how to simulate 1920's film

hi,

how would I go about simulating film used by Kertesz in the 20's? A few samples:

http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/place_gambetta_apr_05.jpg

http://www.hasanpix.com/weblog/images/andre kertesz.jpg

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_911_163618_andre-kertesz.jpg

I figured, maybe the opposite of a Delta, high grain, low definition, what could it be?

Delta 3200?

Or just use a regular non-core-shell, like an hp5, 400 iso, pushed to 1200 iso and then accordingly developed?

Rollei retro? Bergger?

thanks

piero

MACO ORT 25. or Efke PL25. In plate sizes.

Ole said:

MACO ORT 25. or Efke PL25. In plate sizes.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

But why plate sizes?

Get a flux capacitor.

I know what you mean, I just picked up Lartigue book from the library over the weekend. I've seen this book many times and I forgot that there were old color images in there. Fascinating stuff! But I do love that old look in B&W's too.
Perhaps that's why I *tend* to print with slightly less contrast than most people like it.

pierods said:

Thanks.

But why plate sizes?

Click to expand...

Because that's what he used; and you won't get the smooth tonality with anything smaller than 6x9cm. So you may as well use a small plate or LF camera.

Ole said:

Because that's what he used; and you won't get the smooth tonality with anything smaller than 6x9cm. So you may as well use a small plate or LF camera.

Click to expand...

All righty, thanks

Piero: I use my old No.2 Folding Pocket Brownie..(6x9cm) and a Foma 400 Asa film......No push......Rodinal ....that is all.....

niels-erik

FP4+ or Tri-X ortho developed in Rodinal.

The light has more to do with it than the film.
Just shoot large, and pull.

It's the neg size. The the of gradation you just can't achieve on smaller negs. I'm sure many of these films were Ortho too. So try large format with a blue filter - or ortho film.

RoBBo said:

The light has more to do with it than the film.
Just shoot large, and pull.

Click to expand...

What is shooting large?

In 1928, Kertész switched from the usage of cameras with plates and moved on to a Leica, which he became accustomed to quickly.

Click to expand...

I think at least two of the pictures linked to in the OP are from plates, the one I'm unsure of is the plate and fork. But the DoF looks "odd", so I think that's from a plate camera with movements.

eric said:

Get a flux capacitor.

I know what you mean, I just picked up Lartigue book from the library over the weekend. I've seen this book many times and I forgot that there were old color images in there. Fascinating stuff! But I do love that old look in B&W's too.
Perhaps that's why I *tend* to print with slightly less contrast than most people like it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps people don't know what a Flux capacitor is for.
Explaining it would ruin it.:rolleyes:
Regards
Bill

Well, some of us know perfectly well what a Flux capacitor is, and what it's used for.
Cheers
Mads

The film has more to do with it than the light. (sorry Robbo)

The older films lacked acutance dyes, often were only ortho, and had a peculiar soft toe, soft shoulder mid scale bulge to them that is not replicated in any current film except a few from 3rd tier manufacturers.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

The film has more to do with it than the light. (sorry Robbo)

The older films lacked acutance dyes, often were only ortho, and had a peculiar soft toe, soft shoulder mid scale bulge to them that is not replicated in any current film except a few from 3rd tier manufacturers.

PE

Click to expand...

Like what manufacturers?

Photo Engineer said:

The film has more to do with it than the light. (sorry Robbo)

The older films lacked acutance dyes, often were only ortho, and had a peculiar soft toe, soft shoulder mid scale bulge to them that is not replicated in any current film except a few from 3rd tier manufacturers.

PE

Click to expand...

I was about to say, "well I guess I just don't see it then."
Until I realized a good deal of what I shoot is from those 3rd tier companies...
I guess once you're already using said film, the difference would be the light.
I didn't realize there was such a difference in the curve shape from old films to new ones, thought it was mostly grain, speed and acutance improvements.
Guess I should spend more time looking at my own images and thinking about what I made them with?

pierods said:

Like what manufacturers?

Click to expand...

I'm assuming he's talking about Efke, Foma and Forte, or the likes about them and their film manufacturing methods.
I think Lucky may be in the same realm but I'm not sure?
Oh, and by shoot large, I meant large formats, to maintain that smooth tonality.

