I've been searching for year for an answer to this question. [Archive]

marshallarts

23-Apr-2012, 09:27

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 (:rolleyes:). 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.
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i17/notastepizzaface/child_labor_27.jpg
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i17/notastepizzaface/SnapzProXScreenSnapz001.jpg

Brian C. Miller

23-Apr-2012, 10:01

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

23-Apr-2012, 10:39

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

23-Apr-2012, 10:44

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

23-Apr-2012, 10:45

When you post other people's images, you should include attribution. If the photographer is unknown, you should give your source.

darr

23-Apr-2012, 10:47

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

23-Apr-2012, 10:55

rdenney

23-Apr-2012, 10:58

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

23-Apr-2012, 11:16

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

23-Apr-2012, 11:28

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.

Richard Wasserman

23-Apr-2012, 11:37

The Hine photo above was probably taken in 1909 using a handheld camera 5x7 camera with magnesium powder flash. It's going to be pretty hard to duplicate today. Lewis Hine was not interested in print quality. His images were almost always reproduced, often on poor paper. Beaumont Newhall in a 1940 letter to Ansel Adams wrote: "I do not have a good Hine print. I have never seen one. He is not interested in print quality which is a pity.... Much news stuff is deliberately printed just for the reproduction. I've often felt that a news photography show should just be newsprint reproductions."

I have just been reading Lewis Hine published by d a p, which is a catalog of a European show that closes tomorrow in Madrid, and then travels to Rotterdam. I recommend it to anyone interested in Lewis Hine. It includes a facsimile of his "Men at Work" essay and examples from his major projects, along with interesting essays about him.

darr

23-Apr-2012, 11:42

BetterSense

23-Apr-2012, 11:42

Larger formats have less depth of field than smaller formats

No they don't. Photons do not know what size of camera they are going through.

The only thing that affects depth of field is magnification and numeric aperture.

rdenney

23-Apr-2012, 11:52

No they don't. Photons do not know what size of camera they are going through.

The only thing that affects depth of field is magnification and numeric aperture.

Okay, I skipped some steps. Larger formats require longer focal lengths to achieve the same image. Longer focal lengths provide greater magnification, which make sense given the same image is made bigger for the larger format.

But you knew that. I think it was apparent I did, too, in the context.

Rick "sheesh" Denney

marshallarts

23-Apr-2012, 11:58

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.
Thank you! I will look more into the pyro technique! I do have some experience with LF but my NYC apartment and budget (not to mention work) dictate what I am able to play with these days.

Larger formats have less depth of field than smaller formats....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....

Most older films had more of an "S" in the characteristic curve than modern films and digital sensors....This effect was perhaps moderated by the veiling flare in uncoated lenses.

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.

I appreciate the feedback. I deeply understand the relationship between format size of DoF, CoC, et al. My issue with the first photo is the background, though definitely out of focus, it is not so much so to make me feel the sharpness is due to DoF. The background does not blur to the extent of indistinguishability like even a 50mm f1.2 would on 35mm. I do love your thoughts on how some older lens designs transition more smoothly from focused to unfocused details, and I would love to find some examples. Could you tell me of some lenses that I may google images to see better and worse focus transitions and the others showing the different artifacts?

You're pointing out how flaring lenses may moderate the heavy S-curve present in older films actually may help me. That would explain how the curve goes beyond the highlights in the way I'm searching for. Other have pointed out flaring but I guess thinking about how it beneficially moderates an s-curve helps me!

That you think my unsharp masking was used is also helpful. I will look into the triplet and tessar to see if that could provide an explanation for the sharpness I am feeling.

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.
Curious to me is why I feel this "old and outdated" technology looks better than all the advances we've made!

marshallarts

23-Apr-2012, 12:13

The Hine photo above was probably taken in 1909 using a handheld camera 5x7 camera with magnesium powder flash.... "He is not interested in print quality.... Much news stuff is deliberately printed just for the reproduction."
Were you able to use magnesium flash that distance from the camera? It appears to me the photographer would need to have very long arms!? Or could a second person trip the flash?

Were prints made for reproduction printed with specific qualities separating them from others? Or does he simply mean they were printed poorly?

____________________________________
Darr, thanks for providing those links with more examples of Hine's work!
____________________________________
rdenney and BetterSense - I knew what you were saying. I am very experiences with this relationship between format size and DoF by way of aperture and circles of confusion.

