How to emulate the Atget look

[runswithsizzers]

If I wanted to reproduce some of the atmospheric effect seen in Atget's photo in this post in the Eugene Atget appreciation thread, how should I go about it:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/eugene-atget-appreciation.137881/page-27#post-2990139
Please help me rank the following from the most likely to be effective to the least effective:
1. Shoot in foggy / misty weather
2. Use a blue sensitive film. Is that different form "orthochromatic"? Is there any such b&w film available today in 120?
3. Use a film with poor halation control and/or poor highlight contrast/separation? Is there any such b&w film available today in 120?
4. Use an uncoated lens, possibly combined with backlight to introduce flair
5. Use a blue filter -- but which blue?
6. Something else?

Is this getting too far off-topic? Maybe I should move it to a new thread?

{Moderator note: split off from the indicated Atget thread and edited slightly to make sense. And thread title tweaked subsequently per request}

 

[MattKing]

Good idea for a new thread.

 

[Don_ih]

There are plenty of duplication films (old stock) available to be cut down to whatever size you want. Copy films tend to be blue sensitive, since they don't need to be anything else. But I don't think it'll quite get what Atget got. Paris in the late 19th/early 20th century was a heavily polluted city. All factories burned coal, every house burned coal, every meal needed a fire to cook. The atmospheric haze was mostly smoke. Even a sunny day would have a haze of smoke. Think about how that works: a sunny day but the air is constantly filled with smoke. The only time you get that (around here, at least) is when the forest fires are raging.

Also don't underestimate the impact of both the printing and the age of the prints. Every part of his process influenced what he got. And medium format is swell, but it's not 18x24.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Samples

 

[lecarp]

It's a long shot but, have you considered re-incarnation?

 

[snusmumriken]

A blue filter will cost you a lot of film speed using panchromatic film. Going down the other route, Ilford’s Ortho Plus film is only 80 ISO. That Ilford film was apparently designed for copying work, so I’m not sure there’s much/any difference between ‘ortho-‘ and ‘blue-sensitive’ films.

I’m unconvinced about uncoated lenses. English photographer James Ravilious famously used them, even to the extent of having coatings removed from modern lenses. However, he then spent ages tinkering with lens hoods to minimise unwanted flare - which he couldn’t see at the taking moment, since he was using a rangefinder camera. Atget, of course, would have been able to see flare on his focussing glass. Whether he cared, or whether he even designed it in, is a moot point.

Here in rural maritime Europe, I would want to use the early hours of the morning, when the sun is both low and gentle, and there’s lots of moisture in the air. You also get Atgets’s sense of solitude as a bonus!

There’s a lot more dust in the atmosphere in summer (pollen) and after harvest, but you need low back-light to show it. I think of foggy/misty conditions being typically dull.

Even in the coal-burning era, some pictorialist photographers contemporary with Atget (eg Frank Meadow Sutcliffe) added distance haze at the time of printing, either by scribbling on the back of the plate with a soft pencil, or interposing carefully cut pieces of tissue paper. In skilful hands, the effect was subtle and convincingly natural.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Copy films tend to be blue sensitive, since they don't need to be anything else. But I don't think it'll quite get what Atget got. Paris in the late 19th/early 20th century was a heavily polluted city. All factories burned coal, every house burned coal, every meal needed a fire to cook. The atmospheric haze was mostly smoke. Even a sunny day would have a haze of smoke.

Thanks for your reply. So would you rank shooting under visibly hazy conditions as being a more significant factor than using blue sensitive film? Of course the atmospheric effect seen in so many of Atget's photos may be a combination of both -- that is, the blue sensitive film may be exaggerating hazy conditions, but would have little effect under perfectly clear conditions?

I have been studying Atget's photos as they appear in "Old France" (Volume 1 of "The Work of Atget" by the Museum of Modern Art). One of the things I've been looking for is hard shadows as evidence of whether the photo was taken under sunny or overcast skies. My theory is, if hard shadows are visible, then it is less likely that there was naturally occuring mist or fog present. Of course you are correct to mention smoke from coal or wood fires as likely contributing to the haze, which could be present even on sunny days.

The photographs in "Old France" represent Atget's work in the rural French countryside surrounding Paris rather than in urban Paris. Most of the photos in Volume 1 were taken south of Paris, as described by Maria Morris Hambourg in her Notes, "...villages in the southern environs, such as Bagneux, Chatillon, and Fontenay, were still drowsing in the unspoiled countryside as they had for the past century."

No doubt, they burned wood or coal in the farms and villages, but due to the lower population density, I would expect the air to be much less polluted, compared to Paris? Yet many of Atget's photos taken in small villages and the countryside also show a pronounced atmospheric effect.

