What technique in older photography made the blacks not as dark outside focus region?

[marshallarts]

There are many ways I could ask this question, but I want to avoid having this thread hijacked. When I look at older photographs I quite like the aesthetic where the background appears to have a reduced contrast-- specifically the blacks aren't as dark as shadows in the area of focus. Here is an example of an image: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i17/notastepizzaface/OQvFd.jpg

As you can see the shadows are plenty dark on the subject and focal plane, but the background, which should have equally as dark shadow region, is a lighter shade of grey. In this way it brings my eye to the plane of focus.

Is this caused by an earlier lens design or is this done in the darkroom? Will someone knowledgeable please expand on either situation? (what lens design would cause this, and is there an equivalent design I could purchase today. If it's done during printing, how are they doing this?)

Thanks so much!

[Vaughn]

Lighting and a bit of smoke, I would say. Not after-the-fact manipulation.

[Light Guru]

Lighting and a bit of smoke, I would say. Not after-the-fact manipulation.

I would say mostly smoke in the image that you posted. There is a candle in the image and it is a chemistry lab chemistry labs often have to heat things and back then they didnt have the clean burning things we have today to heat them.

[Peter Mounier]

I was thinking that the upper right corner might be affected by flare.

[Peter Gomena]

I think the smoke from the man's pipe is making the background look lighter. It looks kind of smoky in the upper right. Seeing that he's dressed heavily, maybe there's a wood stove or fireplace somewhere that we can't see. Maybe it's residual smoke from the previous flash powder exposure. I don't think it's a lens effect.

The background also may have been masked either with a cutout while printing or on the glass plate. It was quite common to put a thick, heavy retouching surface on the back of a negative. Add a little graphite from a pencil, smear it a bit with a finger, and there you have it.

Back to lighting, if it was indeed flash powder, the background likely received more light than the man in the foreground. Look at the direction of the shadows. The flash came from camera right. A big, open flash source would have lit the wall more than the man.

[Light Guru]

Maybe it's residual smoke from the previous flash powder exposure.

Good thought.

[DannL]

He left a tin of Kippered Herring on the stove and it burst into flames.

Now I'm hungry.

[IanG]

There's careful dodging and burning and maybe some Farmers reducer, or perhaps just Farmers reducer. It's not smoke.

Ian

[SergeiR]

I just got 4 tomes on photography published in 1911 ... and second tome of it is all about how to deal with various changes for dry plate - contrast, over/under exposure effect & etc.. Its kinda scary :)

[Peter York]

Try an uncoated lens, which will reduce contrast.

[civich]

My scenario: Note the crate labeled PEMMICAN in the back ground - a standard hi fat, hi energy food for early arctic and antarctic explorations. The photo may be of a science hut on an early exploration - maybe Scott's? The door was opened to admit light for the photograph and the hazy background is due to the moist, relatively warm air inside the hut condensing in the frigid blast of sub-zero wind coming through the open door. That's my story and I'm stickin to it. - Chris

[Nathan Potter]

I would say that the contrast from near to far is graded rather evenly indicating a fog (smoke) is present in the room. A soft or clouded lens would show equally soft or hazy detail from front to back. I'm guessing there are no special tricks or darkroom magic here.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Richard Mahoney]

... As you can see the shadows are plenty dark on the subject and focal plane, but the background, which should have equally as dark shadow region, is a lighter shade of grey. In this way it brings my eye to the plane of focus.

Is this caused by an earlier lens design or is this done in the darkroom?

I would have thought that this was just the usual result of perspective. The image below was taken with a Nikkor W 300/5.6 and to my eye a similar fading out and reduction in contrast is present in the distance. (TMAX 100)

http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/works/richard-mahoney-kristina-pickford-building-a-sense-of-place/christchurch-cathedral-anglican/war-memorial-cathedral-square-black-and-white.jpg?hires




Best, Richard

[IanG]

I would say that the contrast from near to far is graded rather evenly indicating a fog (smoke) is present in the room. A soft or clouded lens would show equally soft or hazy detail from front to back. I'm guessing there are no special tricks or darkroom magic here.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

That's not true though as the appararatusat the back has good blacks so there must be some manipulation, and judging by the contrasts thats Farmers bleach.