The one thing I've never been able to do is plot a diagram illustrating this to see if the relationship matches up exactly taking into account the variables that change between formats. Does anyone know? Does the depth of field characteristics between formats perfectly match when you adjust focal length for FoV and aperture to achieve similar DoF?

Lynn Jones

23-Apr-2012, 12:29

I'll try this again, LF lost me again! The first is an obvious Lewis Hine photo, 1874-1940. He was shooting from around 1900 until the mid 1930's. He was an absolutely incredible photographer but he was his own worst enemy which is why he died penniless. Much of his important interior work was with flash powder, very powerful stuff, and the reflectors and bare bulb "effect" was similar in many ways to a very broad light source. If I were to duplicate the Hine photo, I'd use 4x5 with a 150 to 200 lens at around f8.0 and a 3 or 4 foot soft box and normal processing, then control the contrast in printing.

I seem to recall that dry plates at the turn of the 20th century had a speed of 12 to 16. For sure, Kodak High Speed Pan (late teens to earl 20's) had a speed of 32. From about 1900 on characteristic curves didn't change significantly. The one really big change was the quality control change from 1954 was the from contact print to enlarging QC. The principle difference was a speed increase of about 1 f stop (I remember it vividly, I was in USN Med Photo School). Another change was from "gamma" to "average gradient" (also called GBar). Gamma was the extension of the straight line portion of the curve, however from the 1950's on, only SuperXX even had a straight line portion. From that point on practical sensitometrists extended a straight line from the equivalent of Zone 2 to Zone 8 and called it GBar and then based film speed as relating to Zone 5 as .70.

Lynn

Richard Wasserman

23-Apr-2012, 12:56

Hine talks about flash powder when he photographed immigrants entering Ellis Island and makes it sound quite exciting: " The flashlight was a compound of magnesium and an accelerator, the latter being increased in proportion to the speed desired as the former was very slow. Also it was rather deadly when it decided to go off prematurely or became caked up and showered sparks over everybody....A horizontal pan on a vertical hollow rod with a plunger into which a small paper cap was inserted and then the powder was poured across the pan in what seemed, at the time, to be enough to cover the situation. The shutter was closed of course, plate holder inserted and cover slide removed, usually, the lamp retrieved, and then the real work began, By that time most of the group were either silly or stony or weeping...and the climax came when you raised the flash pan aloft over them and they waited rigidly for the blast. It took all the resources of a hypnotist, a supersalesman, and a ball pitcher to prepare them to play the game and then to outguess them so most of them were either not wincing or shutting their eyes when the time came to shoot."

Photos for reproduction were printed at a higher contrast than exhibition prints to allow for the half-tone process used at the time.

Were you able to use magnesium flash that distance from the camera? It appears to me the photographer would need to have very long arms!? Or could a second person trip the flash?

Were prints made for reproduction printed with specific qualities separating them from others? Or does he simply mean they were printed poorly?

____________________________________
Darr, thanks for providing those links with more examples of Hine's work!
____________________________________
rdenney and BetterSense - I knew what you were saying. I am very experiences with this relationship between format size and DoF by way of aperture and circles of confusion.

The one thing I've never been able to do is plot a diagram illustrating this to see if the relationship matches up exactly taking into account the variables that change between formats. Does anyone know? Does the depth of field characteristics between formats perfectly match when you adjust focal length for FoV and aperture to achieve similar DoF?

venchka

23-Apr-2012, 12:56

...

Curious to me is why I feel this "old and outdated" technology looks better than all the advances we've made!

Welcome to the club. New isn't always better. Given the fact that wet plate cameras and wet plates are still being manufactured today and used with lenses contemporary to the origins of wet plates, there are no "outdated" processes. If only the "kids" would learn this. A few have. Most have not.

Good luck with your quest.

Wayne

23-Apr-2012, 13:01

The first photo, I don't really see any shadows on the floor, so I'd guess it was naturally lit. A good triplet or tessar will produce the smoothness in the out of focus areas seen. I especially like the smoothness as it fades from the left most person to the next person who is further back. Any of the people in the background look nice and smooth, and I think that's a major factor in the success of this photo that makes it transcend a utilitarian documentary purpose. It's a wave shaped field of mysterious and anonymous workers. The old lenses which are generally not corrected for color have a smoother and slower transition from in focus to out of focus at wide apertures. I think this is because the spherical aberration is creating a slightly less distinct area of "in focus". A tessar wide open on a 4x5 or 5x7 camera would be a decent way to approximate this without much effort or expense.

