Auto mechanic photography...lighting or retouching?

[BetterSense]

I've seen a lot of automotive catalogs, service manuals, and auto mechanic textbooks, typically from the 60sish, that feature B&W photos that have a unique look. I haven't figured out if it's good studio lighting, retouching, or both. I'm sure there must be some retouching but I was wondering if anyone had any insight into the technique used. I had a hard time finding examples but this is similar.

http://i776.photobucket.com/albums/yy50/jdavis147/427Engine-1.jpg

[Mark Sampson]

8x10 film, carefully lit with hot lights, heavily retouched, background dropped out with a rubylith mask.

[Frank Petronio]

That engine shot probably took more than 20 hours between all involved, passing through several skilled artisan's hands. Nowadays someone might spend between 15 minutes to three hours on it, all from one workstation.

Although in most industrial settings they would just render it....

[eddie]

2 fours on a big block. i want it! it needs an HEI ignition though.....

[BetterSense]

How was the retouching done? Pencil on the original camera negative?

[Ron McElroy]

Early in my printing career (mid 70s to mid 80s) we would get heavy airbrushed photos to shoot halftones/duotones on a large process camera. My guess it the print would of been retouched.

[aduncanson]

A certain ambiguity about the lighting causes me to guess that this shot may have been made using the technique of holding the shutter open while a highly experienced artisan moves a hand held light source around the subject to bring up the shadowed areas. Never done it myself, so this is only a guess.

[Sevo]

That engine shot probably took more than 20 hours between all involved, passing through several skilled artisan's hands.

Probably not - my guess is that the photographer knew his subject inside out, having photographed several motors a day for many years, and was actually very fast. It is on a tile ground with the motor hooked up to a set of hoses - that very much looks like shot right on the test bench rather than in a studio. And going by my industrial photography experience, engineers won't ever give you a day for a picture - more often you'll have to fight to get an hour rather than minutes.



Although in most industrial settings they would just render it....

Right. Technical product photography is as good as dead - they always wanted the pictures as early on in the process as possible, when there was no hardware product to photograph. To the point that mockups and visual prototypes had to be built for early promotionals. Now that just about everything already exists as a 3d file from the CAD construction process, rendering has firmly taken over.

[AF-ULF]

It looks like a lot of very big, soft lights to me, positioned slightly above the motor. I would guess that the background is actually white and being used to bounce the light around and upward. There are no distinct shadows, the only noticeable shadow is directly under the air filter on top. There are no hot spots or tiny reflections which would arise from using hard lighting. Look at the hose on the top front. The reflection runs the entire length of the hose.

This lighting reminds me of work done today in light tents. I think the photographer here used the same idea as a light tent, but with big, soft lights and plenty of bounce from a light background.

If you haven't read "Light, Science and Magic," go get a copy. It has an excellent section on shooting metal objects. This photo could be a case study in the book.

[Jim Galli]

SOHC 427. Mods! They're talking about religion again. Engine worship!

uhhhh what was the question again? That thing is like a perfect face with perfect skin, you couldn't make a bad picture of it. Now a Dodge motor or a Chevy motor would take some talent, but not that one.

[Frank Petronio]

20 hours


And going by my industrial photography experience, engineers won't ever give you a day for a picture

Agreed, I meant 20 hours -- one hour of photography, half-an-hour making a print, 8-16 hours retouching, the rest with management, pre-press.

[ic-racer]

Nowadays someone might spend between 15 minutes to three hours on it, all from one workstation..

And also likely only 15 minutes to build the engine these days :)

[CG]

Along with careful lighting to bring up shadows in general, it looks likely that a fairly broad light was used for the principal frontal lighting. The heavy retouch makes that just guess since most highlights are heavily re-worked.

Given the likely vintage of this photograph, it is quite possible that a lot of dulling spray made shiny surfaces a little easier to light and to retouch.