Ian

[sun of sand]

whether or not it's what made this photograph I'm pretty sure you can get like results using bleach. Sponge/brush some stronger bleach on and quickly rinse off and keep repeating. You can get it. Be quick.

and while there is better contrast/stronger blacks in the foreground it still isn't strong contrast ..only in comparison.

His coat sleeve seems awfully light. Maybe he dodged and/or bleached and/or retouched to help balance the picture out as with a darker sleeve the photo bogs down to the corner left


wasn't everything retouched back then?

[E. von Hoegh]

My scenario: Note the crate labeled PEMMICAN in the back ground - a standard hi fat, hi energy food for early arctic and antarctic explorations. The photo may be of a science hut on an early exploration - maybe Scott's? The door was opened to admit light for the photograph and the hazy background is due to the moist, relatively warm air inside the hut condensing in the frigid blast of sub-zero wind coming through the open door. That's my story and I'm stickin to it. - Chris

I'm thinking Shackleton.

Edit - See where thought got me?:D

[tgtaylor]

My scenario: Note the crate labeled PEMMICAN in the back ground - a standard hi fat, hi energy food for early arctic and antarctic explorations. The photo may be of a science hut on an early exploration - maybe Scott's? The door was opened to admit light for the photograph and the hazy background is due to the moist, relatively warm air inside the hut condensing in the frigid blast of sub-zero wind coming through the open door. That's my story and I'm stickin to it. - Chris

I agree with this. The photo was taken by H. C. Pointing (see lower left hand corner) who accompanied Capt. Scott's expedition to "within 700 miles of the South Pole."

Here's and interesting NY Times article: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60F1EF73E5813738DDDAE0A94DE405B828DF1D3

Thomas

[rdenney]

I don't know what did this particular photo--the darker area above the candle chimney suggests an uneven chemical application.

But we moderns tend to underestimate the smokiness of rooms half a century ago and more. In those days, people smoked incessantly, and interiors were usually smoky, not just occasionally so. And this was true even in laboratories where one would think they'd have known better (they didn't). I suspect that interior smokiness is a big part of the general look of those photos from the past.

Outdoors, the same effect occurs with humid air lit by sunlight, even today. In the desert, not so much, though with much greater distances, ultraviolet becomes a factor.

Rick "smoke machine, anybody?" Denney

[Tony Evans]

Well done Chris and Thomas. Fascinating. Thank you.

[civich]

Thomas,
Nice catch on the label. Apparently I don't let the obvious distract me from creating an interesting narrative.:rolleyes: -Chris


I agree with this. The photo was taken by H. C. Pointing (see lower left hand corner) who accompanied Capt. Scott's expedition to "within 700 miles of the South Pole."

Here's and interesting NY Times article: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60F1EF73E5813738DDDAE0A94DE405B828DF1D3

Thomas

[Brian Ellis]

That's not true though as the appararatusat the back has good blacks so there must be some manipulation, and judging by the contrasts thats Farmers bleach.

Ian

Bleach tends to run and it would be difficult to isolate the man from the background with bleach (or to mask off one or the other so precisely). It also would have been next to impossible to dodge or burn without some of it creeping into the man or vice versa. My guess is that this wasn't something the photographer went to any great lengths to do, I think it's just the way the photograph turned out given the conditions under which the photograph was made whatever exactly they were.

[tgtaylor]

It's quite possible that the photo was taken at Scott's Base Evans Camp where Ponting had a small darkroom. Here's a modern view inside of Scott's cabin at Base Evans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terra_nova_hut_inside.jpg

It's interesting to note that he photographed on glass plates rather than negatives and printed some of the images using what is now called "alternative" processes. One of the images reproduced in Wikipedia measures 14"x18" so he must have used a very large camera. He was the first professional photographer to accompany an expedition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Ponting

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that a book of his photographs from the Scott Expedition was recently published.

Thomas

[rknewcomb]

Quite a few years ago I took notice of this aspect of vintage images, a softer contrast in the background. Many of the examples that I saw were of images made outside. I had wondered if the blue sensitivity of the plate emulsions combined with the "blue" aerial haze made the background lighter because it had received more blue exposure. The interior image shown by the OP is a different matter though.
Here are a few examples, Clarence White, Alvin Coburn and Steichen.