The second photo seems to show the ability of film to handle dappled light well; better than digital sometimes. If you like that all-over softness, a Kodak portrait, imagon, or other meniscus lens will do it just fine. Softness will vary depending on aperture. There were consumer cameras of that era that used medium format sized film and made negatives in the shape of that photo. Nothing to say that photo wasn't cropped from something though. It will differ from digital in that the exposure was either guessed or metered for the shadows, where in digital, we have to worry about the highlights. Highlights were ignored here. It's actually not a great print, even if it were sharp. I'd probably print it a shade darker.

sully75

23-Apr-2012, 13:03

Curious to me is why I feel this "old and outdated" technology looks better than all the advances we've made!

Well...you're also looking at a picture by an early master of the medium. He might be pretty excited by a camera that you can fit into your pocket. I'm sure he'd take pretty awesome pictures with it.

Personally I think photos don't get more beautiful than Edward Curtis, wet plate collodion negatives on albumen paper. Totally antiquated but I don't think anything is more beautiful. But a total pain in the ass to take one picture. Large format film is just sort of a pain in the ass, relatively.

rdenney

23-Apr-2012, 13:10

I appreciate the feedback. I deeply understand the relationship between format size of DoF, CoC, et al. My issue with the first photo is the background, though definitely out of focus, it is not so much so to make me feel the sharpness is due to DoF. The background does not blur to the extent of indistinguishability like even a 50mm f1.2 would on 35mm. I do love your thoughts on how some older lens designs transition more smoothly from focused to unfocused details, and I would love to find some examples. Could you tell me of some lenses that I may google images to see better and worse focus transitions and the others showing the different artifacts?

You're pointing out how flaring lenses may moderate the heavy S-curve present in older films actually may help me. That would explain how the curve goes beyond the highlights in the way I'm searching for. Other have pointed out flaring but I guess thinking about how it beneficially moderates an s-curve helps me!

That you think my unsharp masking was used is also helpful. I will look into the triplet and tessar to see if that could provide an explanation for the sharpness I am feeling.

Actually, I said I doubted unsharp masking was used back in the day for pictures like these.

But if Mr. Wasserman is correct (and I think that's a safe assumption), then you are looking at a digitization of what probably existed only in reproduction, possibly even in newsprint. No telling what they might have done to mask the line screen used in the printing.

And you now know what lenses he used: Probably a Rapid Rectilinear in 1909. The Tessar was still a relatively new design at that time, and it existed then only in an f/6.3 design. The Rapid Rectilinear was a pretty standard lens in those days, along with the Zeiss Anastigmat. Probably both the Zeiss Anastigmat and the Tessar were produced under license by Bausch and Lomb (who also made Rapid Rectilinear models), and those were probably the first lenses on the Folmer and Schwing Graflex that was perhaps Hine's next camera.

The Rapid Rectilinear is a four-element, two group lens of opposing cemented pairs. The same design was separately invented in Germany and called the Aplanat. Here's (http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_rr.html) a web page devoted to a Bausch and Lomb Rapid Rectilinear mounted on a digital camera. I think you'll see some effects on that web page that will ring a bell.

The effect in Hine's picture shows limited depth of field, but the subject is still some distance from the camera. Thus, the subject is not oversized with respect to the background as would often be the case with a normal or wide lens at very wide aperture and close distance to the subject often used on a small-format camera. It is very difficult with the short lenses used on small cameras to get that little depth of field when the focus plane is that far from the camera. Even a 10" lens at f/6.3 will provide less depth of field on 5x7 than a 50mm lens at f/1.4 on 35mm, both printed to the same size. Tessars of that time were that fast--I don't know about Rapid Rectilinears.

Rick "who likes the vintage look of tessars, recognizing they aren't as vintage as the RR" Denney

Old-N-Feeble

23-Apr-2012, 13:12

Not quite the same effect but not "terrible". Photo of Gerald Ford and his dog...

