How were portraits (like this) made in the 40's?

[bvy]

I found this estate sale portrait online, and I like everything about it -- the lighting, the pose, the print. I'm curious how it was created -- or more generally, how family photographers made portraits in the 40's (assuming that's when this was made).

As far as lighting, it looks like a hard key light camera left and not very high, a hair light (maybe?), and a rim light somewhere camera right. Hot lights? Subject's pupils are constricted.

The pose -- subject standing or seated? Hard to know probably.

And what about the print itself. What paper or process gave sepia tones likes this? And it looks like it was hand colored, but only the background?

And were photographers then more likely to work with medium format and make enlargements, or were they contact printing large format? The frame here is 11x14, so the print itself is probably only about 8x10.

Thanks for taking a look.

 

[faberryman]

I had my portrait taken several times as a child in the 1950's by a professional photographer. He used a 4x5. I got the negatives when he passed away about 15 years ago.

 

[mshchem]

Even in the 60's a lot of guys were still using 8x10 and contact printing. I think most all studio portraits were shot on 8x10 or 5x7. My Dad graduated high school in the late 30s, I have a beautiful 8x10 contact print, soft focus lens.
The only way you could get rid of zits was by retouching, people used huge negatives.

 

[mike c]

I guess back then, photographers did not like ears, always thought they were part of our heads.

 

[pentaxuser]

I guess back then, photographers did not like ears, always thought they were part of our heads.

These were Fred Picker ears to replicate different zones

pentaxuser

 

[mike c]

The photo must have been hand colored but the right ear is zoned out, must be one of those 3 zones known only by A.A. that Fred talked about.

 

[removed account4]

bvy
i trained with someone from thå† era
high key fill, hair and background light
they used a vignette to print through
not sure about the painting
its probably marshal oils ..
if they were IDK 20-25 years earlier
and made by "garo of boston" i'd tell you they
were probably multi color gum bichromate over platinum
he was a master of that .. and used to give lecture tours
throughout europe and england. was the first photographer to have
a show in the salon of london ( i think that was it ) and such a photographic
magician he was asked by george eastman to head the processing division of EK
he refused... trained karsh and eventually died penniless...

 

[tezzasmall]

What a lovely print!

The sepia tones really works on this.

As for the printing stage, I can only presume that either the whole print was developed normally and then some of the background bleached back to create the vignette. Or, the print was developed using a brush of some sort to develop just some of the print. Both prints would then have been sepia toned - and what a beautiful tone it is.

The background hand coloured bit is good, but it appears that the child's right ear has been lightened and then coloured with the background blue?!?!

What a find!

Terry S

 

[bvy]

Thanks for the responses. I'm almost interested enough to buy it and have a closer look. I agree the work around the right ear is a bit sloppy. That would be my only quibble.

 

[bvy]

I'd be interested in more thoughts on the toning/tinting. One person suggested (offline) that it was bleach redevelopment or sulfide toner, which seems reasonable. Could it be applied selectively? Also looks like brushwork on the background...

 

[tedr1]

A fine picture, I like it.

I can't answer the technical questions however one of my treasured possessions is a wonderful studio portrait of me as a toddler in the early 1950s. The lighting, focus, background, eye lights, facial expression, and the presentation of the mounted print are all admirable. My family was not rich, this was an ordinary "High Street" production however the results are fabulous quality.

 

[Wayne]

Ugh that's one fugly portrait. My father starting shooting portraits in the 40s or early 50s but I don't recall any done in this style. Unfortunately he torched all of his negatives so I'll never know. But I do know he largely used 4x5 by the late 50s and early 60s.

 

[BrianShaw]

http://sgarwood.com/node/52

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/30248/30248-h/30248-h.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=ant...skKrXAhUQ9mMKHQGGC84Q_AUIEygC&biw=414&bih=622

Crayon print, or crayon portrait.

It’s not analog; it’s hybrid.

 

[BrianShaw]

For what it is, it is a sweet (albeit unfinished) portrait.

I’d guess seated. I’d also guess a short hard-backed chair, probably with arms, rather than a stool. Definitely hot lights but lighting is hard to discern fully since the “colorist” may have altered that during the coloring process.

 

[dasBlute]

Hybrid, certainly. But working with charcoal/crayon/pencil, etc is as analog as it gets...

From the Oxford: "Not involving or relating to the use of computer technology, as a contrast to a digital counterpart."

