Please, what (the hell) is this amazing 1940's film ?

[138S]

I had seen that image (bellow) before but only today I realized how amazing it is. I got atonished because that depth in the image is out of reach even for today's last model expensive gear... or at least it's really scarce, of course the focus/lens work plays also a big role...

So... what kodak transparency film it's this one ?

Any guess about the lens ?

Perskie made a sound job... many would like to have that "level" 75 years later, me at least.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fdrlibrary/8145288140/sizes/k/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fdrlibrary/8145288140

 

[Ian C]

Kodachrome sheet film from 1944. The same photo is identified as Kodachrome sheet film in the following Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome

If you click onto the photo in the Wikipedia article we get the additional information:

“Original color transparency of FDR taken at 1944 Official Campaign Portrait session by Leon A. Perskie, Hyde Park, New York, August 21, 1944. Gift of Beatrice Perskie Foxman and Dr. Stanley B. Foxman. August 21, 1944”

 

[brianmquinn]

Kodachrome

 

[StepheKoontz]

I love how the internet goes on and on about how shallow DOF pictures started "as a fad" in 2015. lol

 

[cjbecker]

Does it also have a little forward tilt?

 

[removedacct1]

I love how the internet goes on and on about how shallow DOF pictures started "as a fad" in 2015. lol

*chuckle*

 

[koraks]

Perskie made a sound job... many would like to have that "level" 75 years later, me at least.

The spot on the forehead is a little hot, as is the highlight on the white shirt, obliterating any detail there. It's a consequence of high-contrast film combined with suboptimal balancing of the kicker. Otherwise a fairly well executed and straightforward 3-light setup with a key, fill and a kicker.
Color balance would evidently be better on modern film; it's not clear to me if we're looking at dye degeneration due to age or if it's inherent to the film - or the scan/digitization, but the cyan crossover near the highlights is slightly annoying.
You could argue about if the slight detail in the wood paneling and back of the chair should be there or not, but I think it helps the image.
Film format looks to be 5x7" going by the aspect ratio; lens might have been something 360-420-ish. Well-corrected Tessar or a Dagor/Plasmat design; can't tell for sure, but I'd suspect the latter. Shot at around f/11 I'd say where the tessar/plasmat difference will be less apparent anyway.

That's what I would make of it based on a quick look anyway. Might be totally wrong on the technical details of course.

 

[railwayman3]

I love how the internet goes on and on about how shallow DOF pictures started "as a fad" in 2015. lol

Kodachrome at that time would be very slow by present day standards (I believe the original 35mm was 10ASA ?), so a large aperture with a lens suitable for LF, giving the minimum DOF as a matter of course, Probably no need for complicated lenses, just skill on the part of the photographer,

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I love how the internet goes on and on about how shallow DOF pictures started "as a fad" in 2015. lol

That is a result of the D crowd thinking they invented photography and using it as an excuse to buy expensive and semi- exotic equipment. And it is so much more fun to tell the internet world about your purchases as opposed to developing skill.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Either the ASA 10 Type B film or the daylight balanced ASA 8 film. Looks much like many other 1940's Kodachromes in terms of the slight fading. The Library of Congress has scanned and uploaded the 4x5 Kodachromes from the FSA/ OWI.

 

[koraks]

Aside from all the technical matters that are fun to think about, images like those remain fascinating in the way they show us some details of daily life that nobody ever bothered to record, simply because they were all taken for granted and probably not even consciously observed. And yet, they would surprise any of us, here in 2020, if we were to be able to walk into one of those scenes. The street signs, random bits of furniture, the finish on walls of buildings, the cranes used to load bales into ships, the footwear of an athlete, a little girl's doll - equivalents still exist today, but they have all changed, sometimes unrecognizable. That, for me, is the magic of those images. They provide the little details that my 1980s mind simply could not know, but that add color and depth to, let's say, reading a novel from the mid-20th century.

 

[138S]

The spot on the forehead is a little hot, as is the highlight on the white shirt, obliterating any detail there. It's a consequence of high-contrast film combined with suboptimal balancing of the kicker. Otherwise a fairly well executed and straightforward 3-light setup with a key, fill and a kicker.
Color balance would evidently be better on modern film; it's not clear to me if we're looking at dye degeneration due to age or if it's inherent to the film - or the scan/digitization, but the cyan crossover near the highlights is slightly annoying.
You could argue about if the slight detail in the wood paneling and back of the chair should be there or not, but I think it helps the image.
Film format looks to be 5x7" going by the aspect ratio; lens might have been something 360-420-ish. Well-corrected Tessar or a Dagor/Plasmat design; can't tell for sure, but I'd suspect the latter. Shot at around f/11 I'd say where the tessar/plasmat difference will be less apparent anyway.

That's what I would make of it based on a quick look anyway. Might be totally wrong on the technical details of course.