[rknewcomb]

92706 One more that is an interior.

[C. D. Keth]

A certain amount of that effect happens naturally. If you continue to defocus a scene that's 1/2 black and 1/2 white, eventually you will reach medium gray. Additionally, because film tones progress logarithmically, the black will milk out first.

[Doug Howk]

From the Freeze Frame Polar Expedition archive, Dr Atkinson in his lab (http://www.freezeframe.ac.uk/collection/photos-british-antarctic-expedition-1910-13-ponting-collection/p2005-5-492?gallery=ponting), Sept 15, 1911. Looks quite smoky

[Nathan Potter]

Yes, exactly! For selective shallow focus technique, for example, throwing a background way out of focus results in overlapping Circles Of Confusion in that area on film. The result is a washout of density, at first along sharp density edges and then carrying the effect further to larger COCs' a washout in broader areas. The effect is part of what has become to be called "bokeh" especially when coupled with some kinds of optical lens distortions. Can be an especially appealing effect in certain antique lenses.

But in this image shown by the OP the background is relatively sharp so I don't believe the softness is a result of grossly overlapping COCs. Also I tend to agree with Brian Ellis that bleaching and dodging the background is not likely to be possible with such precision of image edge isolation from background to foreground structures unless precision masking was employed. I'll stick to my thoughts of a hazy interior.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Smoke, haze and dust emphasized by the lighting which I presume is a flash bulb or powder. Probably not the latter given the environment but I don't know the year of the photo. Kinda like the image below.

92712

[alan-salsman]

I often get that effect in near far relations of f 64 style scenic printed on hand coated palladium P.O.P .The contrast seems to be in the print rather that in the negative This process reinvented by boswick and sullivan first used around 1880 and was certainly something they would be aware of.
It toes not occur in soft overcast light but always in contrasty light.

[Scott Davis]

If you notice, the scene seems to be posed, as neither the pipe nor the candle are lit. I'd say the foreground was lit with a flash, set to balance as fill light spilling in from the door/window in the background camera right. That would explain how the foreground is darker than the background.

[Vaughn]

I'd say no to the use of flash powder and that available light was used. He is lit by diffused light from the open door or window in front of him. Note the shadow of the microscope falling on him. The back of the room is closer to the source of light and there is smoke clearly visible (to me anyway). Flash would have lit up his left arm and over-powered the shadows thrown by the door/window in front of him. Instead his left arm is in shadow because of the light source being in front of him, not coming from the camera angle.

Just excellent use of light that was there -- a little less on the figure than on the background and thus exposed for the light on the figure, coupled with a bit of smoke.

Staged because it was a long exposure.

His workbench seems to be set up to take advantage of natural light.

[Brian C. Miller]

Best guess:
#1, the lens was close to wide open.
#2, while there may momentarily have been smoke in the room, it wasn't that much. Believe me, I grew up with wood burning stoves, and there's enough smoke to make you gag, hack, and cough without it being enough to fog the background in a film shot. So if there was enough smoke from the stove to fog up the background in Dr. Atkinson's lab, it definitely wasn't in there for very long.
#3, I see what looks like some kind of brush stroke at the top of the picture. I don't know if this is in the negative or the print. Something could have been applied.
#4, Dr. Atkinson is leaning against the table, and his left elbow is resting on a pile of books. He wouldn't have needed to do that if flash powder had been used as the light source. If flash powder had been used, even from the position of the door, the shadows would have been etched from one point, instead of being diffuse.
#5, the amount of contrast starts normally close to the camera, and falls off further from the camera. There is a tube or wire in the top-right which maintains its contrast and definition for its entire length.

So:

A certain amount of that effect happens naturally. If you continue to defocus a scene that's 1/2 black and 1/2 white, eventually you will reach medium gray. Additionally, because film tones progress logarithmically, the black will milk out first.
The effect is from the camera focus, lens, and of course, emulsion.

[alan-salsman]

The brush strokes and cloudy background are things I would expect to see in a hand coated print,and a wide open lens would add to the affect. When I was young I ran many long range arctic patrols for the 9th inf. regiment.What ever you took with you had to be necessary and bullet proof.these men would have given great consideration to those two facts.Silver print paper was still new at the time,I think,But they may have considered untreated paper and chemicals to be more durable.That type of travel is often a moment by moment survival contest and the equipment has to endure the same level of abuse.

