Image "How was it done?" Question

[Jim Noel]

What a beautifully done portrait obviously from teh 1920's as evidenced by the dress.

NO doubt a studio portrait. Most likely lit by skylight with controls for brightness and possibly a reflector to soften the contrast. It appears much like those made with a 12" Wollensak II, stopped down no more than one stop.

In my very early youth one of the highlights of my life was to visit A.J.Thuss, a portrait photographer who worked in this manner. He would set up the big 16x20 or 11x14 studio camera utilizing one or the other of his dividing backs so he could get 4, or more images on one sheet of film. Now that was confidence in exposure knowledge. Development was not a problem because he did his own by inspection.

As for the printing process, I find it hard to specify because the color may not be true on the screen, it could have shifted over the years, and other factors. I suspect it was printed on a warm tone paper and toned, but like everyone else, I am just guessing.

This image is a real prize!! Thank you for sharing it with us.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Definitely some handwork on the negative with pencil there. It was standard to smooth out any lines on the face and neck, retouch any blemishes, and bring up the values on the cheekbones a bit, enhancing the lighting from the skylight that is visible in the catchlights in her eyes. It was also common to lighten the irises, but I don't think that was done here.

Albumen was common for cabinet cards from the 1870s-90s, but would be fairly unusual for the 1920s, and is usually identifiable as a print on thin paper mounted to heavier cardstock, which isn't this.

 

[Jim Jones]

The lower portion of the image was probably also vignetted out.

The vignetting could be done easily and well in-camera with a suitable attachment. We now think of vignetting as being done all around the subject. With good a commercial or home-built vignetting system, the vignetting could be applied in any area to any degree. The lightness of the bottom could be due to a little too much light on the vignetter. It is a fine portrait of a striking subject.