Endeavouring to get the 'old world' image on peoples faces using flash-pan techniques

Hi, the early years of photography were years of exploration not only where the photographer went but also how the photographer used the camera with the 'esoteric' artistic skills that seem to be lost in the modern day world of hast & rush. Many of the early photographers were artists who used the camera as an extenson their paint & brushes ,the large photo plates an extention of their canvases, the use of early flash exposure no exception, the flash-pan being the order of the day. Take a look at facial expressions that the cameras capture the moment after the flash-powder has gone off in the pan, that short time, when they see their whole life go in front of them, that is the image that makes the photo. I would like to take two photos of the 'Wedding Group' some time if opportunity ever arises, one the ordinary every day run of the mill, often dull, wedding photo, and one with a flash-pan that maybe gives off a little extra smoke to capture that special moment when they see their lives go in front of them.That's the photo that has the depth of the Masterpieces that hang in the National Art Galleries of the world, whilst the every day one being not far short of flat emptiness. Don't dismiss the early methods that the pioneers of photography used, the more one learns of them the more there is to learn, of the lost arts. Skills of the past that are gone like a flash in the pan. John

I think you're romanticizing the past a bit. The majority of those old portrait photographers were businessmen, not artists. They weren't trying to capture the sitters soul, but rather their next meal. Art was the pursuit of the rich, back then. The working class, who dominated portrait photography, likely would have held the idea of being an artist in disdain. There's far more art in modern portraits than in those old flash pan ones you're referencing.

That being said, I do think it would make an interesting study to do some modern day portraits with those old techniques. And from my own experience, people do enjoy having their picture taken with my Speed Graphic and an old flash bulb. They always seem to laugh after the photo and tell me that they're surprised they could feel the heat off the bulb from 15 feet back!

Concur with Jim. Nostalgia playa a big role with old photos. You can see it with Vivian Maier. Snapshots become masterpieces after 50 - 70 years go by.

jim10219 said:

I think you're romanticizing the past a bit. The majority of those old portrait photographers were businessmen, not artists. They weren't trying to capture the sitters soul, but rather their next meal. Art was the pursuit of the rich, back then. The working class, who dominated portrait photography, likely would have held the idea of being an artist in disdain. There's far more art in modern portraits than in those old flash pan ones you're referencing.

That being said, I do think it would make an interesting study to do some modern day portraits with those old techniques. And from my own experience, people do enjoy having their picture taken with my Speed Graphic and an old flash bulb. They always seem to laugh after the photo and tell me that they're surprised they could feel the heat off the bulb from 15 feet back!

Click to expand...

You're making a mistaken distinction between "businessmen" and "artists"....a totally invalid distinction back then, just as it is today. Today many photograph water and trees and people on the street as if they're making "art." because that's all they know . However Ansel, for example, was a businessman just as was Galen Rowell. Karsh as well, no doubt (according to his ads in New Yorker).

slackercrurster said:

Concur with Jim. Nostalgia playa a big role with old photos. You can see it with Vivian Maier. Snapshots become masterpieces after 50 - 70 years go by.

Click to expand...

I don't know how anybody could claim that VM wasn't an "artist" when she lived, or that "nostalgia" isn't part of the "art" of many of today's photographers, or that snapshots have become "masterpieces." In other words, I don't think passage of time has ever seriously trumped art.

OP, give us examples of two identical portraits shots done as you suggested and you'll find us willing to comment on whether such techniques have the effect you describe.

There may be something in what you say but we won't know until we see the prints

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

OP, give us examples of two identical portraits shots done as you suggested and you'll find us willing to comment on whether such techniques have the effect you describe.

There may be something in what you say but we won't know until we see the prints

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Yes, please. I very much like the style of older portraits and would like to know exactly what you are referring to.
Somewhat off topic, the Vivian Maier phenomenon is interesting to me. When first saw her work while I read the story I could tell it was really really good, it just lept off the screen, not nostalgia but the real deal.

