how to simulate 1920's film

[Ian Grant]

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

John

When you see them in real life they are small, but they don't suffer from that in fact it enhances them. Too many people over enlarge and should try printing smaller images.

If you get a chance to see original Kertesz prints your whole perception of the importance of enlarging will change.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

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?


I dont think you want to push at all, loss of shadow details, my best guess is Ortho 4X5, older uncoated lens, develope in Dektol 1:9 by inspection under a red safelight print on Slavich warm tone and tone.

 

[CBG]

I don't know if the plates / films Kertesz used in the 20s were panchromatic or not. But a search tells me panchromatic materials were available from 1906 or so. Regardless, if you seek an orthochromatic (blue and green sensitive) or blue only sensitive look, cyan or blue filters will make your materials act ortho or blue sensitive respectively, should you seek that.

C

 

[DannL]

I think BobNewYork said it best. And to add, if you really want that 1920's feel in your photographs, you need to go back in time. I'll go with you, cuz I'm perty tired of the present.

I would like to pose a challenge, open to everyone. Using the fork and bowl photograph as an example . . .

1. Create a "photograph" (on photographic paper) that replicates the "look and feel" of the "Fork and Bowl" photograph using traditional chemical based photographic techniques. (no digital teaking beyond automatic scanner features)
2. Post your results in this thread.
3. Explain in detail how you accomplished the task.

I really need a challenge. Any takers beyond myself?

 

[Trask]

One additional point: I recently saw the Steiglitz exhibit here in Paris, with photos going back to the 20's. I was interested to note that in many many of his photos, the "blacks" are not truly black. I happened to have a black umbrella with me, and comparing its real black to the prints showed that the deepest tones on most Steiglitz photos was a deep grey, but not black. It must have been a deliberate choice, for aesthetic reasons.

 

[Ole]

I think BobNewYork said it best. And to add, if you really want that 1920's feel in your photographs, you need to go back in time. I'll go with you, cuz I'm perty tired of the present.

I would like to pose a challenge, open to everyone. Using the fork and bowl photograph as an example . . .

1. Create a "photograph" (on photographic paper) that replicates the "look and feel" of the "Fork and Bowl" photograph using traditional chemical based photographic techniques. (no digital teaking beyond automatic scanner features)
2. Post your results in this thread.
3. Explain in detail how you accomplished the task.

I really need a challenge. Any takers beyond myself?

I'll give it a try.

 

[Ian Grant]

One additional point: I recently saw the Steiglitz exhibit here in Paris, with photos going back to the 20's. I was interested to note that in many many of his photos, the "blacks" are not truly black. I happened to have a black umbrella with me, and comparing its real black to the prints showed that the deepest tones on most Steiglitz photos was a deep grey, but not black. It must have been a deliberate choice, for aesthetic reasons.

Yes and still far more tones than many modern prints

Ian

 

[jd callow]

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

It seems to me that the the contrast in the fork picture would indicate a slight push.

 

[DannL]

I'll give it a try.

Excellent. I guess I should have asked for Piero's permission prior to hijacking the thread. Now . . . where did I put that fork?

 

[BobNewYork]

Or he printed on old paper

 

[jimgalli]

I won't have the opportunity to prove concept for a couple of weeks but just looking at the fork and bowl picture, my approach would be Freestyle APHS ortho lith film @ asa 3 and I would use my 12" or 14" Cooke Aviar on the 6.5 X 8.5 camera. Any good fibre paper would suffice I think. Azo comes to mind of course, or better yet, Gevaert Contactone.

 

[gainer]

Whatever means of measuring exposure he might have had, there were rules like "Sunny 16", but in those days it was "Sunny 11". The ASA ratings, some will remember, were on average only half what the same films were rated 30 or 40 years later. I had Super XX at 100 as the fastest available ca. 1050. It became 200 without changing actual speed.

 

[Ole]

I'm thinking 13x18cm glass plate, 10x8" Gandolfi Traditional, and a 15cm Heliar...

 

[DannL]

I'm thinking 13x18cm glass plate, 10x8" Gandolfi Traditional, and a 15cm Heliar...

