How to emulate the Atget look

[snusmumriken]

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

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

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?

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.

 

[Arthurwg]

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

I think you got that right.

 

[runswithsizzers]

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

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?

 

[runswithsizzers]

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?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Again, Atget was basically a stock photographer shooting and selling a variety of images. Not everything had the same dreamy surreal look which characterized his highly personal work of later years. In fact, probably everything which we know about his style through published or publicly displayed images has been selectively chosen by others for sake of interest.

It's pretty well known that the speed of plate and even film well into following decades didn't have the quality control we expect from our film today. But the contact print media itself, like albumen and printing-out paper, was quite malleable to excess negative density, unlike our silver gelatin enlarging papers. It's unlikely he did any of his own film coating; those days would have been well over. What we call "alt" media today were in mass production back then. But in this case, I don't know any of the specifics.

 

[snusmumriken]

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?

According to Wikipedia, he bought 180×240mm Bande Bleue plates, rather than coating his own. (But given how long he was active, I wonder whether that had always been the case?) According to an AI search I just did (so possibly unreliable!), Bande Bleue plates had a blue-tinted emulsion. I can't find any more information than that.

Wikipedia gives these references for Atget's use of these plates:
Hambourg, M.M. (1980). Eugène Atget 1857–1927: The Structure of the Work (PhD). Columbia University. pp. 66–74
Moore, Camille (2007). "An Analytical Study of Eugène Atget's Photographs at the Museum of Modern Art". Topics in Photographic Preservation. 12(28): 194–210

The second of these can be downloaded as a pdf if you search for it on Google Scholar. I've tried to attach it here, but not convinced it worked.