[joselsgil]

I seem to recall that much of GM's, and possibly others, publicity photos were taken by a studio called Boulevard Photography in Detroit or NYC? Somewhere there is a documentary about the studio and their in the automobile industry. They did a lot of GM's publicity photos, both in studio and outdoors. I remember seeing a camera, at least an 8X10, being used in one photo shoot. Tons of Hollywood type hot studio lights and the lancky 5'13" models. Somewhere in my storage boxes I have 11X14 B&W prints from the mid to late 1950's GM automobiles. They are in different stages of a finished promotional print, some have just the auto, while others have the models and backgrounds added. Some show the auto with different props around them. As Mark Sampson implied, the backgrounds have been masked out. I purchased the prints at a car swapmeet many years ago and the vendor had boxes of this stuff. I was like a kid in a candy/toy store and only one bright shinny nickel to spend. I purchased some prints of the cars I liked, but he had hundreds of photos. Some prints were almost finished , no type set. While others were just the auto with white background and foreground. When I asked the vendor where he got the photos, he was very vague about the source.

[Thom Bennett]

Found this on Alibris Books. Published in 1997

"Boulevard Photographic: the Art of Automotive Advertising by Jim Williams

The most striking, stunning, and memorable photos from Boulevard Photographic, the source for automotive advertising photography from the mid-1950s to the '80s, is presented here for the first time in any book. Photographers Jim Northmore and Mickey McGuire launched their Boulevard studio in 1955, and their innovative, imaginative style captured the elegance, power, and lifestyle imagery that auto makers wanted to convey in advertising. Their work was so effective that they worked for all the major US auto makers at the same time and for several European car companies. Whether shooting in studios or on location, the creative Boulevard Photographic staff captured the exact image auto makers wanted to present. Since even the oldest film was properly preserved -- and some of it was shot on enormous 8-1/2x11 -inch transparencies -- the quality of the photo reproductions throughout the book is breathtaking."

[Mark Sampson]

I had a copy of that book, but it seems to have disappeared. Fascinating work, big budgets x big ideas equalled spectacular photos. Unfortunately many of the transparencies they reproduced from are badly faded- contrary to the blurb posted above.
But it's probable that the engine photo that started this thread was done by an in-house industrial photo department- studios like Boulevard would only have worked on the glamourous big color ads. There were no documentary/manual type photos in the book.

[Lynn Jones]

I used to shoot advertising and catalog stuff of cameras, lenses, and stainless steel sinks and processing equipment. There is a heck of a lot having to do with lighting and processing, however practically everything had photo airbrush retouching. Today that would be some of the computer retouching skills which our school teaches.

Lynn

[Struan Gray]

Heavy retouching was the norm for technical illustration and industrial catalogue work. The results are something halfway between a photograph and an engineering drawing - and much easier to 'read' than either.

www.lathes.co.uk (http://www.lathes.co.uk/rockwellmillers/ if you don't want to browse) has a bazillion examples, plus modern photographs of similar equipment which show how confusing a straight photograph is in comparison.

I grew up with a 1950s Meccano set. Just love the look.

[BetterSense]

It looks like these were also shot from fairly far away, making the image appear almost like an isometric drawing.

[keith english]

I was also thinking "painted light" where the light is moved around the object during a long exposure. Gives a result similar to a soft tent. We learned the technique in Navy photo school, but never really used it much.

[Mick Fagan]

A normal to flat continuous tone negative is shot by whatever format was handy, probably 8x10” in those days. Basically well-defined gradations with few highlights and dense shadow areas.

A darkroom printer would print a couple of prints and if the photographer was good at his/her job things would start to look good. A graphic artist would retouch the prints usually by hand and often with airbrushing using whatever methods were applicable.

Then a repro camera would be used and the camera operator would make what in the trade down here called, “A Tone, Line and Fluoro” set of negs.

The tone negative was a half-tone negative with a screen line ruling, usually 60 lines per inch for newspapers, 110 line ruling for cheap magazines, 150 line ruling for normal magazines and 300 line ruling for really top printing on top paper, (with great registration if it was colour). This negative is the foundation negative and is really about 80% of the image.

The line negative was a high contrast negative that was used for type, like the engine size depicted in the shot provided, or to emphasise the hard lines on the rocker box.

The fluoro negative was designed to give the flattened soft box contrast, sort of like a genuine un-sharp mask, in the literal sense of the word. It is this negative that gave the softness to the rocker box and the fan blades

These negatives would then be combined by a film combiner, using the three negatives plus ruby litho film for cutouts and stuff like that.