Recreating old world type images using flashpans that I penned yesterday where I referred to early photographers using flash-pans with Flash-Powders ( not Blackpowders, a subtle distinction many may think but one gives off more smoke and can leave a 30 crater in the ground the other doesn't ! ) it's important not to mix things up. Maybe if I, expound a little on the exponents of the 18th century pioneering days of photography things may become a little clearer, I do pride my humble self in being possessed with the ability to change my views or opinion on any subject where further knowledge directs, this being no exception. However, up to this present moment in time I stand by what I penned, with a little latitude of poetic licence blended in so as not to seem too dull or boring, in a manner one could say, similar, to that of the 18th century flashpowder photographers who would sometimes pencil in their composed 8 x 10 ( and sometime larger) plate negs with their artist pencils ( ops sorry for the pun) thats before the days of Ansel Adam's time/temperature method, when they developed their plates in the fashion of gaslight and bromide papers after they had desensitized the plates with Pinacryptol,Phenosafranin etc and in a hands-on method of artistic craftsmanship talent & ability and a darkroom lamp, sometimes even an oil lamp type, would develope the plates to however they desired, thats before the days of lightmeters, though there were some crude gaspaper exposure guildes in existance at the time. People tended to be very practical in those past days. I'm in my seventies and I pop over to the Austrian Alps quite often and amongst other things I do a little hiking & climbing in both summer & winter and I often tell people 'don't do what I do or you will get yourselves killed - watch what I do and learn how to do it . Theres no learning from mistakes, it's a long drop down in the mountains, its a one-life world and no-body comes back from the dead, you learn 'Before' you go up there.' I would say the same for Flashpowder & Flashpans, learn before you use it, it's as safe and creative as whoever is using it. With knowledge beforehand theres no excuse, except cowardice, to fear the un-known. And don't forget - know your powders first, one goes phut and gives off a lot of light, the other goes Boom and leaves a 30 foot crater in the ground. And, Don't mix them up ! Best wishes all for the New Year - John

john mcauliffe
thanks for all that
quite a bit to read and chew on !
hope you are able to scan and show some
of your olde tyme portrats i love seeing the look
on people's faces when something fun and dangerous is used
much better than the look the film maker gets in the movie "peeping tom" that is for sure !
i think some of the photographers were exactly as you mentioned but i think others
were a bit loopy from all the mercury fumes, lavender oil and breathing in too much ether from their collodion
by the 1870s i think things were at least a little bit less life+death seeing dry plates were eventually used
they could concentrate on making art
better be careful with the flash powder on the mountain side, could cause an avalanche !

Was there time to change your expression after the flash powder fired? is subject movement noticable during the exposure?

jnanian said:

john mcauliffe
thanks for all that
quite a bit to read and chew on !
hope you are able to scan and show some
of your olde tyme portrats i love seeing the look
on people's faces when something fun and dangerous is used
much better than the look the film maker gets in the movie "peeping tom" that is for sure !
i think some of the photographers were exactly as you mentioned but i think others
were a bit loopy from all the mercury fumes, lavender oil and breathing in too much ether from their collodion
by the 1870s i think things were at least a little bit less life+death seeing dry plates were eventually used
they could concentrate on making art
better be careful with the flash powder on the mountain side, could cause an avalanche !

Click to expand...

Before dry plates, flash powder and the like, portraits were being made in studios. Almost all studios had windows that let in "North Light". If the portraits were made outside, use was also made of "North Light. With that light there was no direct sunlight. The light stayed almost constant. To me that is the "common denominator " of most of the 19th century portraits that I have seen. So try shooting with "North Light", reflectors, etc. and leave the magnesium powder alone, if you want the "old look". Might even make your "modern" portraits look better also.....Regards!

jtk said:

You're making a mistaken distinction between "businessmen" and "artists"....a totally invalid distinction back then, just as it is today. Today many photograph water and trees and people on the street as if they're making "art." because that's all they know . However Ansel, for example, was a businessman just as was Galen Rowell. Karsh as well, no doubt (according to his ads in New Yorker).

Click to expand...

There is business in art. And there is art in business. But the distinction between businessman (or businesswoman) and artist is valid. In fact it's more than valid, it's essential. And it all depends on where their priorities lie.

For example, Rembrandt van Rijn made quite a name for himself as a portraitist. He was most known for his life-like realism. He had an uncanny ability to capture the depths of the flesh and hide his hand in his work. In his later years, he evolved to not only show, but celebrate his brush strokes. He was no longer trying to mimic life in his paintings and rather opted to imbue life into his paintings. This costed him his fame, fortune, and reputation. He, however, knew that this shift was essential to his development as an artist. They saw his new work as sloppy and unrefined. He knew it was superior and ahead of it's time. Centuries later, the rest of the world caught up, and now artists and art critics marvel at not only his foresight, but his courage and sacrifice. He was a true artist.

Thomas Kinkade, on the other hand, stumbled across something people liked, and never really deviated from it. He plastered his name on anything that would turn a profit. He too sacrificed his reputation (as an artist), but for fame and fortune. He was a businessman.

