How to emulate the Atget look

Don_ih said:

And I think it's because there was no haze to get. So I conclude Atget got haze in his photos when it was present.

And when it wasn't present, he didn't get it

View attachment 423401
Rue St. Rustique, Montmartre, 1922

Click to expand...

Agreed. And we'd expect the very blue-sensitive emulsion to show it for sure when it was there, yes?

runswithsizzers said:

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?

Click to expand...

Anyone know whether it's possible to distinguish halation from flair in Atget's photos? When I get veiling flare with modern coated lenses, the result is ugly degradation of broad and unpredictable areas, not the heartening glow that Atget got.

Don_ih said:

And I think it's because there was no haze to get. So I conclude Atget got haze in his photos when it was present.

And when it wasn't present, he didn't get it

Click to expand...

I think you got that right.

Don_ih said:

So I conclude Atget got haze in his photos when it was present. And when it wasn't present, he didn't get it

Click to expand...

I agree with your conclusion, but would add, it may also be that Atget's tools, materials and/or techniques exaggerated any haze present to appear more prominent in the photos compared to what we would expect today.

And also, it is possible that some of what appears to be haze in the photos may not be atmospheric haze, but rather due to film halation or lens flair. As previously mentioned, I have noticed that much 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 hazy atmosphere. You can see a little of this effect in the photo posted by @Don_ih in post #41 where the tree branches meet the sky.

Still, some / many of Atget's photos do not demonstrate this zone of low contrast haziness where solid subjects meet the skyline, so the effect was not totally mandated by his tools and materials. I will have to look more closely to answer the question, Does the zone-of-haze-effect appear more prominent when the lighting is contra jour, and is absent when the light is behind the camera?

I'd like to know more about the "film" (dry plates) Atget used. Does nayone know if photographers of his tim wer able to buy commercially produced dry plates, or if they somehow made their own? And if purchased, was there much variety in what was available?

In other words, how much variability was likely in the emulsions used by Atget?