23-Apr-2012, 13:16

http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2011/img002.jpg shows a 210mm triplet on a 4x5. http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2011/_DSC8080.jpg If you look at the snow, you can see how things gradually go out of focus.

http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2012/img502s.jpg shows a 210mm tessar on a 4x5. You can see on the left how the railing is softer than the carts, and the carts on the far right in back are softer than other carts. The background of coastline and boats is absolutely unlike anything modern. This type of photo shows how softness can be gradual in the older lenses.

Richard Wasserman

23-Apr-2012, 13:21

At least early in his career, Hine did use a camera with a Rapid Rectilinear lens and glass plates. I don't know if or when he changed equipment. His work is all at the George Eastman House. I am assuming, but am not sure that what we are looking at are scans of the negatives and that they are then post-processed to make them look as good as possible.

I have seen beautiful prints of his photos, but I can't remember when they were printed or by whom.

I agree Rick, those old Tessars and RRs have a wonderful look to them.

Actually, I said I doubted unsharp masking was used back in the day for pictures like these.

But if Mr. Wasserman is correct (and I think that's a safe assumption), then you are looking at a digitization of what probably existed only in reproduction, possibly even in newsprint. No telling what they might have done to mask the line screen used in the printing.

And you now know what lenses he used: Probably a Rapid Rectilinear in 1909. The Tessar was still a relatively new design at that time, and it existed then only in an f/6.3 design. The Rapid Rectilinear was a pretty standard lens in those days, along with the Zeiss Anastigmat. Probably both the Zeiss Anastigmat and the Tessar were produced under license by Bausch and Lomb (who also made Rapid Rectilinear models), and those were probably the first lenses on the Folmer and Schwing Graflex that was perhaps Hine's next camera.

The Rapid Rectilinear is a four-element, two group lens of opposing cemented pairs. The same design was separately invented in Germany and called the Aplanat. Here's (http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_rr.html) a web page devoted to a Bausch and Lomb Rapid Rectilinear mounted on a digital camera. I think you'll see some effects on that web page that will ring a bell.

The effect in Hine's picture shows limited depth of field, but the subject is still some distance from the camera. Thus, the subject is not oversized with respect to the background as would often be the case with a normal or wide lens at very wide aperture used on a small-format camera. It is very difficult with the short lenses used on small cameras to get that little depth of field when the focus plane is that far from the camera. Even a 10" lens at f/6.3 will provide less depth of field on 5x7 than a 50mm lens at f/1.4 on 35mm, both printed to the same size. Tessars of that time were that fast--I don't know about Rapid Rectilinears.

Rick "who likes the vintage look of tessars, recognizing they aren't as vintage as the RR" Denney

ROL

23-Apr-2012, 19:17

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 (:rolleyes:). 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 guess I'm the only one who finds this poster's demeaner to be rather insulting. Hard to understand why you haven't gotten answers you've approved of in all your other forum solicitations.

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.

Asking us or lecturing us?

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?

Looks like pretty standard "bokeh" attributes of early twentieth century lenses.

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.

No attribution. It seems you've already uploaded to your own (private) site. In fact, it looks very much as if it could be from my paternal grandfather, a well known armed services photographer, at the construction of the Panama Canal. You probably owe me some money.

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.

You don't have one, your indemnification proves my first point.

Sincerely hope that services your very specific interrogatory imperatives.

Bill Burk

23-Apr-2012, 20:44

I don't know if this will detract from the conversation, but a lot of the picture's charm, is what is in the picture.

There must be a large window of light at camera right. It seems like the right-hand "window" is really a projected silhouette of the window that is providing the light for the picture.

Go in a factory today and you will find banks of overhead fluorescent fixtures. Not flattering light like this. The light has a great deal to do with the charm of the picture.

There's seven people in the picture, all working. That's either some directed staging or remarkable enterprise.

The grime also has a lot to do with the charm of the picture. The main subject beats a path around his work area, you can see the circle of clear ground. Hines obviously has the opportunity to put the boy in any spot of his circle...

He chose the spot where the bar is parallel to the film (so the boy and the bar are sharp).

marshallarts

23-Apr-2012, 21:34

Thanks to everyone who replied. I was away from my computer the second half of the day but when I came back I was very pleased to see all the responses. I appreciate all your time helping me in my search to understand what I'm attracted to in these photos!