It may be difficult to know if the bright spot was intentional or a pitfall... Or a happy accident.

Personally I feel that anyway that bright spot a bit is a "surprise" for the observer that helps to hold attention in the image. Also I feel that it contains a subliminal message, suggesting that FDR had an extraordinary bright mind, while the face shows serious honesty that had to be of high value in those times, I also feel3D sensation adds autenticity.

Perhaps other candidates were/are more difficult to portray !

But I guess that this portrait is a lesson on photography.

 

[MattKing]

I note that the edge printing is backward - so is the image flipped?
The hot spot may also be related to how it was scanned.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I note that the edge printing is backward - so is the image flipped?
The hot spot may also be related to how it was scanned.

Notch code seems in the correct place - for whatever reason most of the sheet Kodachromes I've seen have the writing 'backwards'.

The spot on the forehead is a little hot, as is the highlight on the white shirt, obliterating any detail there. It's a consequence of high-contrast film combined with suboptimal balancing of the kicker. Otherwise a fairly well executed and straightforward 3-light setup with a key, fill and a kicker.
Color balance would evidently be better on modern film; it's not clear to me if we're looking at dye degeneration due to age or if it's inherent to the film - or the scan/digitization, but the cyan crossover near the highlights is slightly annoying.
You could argue about if the slight detail in the wood paneling and back of the chair should be there or not, but I think it helps the image.
Film format looks to be 5x7" going by the aspect ratio; lens might have been something 360-420-ish. Well-corrected Tessar or a Dagor/Plasmat design; can't tell for sure, but I'd suspect the latter. Shot at around f/11 I'd say where the tessar/plasmat difference will be less apparent anyway.

That's what I would make of it based on a quick look anyway. Might be totally wrong on the technical details of course.

There's another colour shot of FDR from the same session on that Flickr account - and by the looks of it, they're an attempt at bracketing an exposure - the other is quite a lot darker overall with no hot highlights.

FDR is however perspiring quite obviously in both - as would anyone being subjected to a few thousand watts of tungsten at pretty close range!

 

[Harry Lime]

I really miss Kodachrome.
IMO still the best looking color film ever made. (that and the 3-strip technicolor motion picture process.)

I used to shoot K64 and K200 until it was discontinued. My parents shot it as far back as the 1950's and those slides still look perfect.

But unfortunately we're never getting it back.

 

[Europan]

Image is right way. From other pictures that include his handkerchief pocket we know his left eye was a little heavier and that he wore the parting on the left.

 

[Neil Grant]

Does it also have a little forward tilt?

...a small tilt away from the shoulder closest to the camera. If the photographer allowed the opposite to happen then the shot would have a distinctly 'feminine' feel to it.

 

[138S]

...a small tilt away from the shoulder closest to the camera. If the photographer allowed the opposite to happen then the shot would have a distinctly 'feminine' feel to it.

I learned something interesting from your post.

 

[138S]

But unfortunately we're never getting it back.

Probably kodacrome can be well replicated on E-6. Not saying that this initiative would be profitable, but a close E-6 match should be possible.

 

[cjbecker]

...a small tilt away from the shoulder closest to the camera. If the photographer allowed the opposite to happen then the shot would have a distinctly 'feminine' feel to it.

Are you talking about tilt or swing? I assume swing.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

What a heck was op in thinking while dumping it in bw forum.
I also recommend to look at bw LF portraits before posting
Karsh was taking it in color on his nothing fancy in color:
Light is way more significant than gear in still portraits, btw.

 

[cowanw]

Are you talking about tilt or swing? I assume swing.

I think that tilt is a posing thing.

 

[MattKing]

What a heck was op in thinking while dumping it in bw forum.

Well, Kodachrome is actually a film built from three black and white emulsions .....

 

[Lachlan Young]

Probably kodacrome can be well replicated on E-6. Not saying that this initiative would be profitable, but a close E-6 match should be possible.

If you go for a hunt through past threads on here, you'll find Ron (Photo Engineer) explaining how E-6 could be modified to allow for a Kodachrome-alike film to be made, however it would be a highly involved engineering effort & would require the use of CD-6 rather than CD-3 etc. And that would be to get close to a K-14 film - the stuff we're looking at here pre-dates the K-11 process, let alone K-12. The important things to note are that the colours aren't really 'correct', but in general balance pleasingly to warm, with a bit of saturation. Greens can render a bit oddly with Kodachrome in general. Ektar 100 with a mild warming filter (and pushed a stop?) printed on a higher saturation paper might be an interesting starting point. Velvia 50 with some intelligent lighting colour control might also deliver some interesting results.

 

[mshchem]

Looks pretty good for a man with congestive heart failure, been president for almost 12 years, drank, smoked, and fooled around. I can't imagine how incredibly uncomfortable this must have been.
Pretty amazing technology, Kodachrome.