Thanks. I was thinking something more on the lines of an afternoon nap on the sofa, first. Then, I'll have the wife make me a sandwich after that . . . .

 

[removed account4]

John

When you see them in real life they are small, but they don't suffer from that in fact it enhances them. Too many people over enlarge and should try printing smaller images.

If you get a chance to see original Kertesz prints your whole perception of the importance of enlarging will change.

Ian

ian

that is exactly what i thought after reading the book.
the images were jewel like, i would love to see them in person.

john

 

[rippo]

i'm pretty sure this image of mine was inspired by the Kertesz image. it's more a parady than an homage. boring old 35mm though on modern film...

 

[Samuel Hotton]

In 1928, Kertész bought his first Leica, La Fourchette (The Fork) was shot in 1928. Might he have used a Leica to produce this image?

The image looks to me to be from a 9x12cm plate. I would find it hard to believe it was from a Leica I (A), though possible.

Sam H.

 

[jd callow]

The lens appears to be normal in length and the DOF seems too shallow for 50mm. Grain or lack of would also indicate a larger format.

 

[pierods]

Excellent. I guess I should have asked for Piero's permission prior to hijacking the thread. Now . . . where did I put that fork?

Well actually i was hoping the thread would go this way, but I would not dare asking people to take pictures on my behalf...

 

[DannL]

Well actually i was hoping the thread would go this way, but I would not dare asking people to take pictures on my behalf...

Super! BTW I did find my fork.

This project is much more detailed than one would imagine. As Samuel put it, I am using the 9x12 format, but of course anyone taking up the challenge can use any traditional equipment desired. I now have "in hand" two exquisite 9x12 negatives, even I am impressed. But, my challenge is "on paper", so maybe tomorrow we'll have something tangible.

Matt's version there, definitely has potential. What was in that bowl, originally?

 

[Harry Lime]

- Uncoated lens. Pick an old optical formula, like the Tessar or a meniscus etc. Tessars are easy to find and look very period.

- Large negative, 6x6 minimum; unless you are imitating a screwmount Leica.

- Orthochromatic film. Does not see the entire color spectrum.
Efke, ADOX, Ilford (?)

- Modern emulsion with a very pale blue filter. I would stay away from Tri-X, because it's grain structure is so recognizable and it wasn't introduced until after WWII.

- 'Lucky' film from China may be the only emulsion still in production, that doesn't have an antihalation backing, so the highlights bloom. Not sure if it is panchromatic...

- Rodinal, D23 or Stoekler 2 bath developer

- Hot lights, no flashes, no commercial softboxes (but other diffusion is ok. Just imagine it's 1925)

- enlarger with uncoated, period lens

- Find a vintage type paper and period developer

 

[Jerevan]

I think the "enlarger with uncoated, period lens" is a pretty good starting point. The old uncoated Varob I had on the Leitz, coupled with some Ilford varmtone semi-matt paper made things look pretty different. Unfortunately, I have neither copies nor enlarger in my possession anymore...

 

[Ole]

- Uncoated lens. Pick an old optical formula, like the Tessar or a meniscus etc. Tessars are easy to find and look very period.

"Old optical formula" includes everything except the Super Symmar XL's (which are derived from old optical formulas), zoom lenses and retrofocus wideangle lenses, which aren't used for LF anyway.

It's been a strangely busy day for me, even if I've been online here all day, so I didn't get around to taking my shot in the 2 1/2 hours of useable daylight today. I'll try again tomorrow.

 

[Harry Lime]

"Old optical formula" includes everything except the Super Symmar XL's (which are derived from old optical formulas), zoom lenses and retrofocus wideangle lenses, which aren't used for LF anyway.

True. ;-)

What I was getting at is that during the pre-war period you saw more Sonnar, Tessar, Anastigmat type lenses etc. The Planar has been around for a little over 100 years I think, but didn't really take off until after the war when coating solved the flare problems etc. And you certainly didn't see anything like the Leica 50 Summilux ASPH around, which is a derivative of an old design, but does add some new ideas.

 

[jimgalli]

I think a Goerz Syntor would be perfect for this problem. Anyone seen one for sale anywhere? It would have the kertesz look in spades.