In this photo (Bievres (eglise). 1924), I can see hard shadows, so probably not misty or foggy (but could be smoke). The effect of most atmospheric haze, whether due to moisture or particulate pollution, looks greater in the far distance, but is much less noticeable when viewing objects in the foreground. It is intertesting that the foilage in the upper right, gets very hazy where it meets the sky. But the foilage is relatively near to the camera, so unlikely due to mist, fog, or smoke. I have noticed that most of the hazy atmospheric effect seen in Atget's photos is most obvious in a zone adjacent to the bright sky. To me, this suggests something like film halation or possibly lens flair is more likely the cause of this effect rather than mist or smoke?

 

[runswithsizzers]

A blue filter will cost you a lot of film speed using panchromatic film. Going down the other route, Ilford’s Ortho Plus film is only 80 ISO. That Ilford film was apparently designed for copying work, so I’m not sure there’s much/any difference between ‘ortho-‘ and ‘blue-sensitive’ films.

I do plan to try a roll or two of Ilford Ortho Plus! And I am investigating what "blue sensitive" films may be available. Film Photography Project is selling something called "Svema Blue Sensitve BW" (ISO of 6), but apparently in 35mm, only.

Atget, of course, would have been able to see flare on his focussing glass. Whether he cared, or whether he even designed it in, is a moot point.

I would love to know the answer to the question, "Did Atget care about the hazy, atmospheric effect in his photos, and did he seek out conditions, materials and/or techniques to achieve this effect?

Even in the coal-burning era, some pictorialist photographers contemporary with Atget (eg Frank Meadow Sutcliffe) added distance haze at the time of printing, either by scribbling on the back of the plate with a soft pencil, or interposing carefully cut pieces of tissue paper. In skilful hands, the effect was subtle and convincingly natural.

Wow! It never occurred to me that the distance haze might have been added in "post production"!

Most of Atget's photos in "The Work of Atget" (Museum of Modern Art, four volumes) are reproduced from historic prints. However, in his Preface to the books, John Szarkowski says, "In a number of cases, the Museum's holdings include original Atget plates of great interest, but no satisfactory print from his own hand. By extraordinary good luck, our problem coincided with what one might fairly call the reinvention of the albumin print, by Joel Snyder and the Chicago Albumin Works." I will try to search the notes to see if any of the prints made by the Chicago Albumin Works demonstrate noticeable atmospheric haze. I believe it is unlikely that a printer working in the early 1980s from Atget's original plates would take such liberties as adding haze, so if present is more likely on the plates rather than added when printed.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Samples

Demonstrating what?

This thread is about the hazy atmospheric effect seen in many of Atget's photos. I don't see how your samples fit into the conversation?

 

[Arthurwg]

Holga?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For large format, I would shoot xray film, either blue or green sensitive. My experience is with green. Xray has not AH layer. Or Ilford Ortho 80.
For 120 film, I'd shoot Ilford Ortho 80....
or Kentmere 400, with a 44A filter. Kentmere has a AH layer, but it's inferior, and allows for quite a bit of halation effects. Love this film, actually.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Holga?

By that, I asume you think the lens makes the most significant contribution to the atmospheric haze seen in Atget's photos?

 

[runswithsizzers]

For large format, I would shoot xray film, either blue or green sensitive. My experience is with green. Xray has not AH layer. Or Ilford Ortho 80.
For 120 film, I'd shoot Ilford Ortho 80....
or Kentmere 400, with a 44A filter. Kentmere has a AH layer, but it's inferior, and allows for quite a bit of halation effects. Love this film, actually.

Thanks for your reply. Ilford Ortho Plus 80 is on my list of films to try. I have shot a few rolls of Kentmere 400 but without a filter. Looking at my results, I can see a fair bit of halation under certain conditions. A quick search for 44A filter is not turning up very much. Does it go by another name?

 

[snusmumriken]

Wow! It never occurred to me that the distance haze might have been added in "post production"!

Attached are two pages from Michael Hine’s biography of Sutcliffe, which might be of interest.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Attached are two pages from Michael Hine’s biography of Sutcliffe, which might be of interest.

Interesting! thanks

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks for your reply. Ilford Ortho Plus 80 is on my list of films to try. I have shot a few rolls of Kentmere 400 but without a filter. Looking at my results, I can see a fair bit of halation under certain conditions. A quick search for 44A filter is not turning up very much. Does it go by another name?

44A filters are harder to source. You could check out FilterFind. That is where I got Wratten filters from. There are also equivalents, such as Kenko C series. Another filter I like to use for the blue sensitive film look is the #47 Tiffen. I have a video comparing the 80A with various filters for the blue/ortho look...

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's a combination of atmospheric haze or air pollution, accentuated or "thickened" by the blue-sensitive emulsion itself, plus deliberate lens flare (mostly toward the top for obvious reasons) due to the characteristics of his lens and how it has been offset vertically (and evident by running out of image circle at the top). Perhaps he used an offset-hole lensboard, unless he had a front-rise feature; likely the former, given the antique nature of his camera.
You don't really need a 47 filter, but simply something medium blue like an 82B ordinary conversion filter. With today's high contrast lenses, a 47 or 47B will darken greens into near blackness, even more than typical red filters,
and you'll end up with a harsh scene.

