[sully75]

Not to be a total D1ck, but the reason these pictures look like they were shot on large, old cameras, with large, old lenses, on old, not-particularly-responsive-film (or glass) were because they were. That's why they look like that.

So if you are trying to immitate that look with a digital camera, it's not going to happen. It's going to look pretty artificial. It's hard (I think) to imitate the look of Kodak Portra 400 with digital, so imitating older stuff is even harder.

That's a reason why people still shoot glass plates, still get online and talk about how to make plates and the market for old cameras is still pretty strong.

[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.