Then a combination negative would be made and from that combination negative a bromide print, or a combination film negative, or film positive would be made and sent to the publication to be used by the publication printer to reproduce the picture you see above.

I don’t believe many of you out there would understand just how big the graphic arts industry really was, mind-boggling.

Well my memory isn’t that good, but most of the processes for this kind of product photography were more or less along those lines. Perhaps some old repro camera operators or film combiners may be able to add or correct what I have said.

Mick.

[BetterSense]

That is really fascinating. I'm so young I never remember publication being done with anything but computers. It's a shame that this kind of art is not done anymore. I wonder if there are any hold-out shops in the world that still do this kind of thing for the 'look'. I doubt it, since most customers would just use photoshop if they wanted the look.

[tnoiset]

I love the notion of light painting.

I used to work with a man that did this kind of work "back in the day."

Machinery that was too big to light properly .... in a dark room (not darkroom) .... with the shutter open, would just walk around with a drop-light, lighting all around the object, giving a properly exposed, fully lit object.

Never tried it myself, but it sounds like fun.

Although, this photo looks like two or three floodlights would have done the trick, or maybe just light coming in through a window and ambient lighting. Then, the printing process, magazine or book, adds its own character to it.

Think I'll go think about a light painting project .... :)

[Frank Petronio]

It was a trend, Arron Jones got semi-rich selling the Hosemaster to thousands (?) of commercial photographers in the early 1990s pre-Photoshop days. He led workshops and every city had at least one Hosemaster specialist.

It wouldn't be a bad thing to have in your arsenal, I am sure you can find them on eBay.

The other "big" light painting thing is the annual RIT "Big Shot" http://www.rit.edu/cias/bigshot/ worth checking out to see how photography by institutional committee can be really f-ing boring....

[Brian C. Miller]

I've seen a lot of automotive catalogs, service manuals, and auto mechanic textbooks, typically from the 60sish, that feature B&W photos that have a unique look. I haven't figured out if it's good studio lighting, retouching, or both. I'm sure there must be some retouching but I was wondering if anyone had any insight into the technique used. I had a hard time finding examples but this is similar.

Saw this, and thought of this thread: Scanning around with Gene: The old way of photo retouching (http://www.creativepro.com/content/scanning-around-gene-old-way-photo-retouching). It's some pages from a 1946 manual on retouching photographs for commercial publications. Of course, retouching for glamor photos was a bit different technique.

[Kimberly Anderson]

I have shot in the automotive industry for over 15 years and I have done many shots that are SIMILAR to the one shown in the OP. I think that the engine photograph was shot with light that was painted on the subject. Then it was hit with a low-contrast mask and probably an unsharp mask as well. Definitely a rubylith for the background.

With the painted light on a subject with deep cavities and recesses you can literally see into the shadows. Problem is, anything chrome (valve covers, carbs, air filter covers, etc...), you get super bright specular highlights. These look like they are tamed with a mask as described by Mick Fagn above.

Another thing we used a lot was this stuff called 'dulling spray'. It basically frosted anything highly reflective and covered it with a diffused clear spray paint coating. It was gross stuff and we never used it unless we absolutely HAD to.

I think I actually read or heard somewhere that they did paint those old manuals with light. I have no source, but I seem to recall that being the case.

[Tin Can]

I worked at Fel-Pro, and as recently as 6 years ago they would bring in a shooting team from Ohio. Fel-Pro is a Chicago based Tier 1 auto parts supplier. The shooters would spend 8 hours shooting under the hood of one car in our shop, with 3 laptops and the most expensive MF digital cams I ever saw. Hot lights. Almost no one was allowed near the shoot. I chatted them up as they were packing. I can't imagine what that one shoot cost, for maybe 2 industry mag images.

You all do know that those cool engine and car cutaway drawings, not photos, were all done by one man for decades and his art died with him. Nobody can do what he did. I forget his name.

[Photochucker]

Automotive and other cutaways

For Randy Moe

You all do know that those cool engine and car cutaway drawings, not photos, were all done by one man for decades and his art died with him. Nobody can do what he did. I forget his name.

Some of the guys are still kicking - and there are a lot of new ones doing the same work using computers rather than mechanical means. Over 300 pages of some of the most eye watering, drop dead gorgeous illustration you will ever come across!! It will take you days to get through it all.