Crayon print, or crayon portrait.
It’s not analog; it’s hybrid.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I found this estate sale portrait online, and I like everything about it -- the lighting, the pose, the print. I'm curious how it was created -- or more generally, how family photographers made portraits in the 40's (assuming that's when this was made).

As far as lighting, it looks like a hard key light camera left and not very high, a hair light (maybe?), and a rim light somewhere camera right. Hot lights? Subject's pupils are constricted.

The pose -- subject standing or seated? Hard to know probably.

And what about the print itself. What paper or process gave sepia tones likes this? And it looks like it was hand colored, but only the background?

And were photographers then more likely to work with medium format and make enlargements, or were they contact printing large format? The frame here is 11x14, so the print itself is probably only about 8x10.

Thanks for taking a look.

View attachment 189380

View attachment 189381

Formal portraits like this were usually taken with a LF camera probably an 10x12. I know having sat for several when I was young. The key as you mention is lighting which has largely become a lost art. You can't do this stuff with a cell phone as some think. There are a few good books from the 30's to 40's by Hollywood studio photographers which discuss lighting in detail.The print has been manipulated as there has been some dodging as was customary. Probably printed on warm tone paper.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hybrid, certainly. But working with charcoal/crayon/pencil, etc is as analog as it gets...

From the Oxford: "Not involving or relating to the use of computer technology, as a contrast to a digital counterpart."

touché!

 

[cowanw]

I was just framing some portrait prints I have and realized that I have a print exactly the same style and colouring of this down to the blue gray wash. Mine is by J. E. Mock of Rochester, Eastman's personal portrait photographer. He must have been a favorite as he wrote "Natural color photography by the Kodachrome process" published in 1935, the year Kodachrome came out. Looking closer I see that you have a credit on the mat of the photograph. What does it say?

 

[bvy]

I was just framing some portrait prints I have and realized that I have a print exactly the same style and colouring of this down to the blue gray wash. Mine is by J. E. Mock of Rochester, Eastman's personal portrait photographer. He must have been a favorite as he wrote "Natural color photography by the Kodachrome process" published in 1935, the year Kodachrome came out. Looking closer I see that you have a credit on the mat of the photograph. What does it say?

Interesting information. Thanks for that! The credit is Al Flournoy, Oklahoma City. A little casual research suggests he was active for many years. I found a few other prints of his in the form of bad thumbnails, though none appeared to be in this same style.

I'd be very interested in seeing the print you have.

 

[cowanw]

bvy, here is the photograph, although, the smudges on each side of the face don't come up as blue/green as on the print due to my digital handicaps.
Kindest Regards
Bill

 

[fotografnunta]

Very interesting photograph. We can see now from where photoshop took their filters

 

[jtk]

By the 60s most portrait studios relied on long roll 70mm for "school photos" though many continued to use large format for individual portraits (perhaps our example). This was surely shot B&W and hand colored (not a challenging art). Note the large catch lights: probably a spotlight. I think the kid's clothing suggests this was shot in the 40s.

Many photographers were skilled enough to retouch 120/70mm negs to deal with acne/scars right up until digital, where retouching requires just as much skill.

Some, in the 80s, used Polaroid P/N with Graflex cameras in county fair "old tyme" situations, giving an immediate proof print and subsequent enlargement.

A studio in San Francisco in the 70s shot with Polaroid P/N exclusively, retouching negative eyes with Kodak's "New Coccine" (a red dye) in order to produce bright-eyed portrait (which drew in customers).

https://125px.com/docs/unsorted/kodak2/e71.pdf

 

[voceumana]

To fade out into the background you vignetted during the printing process. Take a heavy cardboard sheet with an oval cut out, preferably with deckled edges on the hole (large sawtooth pattern to make the edges fuzzy) and move it up and down with the hole centered on the subject. The edges receive progressively less and less light, making them light.

The completed black and white print was then sepia toned (probably) or a warm-toned paper was used with a warm-tone developer; and the dried print was then hand colored with transparent oils specifically designed for coloring photographs. Colored pencils were also used for fine detail coloring. The materials are still available.

The portrait lighting has been explained.

 

[jtk]

Note that our dear friends at Kodak were teaching how to retouch NEGATIVES, color AND B&W (same sorts of techniques) in 1998 :

https://125px.com/docs/unsorted/kodak2/e71.pdf

 

[bvy]

Interesting stuff -- especially the document about retouching...

So I ended up buying the portrait shown above. I'm really curious to see how it's made, and just have a closer look at it.