There are certainly a number of Hine fan's here that have offered a lot of insight, and some great anecdotes! In the first photograph, your analysis on how that photo was achieved along with best estimations on equipment and photographic processes will leave me with plenty to research, experiment with, and learn from. The idea of spherical aberrations aiding the smoothness when going from focus to out-of-focus and beyond is interesting.

rdenney, that was a typo, I meant to say "that you think NO unsharp mark was used", not my--sorry. Thanks for your detailed explanation of lenses, and to you and jp498 for those links which will give me plenty more to look into!

And to ROL... I stumbled upon that photo online while watching some video I believe may have discussed the Panama Canal and it was very frustrating having no idea where it came from, I remember there were no credits anywhere and no way for me to find any additional information. I was, however, so impressed that I made a screen grab so I could study it--you can see the top of a new window on the lower right portion of the image where I took the screen grab. Perhaps your paternal grandfather would have been a little more proud I unknowingly selected his work as an unknown photographer I highly admired. And maybe you should focus more on photography instead of hunting down royalties from forums where members seek knowledge.

I come to forums to learn from what I don't know and more about what I do know. I did not know the photographers in either photograph before today or their methods, but now I have a better understanding. I believe it is only you, ROL, who feels insulted by my demeanor but I will leave it at that.

Thanks to everyone else!

timparkin

24-Apr-2012, 05:53

Hi - I have a feeling that one of the effects you are seeing is because of a small amount of tilt being applied. The floor seems to reach peak focus behind the boy whereas the boys head seems to be in focus. Looking closly around the rest of the picture it appears that the bottoms of things are slightly sharper than the tops. This would give the effect of a 'pool' of focus around the boy. Not completely sure but this could be possible. It would only take small amount of tilt (probably half a degree) to bring the origin of the plane of focus down to a 5 or 10 feet above the camera, projecting down through the boys head and onto the floor behind the boy.

The other aspect is that the out of focus areas have more coherence because the lenses used more circular apertures (or waterhouse stops which are perfectly circular).

Tim

cowanw

24-Apr-2012, 11:01

Some one more knowledgable than I may comment on this, But I wonder if the coverage of the lens in the first picture was smaller than the format leading to a degree of circular edge softness: sort of like a Petzval outside of its portrait rcommended format size.

rdenney

24-Apr-2012, 11:41

Actually, the softness at the edges of the first picture seems normal for lenses of the era used at wider apertures.

Rick "who thought the edges were decently sharp--for zero-enlargement contact prints" Denney

Pawlowski6132

24-Apr-2012, 15:23

When you post other people's images, you should include attribution. If the photographer is unknown, you should give your source.

Geez. Who cares.

bigdog

24-Apr-2012, 15:38

Originally Posted by Bill_1856
When you post other people's images, you should include attribution. If the photographer is unknown, you should give your source.

Geez. Who cares.

The owner of the photograph?

Eric Rose

24-Apr-2012, 17:41

Has anyone considered that the kid was added to the picture from another neg? Check the shadows of the plant stand to his right and his shoes.

Jody_S

24-Apr-2012, 20:19

From someone who started his working career as a computer programmer, doing graphics (assembly-language subroutines for C programs on PC-DOS OS computers, 1980s): a digital camera is not simply a classic camera with a sensor replacing a photo-sensitive layer of film. Digital cameras are computers, they are programmed with very sophisticated algorithms to translate the output of a sensor into whatever the manufacturer has decided a typical/ideal photo should look like. If you were able to look at the output of the sensor directly, unfiltered and unprocessed, it wouldn't be recognizable to you (I don't mean some BS about 'binary' either).

If you were to take all my work over the last 5 years or so, and view the photos 1 by 1 in some sort of gallery format, you would not easily be able to separate my 35mm from my 6x9cm from my 4x5in photos. Nor would you be able to separate my (not-i)-phone from my p&s from my dSLR photos. You would, however, easily separate the digital photos from the classic film photos. Even those on which I've done extensive editing. If you're an expert at this, once you've separated the work into film vs. digital, you might be able to recognize focal lengths and coated vs. uncoated optics (or distinguish between Canon and Nikon dSLRs based on flash/ambient balance), and from there separate into large format vs. small. I'm not so sure you could separate an image taken with a Leica/Summar from that taken with a LF/Tessar, unless something in the photo gives away the use of some LF-specific technique. The 1st image you posted (boy) is a good example of this, it could very well have been taken with a Leica, a 6x9 folder, a Press camera, or whatever.