RoBBo said:

I'm assuming he's talking about Efke, Foma and Forte, or the likes about them and their film manufacturing methods.
I think Lucky may be in the same realm but I'm not sure?
Oh, and by shoot large, I meant large formats, to maintain that smooth tonality.

Click to expand...

Got it, thanks

loman said:

Well, some of us know perfectly well what a Flux capacitor is, and what it's used for.
Cheers
Mads

Click to expand...

Getting the Flux Capacitor is easy. Getting your hands on a clean DeLorean on the other hand...

Photo Engineer said:

The film has more to do with it than the light. (sorry Robbo)

The older films lacked acutance dyes, often were only ortho, and had a peculiar soft toe, soft shoulder mid scale bulge to them that is not replicated in any current film except a few from 3rd tier manufacturers.

PE

Click to expand...

In addition to the film the taking lenses were uncoated and less contrasty. Ron mentions the film but also the papers of the time were equally as different.

I've seen quite a lot of Kertesz's work over the years including two major exhibition. One exhibition was of modern prints made from the original negatives while these prints were good they had little of the feel & quality of the prints in a Barbican, London exhibition. The Barbican images were Kertesz's much smaller original prints made on papers available the time. The difference was quite amazing the prints made on papers of similar vintage as the negatives had far greater depth, and a jewel like feeling.

So in reality to emulate the feel of those images you have to take into account the changes in film, papers, lenses and also another aspect developing techniques.

Ian

You can use Bergger 200 : it's like the old Kodak XX. Very beautiful film. I realize all my portraits with this film !

I was thinking about this post last night, (shows you how exciting my life is; doesn't it?!!) The subject matter is also very different to what we see now. Photos of, say, Paris today will look vastly different to a photo of Paris today - whatever equipment and materials you use. A large part of the "feel" of photographs taken back then are the historical interest - car models, fashions etc. If you look at some of Ansel Adam's images of, say, Yosemite they don't have a nostalgic feel to them and look very much like images taken there today.
Just thought.

Bob

Since 25 years I am collecting artificial important old original negatives - the Archiv of the Unknown Photographer. Looking as a expert for AgHal to old negatives, what is the difference to new?

Quality 1900-1940, normal speed glasplates: Very grainy (with tendence of pepperfog), low shadow detail - sometimes fogging aspects in the toe of gradation. To simulate this, you must use the badest 400 ISO film of today. Next is: developing in old times orrtho or pan-films, in this time the effect of sensi-dyes come up only in the last minutes of developing, the gradation curve for blue - green - red - is different, and the diffusion-phenomena in blue green red is different. Playing with these in photoshop digital, perhaps you can restore a digital negative.

Quality 1910-1930 from stereo 45x107mm glasnegatives (stereo-photographer were -seen by statistic- more carefull than the crowd), fine grain developing: quite near or a little bit better than a good standard 400 ISO (not the fine grain TMax) in normal developer.

Speed in 1890-1930 on films: a difficult thema, perhaps you know the Kodak Panorama for 120 rollfilm. To use this camera (when in perfect, original condition with correct shutter-time) today, you need normally on a sunny day a minimum 100 ISO film. On some nitrocellulosefilms or sheets of this time there seems to be a better shadow-speed, depending of the diffusion of the gases of the nitrocellulose, acting for the AgHal-emulsion like a gas-hypersensitation. Nitrocellulose as film was cancelled -mostly- after 1950.

A word to enhanced negatives: In this time uranium was used, thuch old negatives looks very yellow-orange, the touch-feeling of this old negatives is very unhealthy, I do not like them.

ian

the book -- Kertesz - The early years
is a reprint of his earliest photographs
they are tiny and mesmerizing

i can only imagine seeing them in person ...


john

Ian Grant said:

In addition to the film the taking lenses were uncoated and less contrasty. Ron mentions the film but also the papers of the time were equally as different.

I've seen quite a lot of Kertesz's work over the years including two major exhibition. One exhibition was of modern prints made from the original negatives while these prints were good they had little of the feel & quality of the prints in a Barbican, London exhibition. The Barbican images were Kertesz's much smaller original prints made on papers available the time. The difference was quite amazing the prints made on papers of similar vintage as the negatives had far greater depth, and a jewel like feeling.

So in reality to emulate the feel of those images you have to take into account the changes in film, papers, lenses and also another aspect developing techniques.

Ian

Click to expand...