The Biggest "Cutaway" Thread I have found http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=84751

Regards,

Photochucker

[Tin Can]

Thanks! it is a wonderful source, like I need more screen time...

I never drew anything, I have a hard time with stick figures. I'm better with 3d.

My job routinely involved sawing up engines to examine construction, liquid and air passages and deck thickness.

We were primarily aftermarket and reverse-engineered everything. Towards the end we became OE suppliers where there is no profit. All advice was aftermarket was done 20 years ago. They were wrong. Still wrong.

I made exploded view engines, with actual sawn up engines, showing our products, all tarted up with fancy colors.

Of interest to photographers may be, FujiFilm Pressure Sensitive Film. This expensive plastic substrate with coating, can be bolted up inside engines and reveal a variable density color pressure loading image. Imagine a used engine so clean you can bolt it together with tissue paper and have no contamination from liquids or dust. We started with old style 2 piece carbon paper, in the 70's. We could visualize combustion chamber sealing and other lesser requirements. We had 1000 different engines in house for samples.

We pioneered extreme deep thermal shock live engine testing. We were the first to do studies of cylinder motion on running engines. It goes on, all to be forgotten, from poor documentation. Lost in old men's heads.

bla bla bla





Automotive and other cutaways

For Randy Moe


Some of the guys are still kicking - and there are a lot of new ones doing the same work using computers rather than mechanical means. Over 300 pages of some of the most eye watering, drop dead gorgeous illustration you will ever come across!! It will take you days to get through it all.

The Biggest "Cutaway" Thread I have found http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=84751

Regards,

Photochucker

[Photochucker]

Randy Moe


It goes on, all to be forgotten, from poor documentation. Lost in old men's heads.

As one of these Old Men" I agree with you - I have also done a lot of physical cutaways - all aviation related - and usually done with bandsaws, grinders, files and sandpaper - then dressed up with paint and polish. I cut my teeth on macro photography doing this as you well know that very small details mattered. In the end most of what was done ended up in the trash afterwards - or sometimes sent to the technical schools. Old school way of doing things but it was very effective until computer generated illustrations became available. At least with the photography illustration process it started with something that was real.

It's a bit too late I think for some of the old processes to be documented simply because the old guys are gone - but we still have the chance to preserve the stuff we know about because we are still here!!

It's a tough row to hoe because so many of those processed did not yield the "Instant Gratification" of today - people just won't spend the time to read about a process let alone actually invest a bit of time to try one. I routinely hear that someone doesn't want to do something because it takes a bit of time effort and above all some thinking to make it all work.

And then there are guys like me and you who have done it - usually didn't get paid near what it was really worth - so have a tendency to think it has no value anymore. I think the greatest loss in the so called computer age is going to be the dumbing down of the general society and the resultant loss of constructive and creative thinking. More fun to write a virus for the computer than it is to create a new program or process.

A great amount of technical information is being saved and made accessible via the internet - visit the Popular Science and Mechanics sites as well as some specialty sites as well. I guess all we can do is contribute as much as we can to threads like these and hope they somehow get preserved.

Regards,

Photochucker

[cjbroadbent]

Once apon a time, the right way to knock out a large piece of machinery on the factory floor was thus:
Load a sheet of lith (high contrast) film, stand behind the subject, and paint out the factory.
Using the same aperture, load a sheet of panchro film and gently paint the subject.
Sandwich the two negatives in the contact printer or the enlarger.
You can try this at home with just about anything tall using just a led movie light shrouded in a black cardboard box. It looks better than a photoshop mask.
Using the same principle, here's a Hosemaster job (http://broadbent.it/TearSheets/target193.html) done on 5x7 Ektachrome before the PS era.

But remember, light-painters, the Almighty gave us only one source of light and it travels in only one direction. Computer graphics people keep this in mind all the time but a lot of photographers forget it. The OP's engine photographer certainly forgot it. The right hand edge of the shot also reveals that he was using a paper background.

[Jim Noel]

I have a friend who spent his first 20 years as a commercial photographer photographing automobiles and parts of automobiles. He says this would have been done almost completely with lighting (hot lights)followed by minimal retouching of the negative, including dropping out of the background with rubylith. When I watch him light an object he makes it look easy to totally change the appearance of an object if that his desired.