10x8's of the Hollywood Greats

[alanps]

Just wondering if anyone else here collects the work of Clarence Bull, Eugene Richee, George Hurrell etc?

To my mind they defined large format photography - and the prints that can be bought today (originals) are something to behold (technically/silver weight/subject matter)...

Anyone else out there?

Best
Alan

[Jeremy Moore]

I've got an 11x14 of Jean Harlow on the bear skin rug.

[John Kasaian]

You can still order some classic blow ups from Peter Gowland.

[alanps]

I actually like to get my hands on the originals - it is amazing how much silver there is in the original paper - the tonality on the skin tones is out of this world.

I don't know if they were just contact prints (though I guess most were) - but I honestly think we would struggle with today's materials to match this quality.

[Ole Tjugen]

I actually like to get my hands on the originals - it is amazing how much silver there is in the original paper - the tonality on the skin tones is out of this world...

That's because most of the negatives contained more graphite than silver by the time retouching was finished, I feel...

I'm also sceptical as to whether "we would struggle with today's materials to match this quality" - at least I don't think the materials would be the main obstacle!

[Gene McCluney]

That's because most of the negatives contained more graphite than silver by the time retouching was finished, I feel...

I'm also sceptical as to whether "we would struggle with today's materials to match this quality" - at least I don't think the materials would be the main obstacle!

You said it, Ole

The old "Masters" studio portraits were heavily retouched, and shot under very controlled lighting conditions, so as to produce easy to print contact prints on readily available standard (at that time) photo paper. Just plain ole contact paper, nothing special. It is amazing how nice a print on "plain old everyday" photo paper can look when you tailor your negative to it.

These prints were churned out by the hundreds of thousands.

[Andy Eads]

I'm too poor to collect originals but I have a few books of Hollywood masters. I've also had the privilege of seeing exhibits of original prints. What I see in those images that was true then and is true now; if you get it right in the camera, everything else downstream looks better.
Andy

[RDKirk]

I'm too poor to collect originals but I have a few books of Hollywood masters. I've also had the privilege of seeing exhibits of original prints. What I see in those images that was true then and is true now; if you get it right in the camera, everything else downstream looks better.
Andy

As said before, those negatives were commonly very heavily retouched--in many cases with women you're not seeing a single square millimeter of the actress's own skin.

Moreover, the negatives were commonly extremely underexposed by modern standards to make the retouching easier (adding graphite is much easier than scraping off silver). The negatives were "right" as far as what the photographers wanted from them, but they were certainly not printable right out of the wash.

But I will point out that the images themselves--the lighting and posing--are uniquely photographic. The photographers by the 30s had broken away entirely from the painterly modes of portraits.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I never knew what all the fuss was about with Hollywood portraiture until I'd seen some original Hurrell prints in a gallery. They have a shimmering quality that is just stunning, and great tonal separation--a product of lighting, retouching, big negs, and much of Hurrell's work was printed on Azo. I don't own any original prints myself, but for those who have only seen them in books, it's very much worth taking the time to see some of these in person.

[Brian Ellis]

I vaguely recall that Whatshisname Henry (can't remember his first name), the one who wrote the book "Controls in Black and White Photography" or "Controls in Black and White Printing," something like that, performed tests to see what effect a higher silver content had on tonality or tonal range and concluded it had no effect.

[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". :eek:

[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)