What they have in common is they were both successful painters. But the similarities end there. Not every businessperson is an artist. And not every artist is a businessperson. Some are equal amounts of both. Examples across the spectrum are abound. But to suggest there is no distinction between artist and businessperson is either cynical, naive, or hostile.

Arklatexian said:

Might even make your "modern" portraits look better also.....Regards!

Click to expand...

i have opted to do natural light paper negative portraiture for a long while. long exposures and open shade and north light make a beautiful combination.
flash photography, while it speeds up the process, i find to lack life and soul much like portraits that take fractions of a second rather than a few seconds.
YMMV

jim10219 said:

Thomas Kinkade, on the other hand, stumbled across something people liked, and never really deviated from it. He plastered his name on anything that would turn a profit. He too sacrificed his reputation (as an artist), but for fame and fortune. He was a businessman.

Click to expand...

yup some of kinkade's work while cheesy is absolutely stunning, and always AFFORDABLE to the regular person, THAT'S the ticket ( just like you said ) !
sadly, he was not as cheerful as his work >> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/painter-thomas-kinkade-autopsy-results_n_1498483.html

cowanw said:

Was there time to change your expression after the flash powder fired? is subject movement noticable during the exposure?

Click to expand...

Fast powder burnt within 1/10sec. Other mixtures likely still were at fractions of a second.

Examples?

Maybe of interest to people, there are a couple videos by a photographer using traditional magnesium flash powder. The light is quite slow by xenon standards (save some of the very large studio strobes) but its largely sub-second. It's quite a bit softer light than a normal flash would be without a light modifier. There is a significant delay between closing the circuit and when light start being produced -
The older lenses, and the use of orthochrome film or glass plates also was a big factor in the look back then.

I have been taking some portraits with the goal of achieving a 19th C. look. Here's what I've found. Most 19th C. photographers were using the light from a north facing window. These were special windows that were actually a window/sky light combined (floor into roof window.) Flash seemed to be a last resort, partly because it was dangerous. A lot of photography studios burned down before the invention of bulbs! I would be hesitant to use flash powder for portraits because of the danger of someone being injured. If I remember right from my chemistry days, those flying sparks are something like 3,000 degrees! What I use are actual lenses from the time period I want to replicate. For 1880s and earlier I use a Petzval lens. For the time period between 1865 and 1900 a rapid rectilinear lens could also be used. The key to these lenses is they are uncoated. That greatly softens the contrast and creates an overall softer look. Second thing is I'm shooting glass plates (dry plates) now that they are available. I shoot both 4x5 and 5x7. These are sensitive to blue and UV light only, where modern film is sensitive to all the visible color specturm. Another factor of the plates is about 10% of the light that goes through the emulsion reflects and goes back through it a second time. This creates a slight halo (halonation.) All modern film has an antihalonation coating. My advice is to shoot glass plates on your 4x5 using a good Petzval lens, using soft light such as north facing window or an overcast day.

Kent in SD

Two23 said:

I have been taking some portraits with the goal of achieving a 19th C. look. Here's what I've found...
View attachment 214018

Click to expand...

Nice image. Is that Union Pacific 844 that made a tour not too long ago by chance?

Thanks for all the information on old portait technique.

Two23 said:

My advice is to shoot glass plates on your 4x5 using a good Petzval lens, using soft light such as north facing window or an overcast day.

Click to expand...

I also suggest you ask your subject to take off his baseball cap so the image looks more authentic. As shown in the photo above, no amount of dry plates, Petzval lenses and north facing light can overcome modern dress.

faberryman said:

I also suggest you ask your subject to take off his baseball cap so there photo looks more authentic. As shown in the photo above, no amount of dry plates, Petzval lenses and north facing light can overcome modern dress.

Click to expand...

Isn't the image supposed to look fake?

When they did use flash powder they got an effect that is something like what you would get with a powerful studio strobe using a flash head WITHOUT any reflector...an open flash. If you were doing that indoors you might get away with a the bare tube flash that Graflex offered.

faberryman said:

I also suggest you ask your subject to take off his baseball cap so the image looks more authentic. As shown in the photo above, no amount of dry plates, Petzval lenses and north facing light can overcome modern dress.

Click to expand...

Wasn't my goal to take a completely period correct photo here. I got to ride around in the cab and in return I took a few photos of the guys. Glass plates and a c.1900 rapid rectilinear lens were all I had with me., I have done that many times with Civil War re-enactors though. As for the locomotive, the UP 844 has drivers much larger than this little 0-6-0 at a local tourist railroad.


Kent in SD