• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

65 year old look to current black and white negs

Well, judging by the response -' in violation of the KISS rule. Thanks for the input all.
 
If you want a ride in a vintage plane, check this wiki for a group devoted to maintaining these critters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commemorative_Air_Force

Lots of privately owned P51, Texans, and other single engine aircraft are around.
If you want to help out, either sweeping up, buying pizza, or making pictures, you'll always be welcomed.
If you are time limited, you can always book a ride !

It's a huge thrill just to be on hand when an engine is being worked on. Or, just messing about.

Inside, even a big plane like the B-17 is pretty tight.

The only reason my picture was successful is because the crews were working for it. We planned it out, and the pilots put themselves where they needed to be. This was a Memorial Day flight; several aircraft did a fly-over at one celebration, and then we broke off to several different locations. We had all the low altitude airspace over a big corner of Michigan, and it was a huge thrill.

Hint: wrap your gear in quart sized zip-lok bags. If the air is turbulent, you can unpack your lenses as necessary and use the bags as you see fit.

CHRIS Have fun. Let's see the results ! I hope you find Betty Grable !
 
Press photographers of the WW2 era almost universally used 4x5 "Press" cameras, and with the films in use at the time it was almost impossible to get a grainy image under normal press shooting situations (On camera flash). Many documentary photographers working for the WPA and such DID use small format, but you are talking newspaper style photography here.
 
Don't forget to develop in dilute HC-110 or Rodinal. Incinerate those highlights.
 
Here are some high resolution film scans of medium format negatives that I inherited from my grandfather. These were taken during the WW2 era. Keep in mind a 4x5 negative is going to have a much larger surface area and, thus, smaller grain than what you're seeing here.

Dead Link Removed
 

For $400 you can go for a ride in a B-17. GOOGLE Aluminum Overcast. The plane is in Conroe, TX as I type. Grounded by the snow no doubt. From here they are going to Shreveport, LA and then New Orleans.
 
I've got some of my Dads photos taken during his hitch in the Army Air Corp in WW2. He shot primarily with 4x5 speed graphics, and his own 2 1/4 3 1/4 graphic. Not really grainy at all, but the uncoated lens was not as contrasty as the coated ones today. I have a Zeiss Ikon 120 folder that gets very similar results on modern film. Oh, and DF, fantastic shot. My dad took many photos from the waist gunners position of B-24 Liberators. Check this link, and scroll down to the B&Ws of the P-47s. http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00TXmj
 
The Adox films are based on a formula from the 1950's, not the 40's, but they are as close as you will come to the real thing.

Or you can shoot something like Tri-X with a very pale blue filter. This will help to give you a similar spectral response.

Use an old uncoated lens.

I'm not sure if Plus-X still comes in 4x5, but I'm pretty sure Tri-X 400 does.

Unless you have a lot of practice shooting a 4x5 hand held I would suggest shooting with a faster film (400asa). DOF is pretty slim with a 4x5 and you are going to want to stop down to at least f8.

Develop in something like Barry Thornton's 2-bath developer, which is the old Stoekler formula tweaked for modern, thinner films. Or Rodinal. I'm not sure if D76 was around during WWII. HC-110 certainly wasn't.

For the most part photos from this period are low in grain to the point of being a little on the soft side. Tonality is endless with creamy highlights.


PS: Skinny black ties didn't come in to vogue until the 1950's. Get yourself a nice fat and somewhat short tie with a little color.
 

Plus-X isn't available in LF, nor Tri-X 400, the 320 variant is still available, but it's not the same thing.

D76 was available in the 40s, it's a 1927 formula.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No PX and TX in 4x5? That's bad news... thanks Kodak.

So, what is everyone shooting in 4x5? Ilford, Fuji and Adox?
 
No PX and TX in 4x5? That's bad news... thanks Kodak.

So, what is everyone shooting in 4x5? Ilford, Fuji and Adox?
 
We still have Tri-X, but it is the 320 version. Kodak also gives us T-Max 100 and 400 in 4x5. We have HP5 and FP4 as well, and Delta 100. I thought Ilford Ortho was still available, but I can't find it at Freestyle. I will have to look into that one, and grab what I can if it turns out is was discontinued. Efke/Adox 25/50/100/Ortho, and Efke IR820. Some special-purpose Rollei films (Ortho, ATO, Infrared), Foma 100 and 200, Fuji Acros 100. Got this list via a look at Freestyle's Website. There may be more. I don't know what the Arista is at this time, but there is that as well.

I too would (and did) suggest Adox/Efke 100 as being the closest thing, but Chris already has HP5 in hand. You can't beat something that is already in hand and will do the job just fine, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris uses HC-110 and HP5. That'll make the same set of curves shooters got in WW2 with the material at hand. The film's response is what is important, not some marketing gobbledy-gook trying to sell obsolete film for giving a 'vintage look'.

'vintage look' It is NEVER about WHAT you use, it is ALWAYS about HOW you do it.

Directly linked to the 'look' of a period is the density range and contrast they sought at the time, and the techniques in use. Thankfully, we have published curves from the time, and the manuals the military used for the photo instruction.

Some of us were shooters from the era, some were shooters a short time after (get PE to talk about shooting in the early '50s !), and some us were taught by the guys who learned their technique as military photographers.

It is essential to know and remember, if we really want to know such things, that the guys who became military shooters were the ones who tested as likely to succeed in the training course, and were generally NOT guys who were practicing photographers in civilian life. Different skill set.

Photography outside the military, in those days, might resemble how some of us work today, but the era sought a higher contrast negative than we like today, and that is responsible for many misconceptions of how they worked.

What IS important to recreate the look of the era ? Look at a copy of Graphic Graflex Photography the Master Book for the Larger Camera from the period. Look at a Leica Manual from 1940. And for a cross reference, check out published curves from Kodak from the day.

Why ? Easy. Say Joe Shooter (in 1943) always develops Super XX for 15' in a tank at 72 ˚. Look at a Kodak curve set and see what the curve looks like. Get in your time machine, and return to the present and see what Kodak film will duplicate that curve. OK, so if it means you'll have to give twice the development you normally give to Tri-X, at least you're on the right track. Put an uncoated lens on you press camera, and see how you go about making pictures with THAT negative.

Don't fall for that BS about 'silver content', fog, and all that. The curve tells the story, and it is the single most valuable tool in understanding how photographers worked in an era NOT our own.

Whenever you can, stick to Primary Sources. That's a College Phrase that rules out hearsay and what a magazine editor SAID about Gene Smith or Ansel Adams. Go to the source.

It IS fun, and a good exercise. Maybe the best thing that comes from trying it the OLD way is that it tends to puncture some of the assumptions we make today about 'how to take a good picture'.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register