A few questions on wet plate collodion

Hi all,

So, I've done a bit of research online and do not find an explanation for this : why do images taken with a wet plate collodion process often appear to me to be three dimensional ? As far as I can tell, it does not simply come from the use of a large format camera or lens, because I don't have the same "3D feeling" with LF prints. Is it just me or is there an explanation for this ? I've thought about the spectral sensitivity of collodion, but I don't see why it would affect the "3D feel".
If it's only attainable with wet plate collodion, as complicated and arduous as the process is, I'd really want to give it a try...
Thanks beforehand for any insight !

I think you're talking about the reflective nature of the silver suspended in collodion on a plate: it produces a different visual effect depending on what direction the light is coming from. It can look three dimensional sometimes.

Qualifications such as "a 3 dimensional feel" are so subjective and difficult to operationalize that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Maybe it's the tonal rendition.
Maybe it's the usual defects especially along the edges that frame the subject.
Maybe it's the frequent use of lenses wide open and lenses with swirly out of focus areas.
Maybe it's the spectral sensitivity.
Maybe it's the reflective nature of the silver image of a tintype combined with surface qualities of the image, collodion film and substrate - although in this case prints from collodion negatives wouldn't be 3D (?)
Maybe it's some other factors as well.

In general, when someone asks "Why do I experience x in this way", I can only respond with "you tell me". I'm not you, so I don't know what determines how you feel about something. Perhaps the list of possible factors above helps nailing down or making more concrete this fuzzy "3D" concept.

Another angle is the motive behind the question. Is this in fact an appreciation thread about the magic of wet plate? If so, then do go ahead and cue the fuzzy linguistics, as they're probably an appropriate tool. IMO wet plate can be nice, but there's so much more magic in photography that I wouldn't personally wax lyrical about collodion specifically, so I'd leave it at this.

If this is about optimizing the look of photographic work by using collodion and its attributes as a benchmark, then it'll be necessary to do the operationalization thing and become more concrete.

koraks said:

wet plate can be nice, but there's so much more magic in photography that I wouldn't personally wax lyrical about collodion specifically

Click to expand...

Another part of the "magic" of wet plate, to me, is that you start with a sheet of clean glass (or Japanned sheet metal) and a few bottles of chemicals, and in less than half an hour you have a photograph, using technology from 160+ years ago.

Certainly, and experiencing that is sheer magic!

So is taking a sheet of paper, some silver nitrate and a few common household materials, and creating a gorgeous print with it, with a tonal scale that rivals that of Adox Lupex.

Or taking the ground and cooked bones and skin of an animal, some soot and creating a print with those that's made to last for centuries.

There's just so many things that are magical about photography and printmaking!

koraks said:

There's just so many things that are magical about photography and printmaking!

Click to expand...

Science and magic, all in the same room. What more could someone who grew up reading encyclopedias and fantasy novels ask?

I see a pattern here...

Thank you for your answers !

@paulbarden : thank you I'll try to look more into that !

@koraks : I know it is subjective, and that "3D" is a fuzzy concept. I can't really explain it. Maybe it's clearer if I say that, for portraits, the person's face seems to "come out of the photograph". I don't know. I wish I could explain it better. There is no "motive" behind my question. I'm not trying to say that collodion is incredibly better looking than other photographic processes. It just appeals to me in a peculiar way, for portraits. It is possibly one of the factors you mentioned. I would rule out the "use of lenses wide open and lenses with swirly out of focus areas", though, because people do that with sheet film too. There might also be the lighting, camera movements, angles, poses, etc... I'm also not saying that I always have this feeling, just that it's very frequent with collodion, and very rare with other processes.
Just a few examples to illustrate my point :
A) Collodion with the "3D" fuzziness" : https://cdn.profoto.com/cdn/0521615...ce-bacon.jpg?width=1280&quality=75&format=jpg
B) Collodion without : http://www.nomadicfrog.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dawson_wetplate_0040.jpg
C) 4X5 film with fuzz : https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/fb/e7/1bfbe7eedb86b278208371811cfb4e1d.jpg
D) 4X5 film without : https://www.parallax-effect.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/sakai-ilfordfp4-1d.jpg

Good comparison! If I look at it, it seems to me that the portraits taken with a shorter focal length (or more accurately: a wider perspective) convey that 3D look to you. So perhaps it's not really a collodion thing, but mostly a lens thing. And perhaps this has to do something with long (and hence, big) lenses with a large aperture being generally expensive, especially if they're old Petzvals (& co.) which are so commonly used among the collodion crowd. Moreover, shorter lenses generally have smaller image circles, so that makes it easier to enjoy swirly bokeh, light falloff and whathaveyou. All combined this may make for shorter lenses being relatively popular among collodion shooters - and thus, you end up associating collodion with a 3D look which in the end boils down to a matter of perspective.