Halation is basically uncontrolled flare within the emulsion itself, so related. People who coat their own plates could replicate that.

The Ortho look is somewhat different, but also worth experimenting with.

But all the right tools in the world aren't going to re-create Atget. Plenty of wannabees have tried that already. Genius is hard to come by.

To this day, Ive had photographers in Paris and London, and even Los Angeles, contradict what I have repeatedly stated about using the proper kind of film curve for extreme brightness range scenes, like I routinely encountered
in the mountains, or here in the woods - often up to 12 stops of range. It seems they never work in clear air. And the urban air quality must have been considerably worse in the past in some of those major cities. Of course, I've run into significant amounts of forest fire smoke from time to time. And its amazing just how different a blue light exposure is than one involving a deep red filter.

There is plenty of agricultural burning in rural farmland areas, dramatically affecting air quality there too.

The atmosphere can be manipulated for esthetic purposed just like flare can be. I'm not claiming Atget premeditated of "previsualized" any of this, but that once he stumbled onto the secret - inevitably so given his scenes, equipment and materials - he gravitated to the same strategy over and over again. It's not necessarily difficult to do the same thing today; but his level and quality of composition itself is another question entirely.

 

[runswithsizzers]

44A filters are harder to source. You could check out FilterFind. That is where I got Wratten filters from. There are also equivalents, such as Kenko C series. Another filter I like to use for the blue sensitive film look is the #47 Tiffen. I have a video comparing the 80A with various filters for the blue/ortho look...

I have the necessary adapters for my three or four medium-format film cameras to use Series 5 filters, so I try to stick to that size whenever possible. Right now, in the Series 5 size, filterfind.net has some 80A and 80B, and a couple of "#10 blue-violet" filters, but nothing in a #47.

I am trying to work up enough courage to click on your video, but more often than not, videos cause me to break out in hives, so I usually try to avoid them. ;-)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have the necessary adapters for my three or four medium-format film cameras to use Series 5 filters, so I try to stick to that size whenever possible. Right now, in the Series 5 size, filterfind.net has some 80A and 80B, and a couple of "#10 blue-violet" filters, but nothing in a #47.

I am trying to work up enough courage to click on your video, but more often than not, videos cause me to break out in hives, so I usually try to avoid them. ;-)

Jump to 2 min 44 sec mark. I promise you won't get hives.

 

[runswithsizzers]

It's a combination of atmospheric haze or air pollution, accentuated or "thickened" by the blue-sensitive emulsion itself, plus deliberate lens flare (mostly toward the top for obvious reasons) due to the characteristics of his lens and how it has been offset vertically (and evident by running out of image circle at the top). Perhaps he used an offset-hole lensboard, unless he had a front-rise feature; likely the former, given the antique nature of his camera.

Thanks for that information. I had been wondering why some of Atget's photos have dark, semi-circle areas in the top corners. It is probably obvious to large format users, but it was not to me -- until you explained it!

You don't really need a 47 filter, but simply something medium blue like an 82B ordinary conversion filter. With today's high contrast lenses, a 47 or 47B will darken greens into near blackness, even more than typical red filters

Good to know -- thanks for the warning!

But all the right tools in the world aren't going to re-create Atget. Plenty of wannabees have tried that already. Genius is hard to come by.

Believe me when I say my ambitions fall far short of aiming to "re-create Atget"! As I said in my opening post, all I am trying to do is find out if it is possible to "borrow" some of the atmospheric haze I see in some of Atget's photos. ;-)

 

[cliveh]

With all due respect I think the title of the OP should be how to emulate the Atget look. Only Atget can achieve that look.

{Moderator note: title changed accordingly, as per OP ~request)

 

[runswithsizzers]

With all due respect I think the title of the OP should be how to emulate the Atget look. Only Atget can achieve that look.

You are correct!

As I tried to explain to @DREW WILEY in post #20, I am not trying to copy Atget to any great degree, so the title is somewhat misleading. In my defense, I did not write the title of this thread. The title was done by the moderator who created this thread from my post in another thread (@MattKing?).

The main objective of my inquiry is only to see if I can work a bit of the atmospheric haze I see in Atget's photos into my own photos. So maybe a better title would be something like, "Atget's Atmospheric Haze -- How Did He Do it?"

 

[Arthurwg]

By that, I asume you think the lens makes the most significant contribution to the atmospheric haze seen in Atget's photos?

Not so much that, but the general image has a 19th C. look, low contrast plus the slight vignetting in the corners. And if it is hazy you might get that too, especially against the light. Might be worth a try.

 

[cliveh]

I think the time of day had a lot to do with it. Some look like very early morning shots. Perhaps he couldn't sleep unless he was out there living his dream?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, Atget photographed mainly in the early morning hours, or at dawn, to take advantage of no people, and the soft light...
@runswithsizzers, I would just get my hands on some ortho film, or even that FPP 120 xray film...If you want to take advantage of no AH layer. I have a roll that I've been meaning to use. Are you planning on hand holding or using a tripod?