My point is that the 'look' you are looking for isn't necessarily attributable to LF vs. anything else, as it is to photography guided/constrained by the physical characteristics of emulsion/lens/darkroom technique and almost every mistake is fatal, vs. photography where 90% of the 'work' is done by a computer programmer years before you press the shutter, and the results start from a position of uniformity or standardization, before you begin a process of personalization.

sun of sand

24-Apr-2012, 22:50

Is that ROL or LOL

conspiracy
this photo never happened!! If you look closely you can see the

rdenney

25-Apr-2012, 06:37

The differences visible here (since we are all viewing this picture on a computer monitor) are not a matter of digital versus film. That's a discussion of small effects, when the question being asked here is about large effects. These large effects can be explained by several factors:

1. The different depth of field when using the long lenses required by large format, and

2. The way in which ancient lenses might render the image, for a variety of reasons, and

3. The way in which scenes like this were illuminated, both for daily use and for photography, 100 years ago.

Yes, the films of those days were different, but not that different. It would not be hard to make a digital image look like the original image to the level that can be discerned in a file attached to a post in this forum. We are not comparing prints.

I linked a web page that shows images made with a Rapid Rectilinear adapted for a digital camera, and they show similar artifacts as the original image posted here, if one filters for the other large effects.

Rick "thinking a photo looking very much like what we see on our screens could be staged now using a digital camera, except that the photographer might be arrested for child abuse" Denney

Jim Noel

25-Apr-2012, 08:19

rdenney

25-Apr-2012, 10:35

Thinking of the time during which this photograph was made a couple of assumptions can be made.
1. The film used was an orthochromatic emulsion which opened up the shadows in the image. Instead of film, it could well have been an orthochromatic dry plate. As far as a film curve is concerned, I doubt one can be found. Knowledge of characteristic curves was just becoming available and most photographers probably knew nothing of them.
2. The selective focus on the young boy was easily established using any one of the several portrait lenses of the time. A meniscus, a petzval, a Darlot or a Plastica come to mind. My first choice would be a Plastica.

You're probably right about the film being orthochromatic, though I couldn't find any obvious clues. But panchromatic film was still pretty new (and it was expensive) in 1909.

If the factory was dusty or (more likely) smoky, the haze might have done as much to open up the shadows as blue northern window light. We take the haziness to be lens flare, but it might not be limited to that.

Based on my meager understanding of his history, Hine was probably not interested in such subtleties, and just used a popular lens of the day, which was apparently a Rapid Rectilinear. Hine's intentions seem to me more journalistic than artistic, and probably the rendering in the photo only seems unique compared to modern photographs, not compared to contemporary work in similar circumstances. Hine's interest seems like it must have been the circumstances being photographed, based on what I know of his work.

So, one technique to emulate the effect might be to use a blue filter. It won't be the same, but it will aim in the ortho direction.

Rick "never much of an ortho fan" Denney

Richard Wasserman

25-Apr-2012, 10:48

Hine often had to work quickly, and was not terribly interested in technique and his negatives were often poor. Also, don't forget that we are looking at modern scans, whether of prints or negatives we don't know. We also don't know what decisions were made in processing the images. The book on Hine that I recently received reproduces this same image differently—about a stop darker, among other things.

sun of sand

25-Apr-2012, 18:04

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/index.html#newsies2

lot of photos from Hine

stumbled on this few days ago

thornhill

31-Aug-2015, 22:04

Thoroughly intriguing photos, but wow, that's harsh.

Thanks for posting the link.

Duolab123

2-Sep-2015, 19:05

George Eastman House has Lewis Hine's archive. They have over 10,000 prints, negatives. If you go to GEH's website and look at the detailed descriptions of the actual prints you will find that most are small contact prints from 4x5 or 5x7 negatives. He used a Graflex slr a lot. It doesn't specify but he may have used printing out paper especially on the early work. POP is amazing in that it prints out incredible long tonal scales,it is self masking and was almost always finished with gold toner.

I never get over the beauty of a contact print. I recently got out my old Ektars and found a really nice old Deardorff 8x10, no substitute for square inches. I also love to take a Crown Graphic out and use the rangefinder for handheld shots.
I love digital SLRs I use a Nikon D800 to take pictures of my cats, but when the finished print is a piece of polyethylene coated paper inkjet, I only use them for snaps. Real photos need to be printed not scanned onto real paper, paper. My humble opinion. Hope I didn't offend. Peace