Now I'd be the first to admit that several other aspects probably play a role as well; see my previous post. But perhaps just for amusements' sake it would be worth an experiment to see if you could replicate that look you prefer simply by shooting a slightly wider angle than you'd otherwise do when taking a portrait!

@koraks : thank you for your insight and suggestion But are you really sure that the ones I prefer were taken with a wider lens ? Because I would not necessarily have said so. For the old guy on film, yes, I suppose, considering the slight distorsion on his face (the nose especially). But the last one of the woman ? How can you tell ? And for the 2nd one, with the hat ?

It appears to me that the portraits you liked (with more of a depth effect) were taken with lenses that have very short depth-of-field, rendering a very conspicuous and dramatic drop off from the point of focus. Lenses like that were commonly used in the late 1800s for portraiture. The Petzval was the most common design at the time because it was the only lens design capable of delivering a large aperture value, which made portraiture on Collodion possible (because of its slow speed). I have a 15" Petzval that has an aperture value of f5.0, and an 9" Petzval with an aperture value of about f3.2 Both of these give shallow depth of field, especially when used as portrait lenses, photographing a face quite close up.

Portrait made with the Voigtlander lens (but not very close to subject)

Portrait made with the Lerebours et Secretan 15" Petzval. (also not very close to subject, but you get the idea)

Yaeli said:

How can you tell ?

Click to expand...

Based on the relationship in size between parts that are closer and further away from the lens.
But I may be off; perhaps it's more to do with depth of field as Paul says.

It's kind of hard to figure out what it is you're seeing, as I don't see the 'with/without 3D fuzz' distinction that you're seeing. There are pronounced differences between the images, but I don't see the 3D thing you're alluding to.

Thank you both for your answers ! And thank you @paulbarden for the examples of portraits !
I'll try what you both suggested : wider angle, wide aperture. There may really be something to it. Here's a link to a selfie I took (in digital, sorry), with a 35mm 1.8 macro lens, wide open, really close, and it's the closest I've ever come to "the look", so you really might be right ! I have to try this again !

That's a nice shot
It also approximates some of the examples in a few ways. You could try and add some 'special effects' from the 'collodion box of tricks' to see what makes the difference.

It's a fun experiment alright; do keep us updated on what you find!

Yaeli said:

wider angle, wide aperture.

Click to expand...

Don't even need wider angle, really. The biggest part of the "3D effect" in wet plate (and to a lesser extent in other large format portraits) is the very shallow DOF. Just like using a reverse tilt in a landscape shot tends to exaggerate depth (and can even give a "miniature scene" feeling), having in focus and out of focus regions in something our brains are so tightly attuned to, the human face, makes us think it's actual depth in the image. Wider lenses mainly help in getting closer to the subject, to keep the DOF shallow.

Yeah, what you’re seeing is indeed 3D. A clear glass Ambrotype backed up with black velvet gives this look. The presentation is; first, the velvet, then the varnished image plate ( colliodion side Up), then, a spacer mat then a clear cover glass. This is placed into a case, or the image pack can be edge taped. When you view the image you look “through” the dark shadows into the deep velvet. I’ve also seen original Ambros backed with an unused tintype plate, with its edges bent upward to distance it from the image plate. This creates the 3D.

Thank you for your answers !

@koraks : yes, I'll keep experimenting. As to adding some "special effects", "collodion style", I've tried in the past, and was never satisfied...

@Donald Qualls : it could indeed just be DOF, although I've never really had that "3D feel" with pictures taken on full frame or even medium format using fast lenses (F/1.2, or even 0.95 for example). Some 6X7 taken with the Pentax 105mm F/2.4 were interesting, but still not really "it". I wonder if the aspect ratio and perspective and, as you mentioned, the tilt movements, don't play a role too... It's really hard to explain. Take 2 examples : when I look at the pictures of one of my favourite photographers, David Burnett, most of my favourite ones are taken with a LF camera (and an Aero Ektar lens, so yes, super shallow DOF). And when I look at this comparison ( ), I always choose the LF pictures over the FF ones. There's just something about them. Maybe the lens plays a part too... I really don't know. I just like "the look".

@Ray Morgenweck : thank you for your insight. Yes, it might be that. I had never thought about that...