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
I've got an 11x14 of Jean Harlow on the bear skin rug.
You can still order some classic blow ups from Peter Gowland.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
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.
That's because most of the negatives contained more graphite than silver by the time retouching was finished, I feel...Originally Posted by alanps
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!
Last edited by Ole Tjugen; 31-Oct-2007 at 13:49. Reason: Spellling...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks