Documentary on Glass Plate Photography of King Tut's Tomb

[TerryM]

Here is a wonderful documentary on the 8x10 Glass Plate Photographs of King Tut's Tomb as taken by Photographer Harry Burton nearly a hundred years ago. He was quite a skilled Photographer. Thankfully he used Glass Plates and not Nitrate Base. As you will see, the resolution still far exceeds modern Digital B&W Photography.

It's a shame that this Glass Plate photographic process is so scarcely known, and this is a warning for Film's future. If Film Photographers want their craft to survive within reasonable cost, then you need to do your part to ensure that regular consumers will keep using Film in your local community. Regular consumers must have a photographic outfit in their community which will develop their Films & print Optical Photographs (i.e. via an Enlarger -- not Digital Scan) for a low-cost reasonable price. If there is nowhere to get Optical Photographs printed for a reasonable price, then consumers will be forced to go Digital. As Film Photographers you will be the big losers from consumers going Digital. So do your part in your community to keep it alive!

The Man Who Shot Tutankhamun
https://www.tvo.org/video/documentaries/the-man-who-shot-tutankhamun

 

[choiliefan]

It's restricted in my geographical location.
Weird, no?

 

[TheTrailTog]

It's restricted in my geographical location.
Weird, no?

It is available on Youtube too...

 

[choiliefan]

Xlnt, thank you.

 

[faberryman]

Regular consumers must have a photographic outfit in their community which will develop their Films & print Optical Photographs (i.e. via an Enlarger -- not Digital Scan) for a low-cost reasonable price. If there is nowhere to get Optical Photographs printed for a reasonable price, then consumers will be forced to go Digital.

That ship has sailed.

 

[removedacct1]

That ship has sailed.

Not only has that ship sailed, it has vanished beyond the horizon. My impression is that the industry has shrunk to comprise mostly hobbyists, a few “serious artists”, and students, and this demographic is relatively stable. If the survival of film technology were to depend on local photo labs making optical prints, it would pack up and call it quits tomorrow. I suspect few of us can identify an optical print lab within 100 miles of us - let alone 500.

Any industry whose heyday has come and gone experiences a contraction of its customer base, and the lucky ones survive because they maintain a dedicated group of practitioners who meet their minimum requirements for sustainability. Companies the size of Kodak are hardest hit because their success was vast: the Great Yellow God was known universally and used by almost everyone who sought to make a photographic image. You take a company the size of Kodak and shrink their market to 5% of its peak, and the machinery becomes very difficult to keep running, when volume is no longer needed. The fact that Kodak is still able to supply film is a minor miracle in my eyes.

From this point forward, it’s the smaller companies that are poised to last: they work on a smaller scale and they aren’t obligated to produce a mountain of product to stay afloat. This is where the new guys like Bergger, Silberra, Astrum (you could even put Ferrania in this category) and others are going to find a comfortable place in the industry, and we should be supporting them to the best of our ability. I am not familiar with Ilford’s size relative to Kodak, but I suspect they are quite a bit smaller, so they haven’t been hurt as much by the contraction of the industry.

Film labs and optical print services aren’t going to matter to these companies at all. It’s the dedicated hobbyists and artists like us who are major contributors to their survival.

 

[Nokton48]

I'm just starting to shoot dry plates, thanks to Jason Lane.
So, dust out those old photographic relics and start using them!

The video is wonderful.

 

[Nokton48]

If there is nowhere to get Optical Photographs printed for a reasonable price, then consumers will be forced to go Digital.

That is precisely why I am building a dream darkroom in the basement of my home. Digital documents that process for the interweb.

 

[ic-racer]

We are in a golden age of film. Back in the 1970s, one had to process one's own B&W film and, of course, print it to perfection, just like today. But the never-ending challenge of finding 120 and 4x5 film is now gone. All the film one could possibly want is now only a few mouse clicks away. I remember in the 1970s going months without B&W 120 film.

 

[choiliefan]

Back in 1970's Los Angeles we had Freestyle which carried all manner of surplus film, plates and paper.
For a HS kid it really was a wonderland of goodness.
Of course, one never knew exactly how things would work out until in the darkroom.

 

[AgX]

It's a shame that this Glass Plate photographic process is so scarcely known, and this is a warning for Film's future.

Dry glass plate photography being scarcely known?
First time I hear such. To the contrary, they are kind of icons of historic photography. At least over here.

In spite of all warnings photographic-film manufacturers keep cranking out such unstable material, argueing that film photographers just want this material.

 

[Nodda Duma]

...

From this point forward, it’s the smaller companies that are poised to last: they work on a smaller scale and they aren’t obligated to produce a mountain of product to stay afloat. This is where the new guys like Bergger, Silberra, Astrum (you could even put Ferrania in this category) and others are going to find a comfortable place in the industry, and we should be supporting them to the best of our ability. I am not familiar with Ilford’s size relative to Kodak, but I suspect they are quite a bit smaller, so they haven’t been hurt as much by the contraction of the industry.

...

This is a good point to realize. Now that the analog photography market has contracted as much as it will and is now slowly expanding again, there is a shift into a healthier market model more in line with the rest of the technology sector (aside from social media) rather than an early 20th-Century model of market dominance by a very few large players. The market is heading towards a good mix of large corporate stability and a need-to-grow driven small business urgency to innovate and develop new products.

 

[jimjm]

Excellent documentary. What's amazing is the quality of the results Burton achieved, given the dust, heat and cramped conditions for many of the shots.
Setting up a makeshift darkroom in an adjacent tomb? Just incredible.
It's also interesting that the University staff mentioned in the film are also using LF cameras to document their ongoing research.

We are pretty lucky these days to still have our choice of so many films and alternative processes, including dry plates. (Thanks Jason!)

 

[AgX]

It's also interesting that the University staff mentioned in the film are also using LF cameras to document their ongoing research.

I have not watched the whole documentary, but have not seen such, but only a field camera used in re-enacting/studying Burton's work.

I do not know of any general scientific research today using LF film cameras.

 

[jimjm]

I have not watched the whole documentary, but have not seen such, but only a field camera used in re-enacting/studying Burton's work.

I do not know of any general scientific research today using LF film cameras.

About 27 mins in, there is a University of Chicago team also onsite that's using an 8x10 camera to document their research, explaining that it still provides the best resolution possible.

 

[AgX]

When was that documentary filmed?
And be aware that in the USA LF format photography has a complete different standing than here, where before the internet LF amateur photography hardly was existing at all, and at commercial photographers vanished in short time.

 

[TerryM]

Here is another Link for the Documentary if you weren't able to access the TVOntario or YouTube Links:
https://www.hddocumentary.com/bbc-the-man-who-shot-tutankhamun-2017/

When was that documentary filmed?
And be aware that in the USA LF format photography has a complete different standing than here, where before the internet LF amateur photography hardly was existing at all, and at commercial photographers vanished in short time.

The Documentary is from 2017. Large Format could include either 4x5 or 8x10. It appears that there was a 5x7 Format as well. Harry Burton thankfully used 8x10.

faberryman said:
That ship has sailed.
Not only has that ship sailed, it has vanished beyond the horizon. ..
Film labs and optical print services aren’t going to matter to these companies at all. It’s the dedicated hobbyists and artists like us who are major contributors to their survival.

While that ship may have sailed it can also be called back to Port. Film Photography is about both the Film and the Photographic Paper. A Digital Scan Print of a Film Negative does not look as good as starting with a Digital Camera, and so people will be deceived into thinking that Digital is better quality. The inability of consumers to get Optical Photographs will only dispose them to switch to Digital. Thus, the ability to print Optical Photographs is part and parcel of the ability to sell Film. The larger the volume of Film sales means the lower the cost of production. It is in the best interests of every Film Photographer to have as many people as possible shooting Film, and so it is in their best interests to make sure that people can obtain Optical Photographs. Professional Film Photographers need to play their part in sustaining the Film Photographic industry.

It's a case of not putting the cart before the horse. In the 1950s RCA financed colour TV Shows in order to facilitate the sale of their colour TVs. Just as nobody would buy a colour TV without colour TV Shows to watch, nobody will use Film Photography without the ability to produce Film Photographs.

 

[MattKing]

The Documentary is from 2017. Large Format could include either 4x5 or 8x10. It appears that there was a 5x7 Format as well.

Don't forget whole plate, half plate, and quarter plate. The world isn't limited to North America!

 

[jtk]

Here is another Link for the Documentary if you weren't able to access the TVOntario or YouTube Links:
https://www.hddocumentary.com/bbc-the-man-who-shot-tutankhamun-2017/


The Documentary is from 2017. Large Format could include either 4x5 or 8x10. It appears that there was a 5x7 Format as well. Harry Burton thankfully used 8x10.


While that ship may have sailed it can also be called back to Port. Film Photography is about both the Film and the Photographic Paper. A Digital Scan Print of a Film Negative does not look as good as starting with a Digital Camera, and so people will be deceived into thinking that Digital is better quality. The inability of consumers to get Optical Photographs will only dispose them to switch to Digital. Thus, the ability to print Optical Photographs is part and parcel of the ability to sell Film. The larger the volume of Film sales means the lower the cost of production. It is in the best interests of every Film Photographer to have as many people as possible shooting Film, and so it is in their best interests to make sure that people can obtain Optical Photographs. Professional Film Photographers need to play their part in sustaining the Film Photographic industry.

It's a case of not putting the cart before the horse. In the 1950s RCA financed colour TV Shows in order to facilitate the sale of their colour TVs. Just as nobody would buy a colour TV without colour TV Shows to watch, nobody will use Film Photography without the ability to produce Film Photographs.

Like advances in color TV, advances in video have led us to the incredible blossoming (450 productions last year) of Netflix-like production (writing, directing, shooting etc)...and obviously the advances in digital account for the incredibly high quality of prints produced by the majority of print-producing artists.