[Andrew®]

Try an uncoated lens, which will reduce contrast.

Definitely a contributing factor.

[Jim Galli]

I've seen this effect many many times in my own shooting (which isn't any different from 1913 in technique or equipment). If you want this effect get a fast dialyt. 4 elements, 4 groups. The Cooke Aviar of the teens and twenties are affordable and my guess is an Aviar probably made this image. Goerz and Meyer also made notable fast dialyt types. Yes, uncoated.

[IanG]

Bleach tends to run and it would be difficult to isolate the man from the background with bleach (or to mask off one or the other so precisely). It also would have been next to impossible to dodge or burn without some of it creeping into the man or vice versa. My guess is that this wasn't something the photographer went to any great lengths to do, I think it's just the way the photograph turned out given the conditions under which the photograph was made whatever exactly they were.

If you look in British photography books of the period the image was made you'll find localised bleaching as well as bleaching of large areas was quite common and dilute Farmer's reducer doesn't run and is slow acting, emulsions then of all types papers and films were softer and morev absorbent so again less prone to streaking.

Having said that there's clear evidence to this bleaching to the right of the top hand, the smear strokes above the head and slight patchiness which make it look like smoke.

Ian

[Roger Cole]

Yes, exactly! For selective shallow focus technique, for example, throwing a background way out of focus results in overlapping Circles Of Confusion in that area on film. The result is a washout of density, at first along sharp density edges and then carrying the effect further to larger COCs' a washout in broader areas. The effect is part of what has become to be called "bokeh" especially when coupled with some kinds of optical lens distortions. Can be an especially appealing effect in certain antique lenses.

But in this image shown by the OP the background is relatively sharp so I don't believe the softness is a result of grossly overlapping COCs. Also I tend to agree with Brian Ellis that bleaching and dodging the background is not likely to be possible with such precision of image edge isolation from background to foreground structures unless precision masking was employed. I'll stick to my thoughts of a hazy interior.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Bleaching INCREASES contrast, as anyone who has used much "liquid sunshine" is aware. I assume those atributing this to bleaching are proposing rather severe bleaching? That will indeed eventually reduce contrast when not much is left. But normally it increase contrast because the bleach acts much more quickly on the areas of less density than on the denser areas.

[tgtaylor]

Ponting at work in his darkroom at Camp Evans:

92745

Simple and in what was to become classic film noir style lighting, wouldn't you say?

Thomas

[Ken Lee]

Old films were orthochromatic: blue sensitive, as opposed to modern films which are panchromatic: sensitive across the visible spectrum.

Atmospheric haze is largely in the blue and UV end of the spectrum. Outdoors, we can exaggerate the impression of distance by using a blue filter.

[rknewcomb]

"Old films were orthochromatic: blue sensitive, as opposed to modern films which are panchromatic: sensitive across the visible spectrum.

Atmospheric haze is largely in the blue and UV end of the spectrum. Outdoors, we can exaggerate the impression of distance by using a blue filter."

Thats kind of what I was saying.
Robert N.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think it has more to do with what C.D. Smith said, and depth of field and where the main focus is. The background is ever so slightly out of focus and the man (and everything in the same plane) is in sharp focus. Hence, they (background and man) appear "separated".

[marshallarts]

Guys,
Literally months late here in thanking you. My apologies, I had a grueling shoot that distracted me from replying to these wonderful responses, and only now am I realizing I never thanked you.

So much great input and thoughts. Thank you!

[Roger Hesketh]

I've seen this effect many many times in my own shooting (which isn't any different from 1913 in technique or equipment). If you want this effect get a fast dialyt. 4 elements, 4 groups. The Cooke Aviar of the teens and twenties are affordable and my guess is an Aviar probably made this image. Goerz and Meyer also made notable fast dialyt types. Yes, uncoated.

The Cooke Aviar would not be available to use for another five or six years after this photograph was taken. It could well have been that another dialyte was used though. I bet Mr Ponting would be well chuffed to think we were discussing one of his images over 100 years after he had taken it.

[marfa boomboom tx]

not that I think it is bleached, but:

two bath bleach allows easy local manipulation,
friskets were common in art and photo shops up until the mid 1990s.

it would have been a small task to locally reduce. ALSO negative retouching was quite common a skill until the 1970's.... pencils, dyes, chalks, &c.