19th Century the best (Discussion?)

[Bill_1856]

In looking at the Ken Burns documentaries being shown recently on my local PBS stations, it occurred to me that the images from the Civil War (War Between the States) and Western exploration times up to the turn of the century have a natural beauty -- a crispness and lack of grain compared to later images, such as those from The Roosevelts .
Of course many of the 20thCentury pictures are stills taken from motion picture frames, which might explain some of it, but the works of W. H. Jackson, Timothy Sullivan, etc, are just a joy to look at despite the lack of shadow details, damaged prints, and whitened-out skies. Even the large contact prints by such contemporary masters as Michael Smith do not have this mysterious quality.
Any thoughts?
Maybe I'm all wet?

[jp]

There's more to it than this, but... There is probably no grain to the negative. The silver was wet, not dried and crystalized. Early 20th century stuff was influenced by pictorialism and Kodak's "we do the rest" styles even if the images didn't employ those systems. I like early 20th century best, that's me. That's my discussion. To see how photography styles changed a thorough review of Edward S Curtis's lifework shows how he changed with changing aesthetics.

[Ken Lee]

"Even the large contact prints by... contemporary masters... do not have this mysterious quality."

One can make a similar observation about many works from the past, not just photographs.

Some elements of masterpieces are technical and can be reproduced: others are intangible and cannot.

For example, nobody has been able to duplicate the best string instruments made by Antonio Stradivari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Stradivari), in spite of centuries of effort and dramatic advancements in science and manufacturing. In a similar vein, there haven't been too many composers for the Violin who could match the works of his fellow countryman, Niccolo Paganini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Paganini). Few violinists can even perform his pieces, never mind compose at that level of inspiration.

[karl french]

You're making this judgement based on images you've seen on TV? Rather than actually looking at vintage and contemporary prints.

Try harder.

[Bill_1856]

You're making this judgement based on images you've seen on TV?

Yes. You got a problem?

[mdarnton]

I felt this way about all sorts of things, but seeing Woody Allen's film Midnight in Paris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_in_Paris) set me straight, forever. From that point on, I make the most of now.

Karl doesn't have a problem, but you may, if you're judging the quality of period prints from your TV screen!

[John Kasaian]

I felt this way about all sorts of things, but seeing Woody Allen's film Midnight in Paris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_in_Paris) set me straight, forever. From that point on, I make the most of now.

Karl doesn't have a problem, but you may, if you're judging the quality of period prints from your TV screen!
There are threads all over the internet where people judge the quality of contemporary prints from a computer monitor.

[Jim Noel]

Daguerreotypes, and wet and dry plates show very little if any grain structure. Another very big difference is the considerably longer tonal scale of these early processes.

[Two23]

Daguerreotypes, and wet and dry plates show very little if any grain structure. Another very big difference is the considerably longer tonal scale of these early processes.


And blue light sensitivity, halo.


Kent in SD

[Robert Opheim]

The 19th century also used materials that were different as well as Kent said above. Blue light sensitivity, contact printing and processes such: as ambrotype, cyanotype, and albumen printing. As I recall for printing out paper at least it could handle 21 zones of contrast on the paper instead of the 7 or 8 zones on modern papers. There is a "glow" that these older materials have. Also the light sensitivity was very slow so there were long exposures. Ken Lee makes an interesting point above - the photographers vision of the 19th century was very different. I think the photographers intent was different as well. Documentation - large with mammoth plates or small with stereo views was a way of letting everyone see the rest of the world; while Pictorialism wanted to legitimatize photography as a Art medium.

[blindpig]

I've always appreciated the work done by Jackson and the heroic effort it must have been to do wet plates in the wilderness. the white sky and brooding shadows are very compelling to me. I'm retired on a fixed income and am careful about spending for my hobby(not poor,just careful LOL!).To that end have forgone getting into wet plate photos and think I've found a similar look using in-camera paper negatives.which is easier and less costly. Similar slow exposures and blue sensitive to the old emulsions.
Just having fun experimenting with it.
Don

[Leszek Vogt]

Viewing, at least from my experience, whether it's computer monitor or TV....it gives a false sense of reality. When I was going through the "art phase" and enrolled in various subjects at community college, I stumbled over a painter Gustav Klimt (from Austria), which I happen to like till this day. Anyway, I had/have really nice art books from SF MOMA and a very nice print of Klimt's painting....likely shot with a 4x5 (?). However, till I saw his painting in person (Belvedere, Vienna)....I was pretty much looking through the same "TV-like" prism.

Same with the works of Edward Curtis. Oakland Mus had a sizable showing of his photographs (not sure if they still do) ....and they were v. inspiring.


Yet, we can choose what we prefer, and whether we wish to go back historically or enjoy more current artist/s or visuals.

Ken, and no offense, I'd rather hear Regina Carter or Jon Luc Ponte on the violin...or whatever the electronic contraption they use. Different strokes.....

Les