And, of course, that Tut documentary was shot and delivered digitally. You didn't see it from a film projector.

 

[cowanw]

Here is a previous post.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/harry-burton-tut-ankh-amon.144897/#post-1895684

 

[TerryM]

Like advances in color TV, advances in video have led us to the incredible blossoming (450 productions last year) of Netflix-like production (writing, directing, shooting etc)......
And, of course, that Tut documentary was shot and delivered digitally. You didn't see it from a film projector.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. Assuming that you believe in Film Photography over Digital, you seem to have missed my point. Do you think that I'm arguing against Television or something? Of course that TV Documentary was shot on Video, and that makes sense. However, are you trying to suggest that HDTV is higher quality than 35mm Film or even Super 16mm? The most expensive TV Shows are still shot on Film, and it's very easy to tell which old Shows were shot on Film or lower quality Video.

Additionally, why would you point out the advances in Video technology, and not the monumental advances in Film Photography over the past century? When King Tut's Tomb was discovered in 1922, Harry Burton had to manually coat his own Glass Plates with B&W Emulsion. (It's a good thing he went to this trouble, and didn't use unstable Cellulose Nitrate Film Base which would now be in diminished condition.) Only 13 years later in 1935 the highest quality medium ever devised for recording colour images was introduced: KODACHROME Film! The following year Agfa Colour Negative was introduced. In 1950 Kodak introduced quality masked Colour Negative Film which made colour 8x10 Sheet a lot easier to shoot than B&W Glass Plate. In the past few decades highly durable Polyester Film Base has been used which will endure for centuries! This is why it is an abject horror for humanity that our most important pictures are not recorded on Film. Burton's Glass Plates are proof-positive that Film is by far the most reliable long-term storage medium for picture images.

 

[AgX]

Only 13 years later in 1935 the highest quality medium ever devised for recording colour images was introduced: KODACHROME Film! The following year Agfa Colour Negative was introduced.

Agfacolor was reversal film too. It took them further 3 years to introduce a working neg/pos system due to the involved matching issues. But still Agfa beat Kodak on this by far in time.

 

[cowanw]

I don't know what point you're trying to make. Assuming that you believe in Film Photography over Digital, you seem to have missed my point. Do you think that I'm arguing against Television or something? Of course that TV Documentary was shot on Video, and that makes sense. However, are you trying to suggest that HDTV is higher quality than 35mm Film or even Super 16mm? The most expensive TV Shows are still shot on Film, and it's very easy to tell which old Shows were shot on Film or lower quality Video.

Additionally, why would you point out the advances in Video technology, and not the monumental advances in Film Photography over the past century? When King Tut's Tomb was discovered in 1922, Harry Burton had to manually coat his own Glass Plates with B&W Emulsion. (It's a good thing he went to this trouble, and didn't use unstable Cellulose Nitrate Film Base which would now be in diminished condition.) Only 13 years later in 1935 the highest quality medium ever devised for recording colour images was introduced: KODACHROME Film! The following year Agfa Colour Negative was introduced. In 1950 Kodak introduced quality masked Colour Negative Film which made colour 8x10 Sheet a lot easier to shoot than B&W Glass Plate. In the past few decades highly durable Polyester Film Base has been used which will endure for centuries! This is why it is an abject horror for humanity that our most important pictures are not recorded on Film. Burton's Glass Plates are proof-positive that Film is by far the most reliable long-term storage medium for picture images.

Do you have a reference that Burton poured wet plates? I think that he used readily available dry plates.

 

[TerryM]

Agfacolor was reversal film too. It took them further 3 years to introduce a working neg/pos system due to the involved matching issues. But still Agfa beat Kodak on this by far in time.

Are you talking about Agfa's 1936 Film? If so I'm really surprised by this because I thought that Kodak developed this process with Ektachrome in the early 1940s. This means that Agfa basically copied and modified the Kodachrome process. It would be a bit too much of a coincidence that Agfa came out with their Film only a year after Kodachrome.

Do you have a reference that Burton poured wet plates? I think that he used readily available dry plates.

I'm pretty certain the Documentary stated that he did his own coating. I don't know if coated Glass Plates would have been available for sale in rural Egypt in the 1920s.

 

[AgX]

Are you talking about Agfa's 1936 Film? If so I'm really surprised by this because I thought that Kodak developed this process with Ektachrome in the early 1940s. This means that Agfa basically copied and modified the Kodachrome process. It would be a bit too much of a coincidence that Agfa came out with their Film only a year after Kodachrome.

Both companies developed their colour films independantly of each other. But both used the old Fischer principle of chromogenic development, and both used different approaches to overcome the limitations Fischer still had to face. Whereas Kodak was stuck with their approach to a reversal film, Agfa added to their reversal film even a neg/positive system. In any case, their idea of embedding couplers turned into the industry standard.
If you want to use the term "copy", it was Kodak who copied the idea of embedding couplers.