That pre-war, 1930s look.

[Woolliscroft]

I was recently approached by a local village history society. They have been collecting old photographs of the area and are taking modern pictures of the same places for comparison. They ultimately want to create a wider archive of modern pictures for local historians of the future and are mostly using B&W because of its long keeping life over colour (and almost certainly digits).

The reason they approached me was to recruit the help of my 1930s Leica IIIa and equally antique un-coated, 5cm (it is very particular about this) lens. They want to try to take some pictures of the modern village, which will have the look of pre-war images. I am not normally a fan of the retro look and know absolutely nothing about this. The lens usually lives in a drawer and, although I like the camera itself, as it is so small, I use it with modern Voigtländer lenses. But it strikes me that the camera and lens will only go part of the way. The film of the time must have had a big role in the look of the final result. Does anyone have any idea if any modern film might have something of the same characteristics? Failing that, might a blue filter help? From looking at old photos, I notice that the background in outdoor shots seems to burn out quite badly at relatively close range, which suggests that the films were over blue (and possibly UV) sensitive. Fairly grainy film will also presumably be a plus.

Many thanks for any advice. David.

 

[Ole]

There are none of the 1930's films left in the market today, but you could try either ADOX /EFKE KB25 or some kind of ortho film. Develop in Rodinal for maximum grain...

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

We sometimes forget that panchromatic films were not a novelty in the 30s, having been invented in the earliest days of the twentieth century. However, it is also true that a lot of customer ortho film was still in use. In addition to Ole's suggestion, you might want to try Foma or Forte films.

As part of your toolchain you want to look also at papers and enlarging lenses, as they contribute to the final appearance of the product. Wasn't it sometimes recommended to use the camera lens as enlarging lens? Toners are also another tool to consider.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another vote for Forte. Take a look at the free 'Saving Money' module in the Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com, where the first pic was shot on Forte: grainy, unsharp and tonally gorgeous in the vintage fashion. Pan films were common by the mid-30s, so that ain't a problem.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Most glossy prints from that era were ferrotyped to get the high gloss.

Some had deckled edges. Some had fancy designs in the borders. Few films were panchromatic.

Most everyone in the 30s used a MF or LF camera with roll film not 35mm. These were the box brownies and others. Therefore, the suggestion for coarse grain for 35mm might sound reasonable, but 620 and 616 film sizes gave rather good grain in the 20s and 30s. The 4x5 was very nice.

I think that flare, lack of AH backing in many cases, and the large format contributed. You may want to talk to a conservator at GEH. They regularly take staged 20s and 30s pictures. They look so realistic it would fool you or most anyone else. They do it to help train new conservators and museum managers to detect fakes.

PE

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

PE, out of curiosity, what criteria can the curators use to spot fakes? Is it only physico-chemical analysis that can discriminate between a real antique and a modern work if the latter is made with as much era tools as possible?

 

[Uncle Bill]

Go with the Fortepan 400 expose at 320 and process in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes. Especially this time of year you will get some nice moody shots.


Bill

PS I shot both photos below with a Leica M3 with a 50 f2 Collapsable Summicron.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I've been told that the paper is a dead giveaway to an expert as is the ferrotyping. Ferrotyping is a nearly lost art, especially the way it was done 90 years ago or so.

The Baryta finish and the type of tints are also indicators, but don't go by my comments at all. I'm no expert. I just listen in when these guys start talking.

I was very privileged to be given a private showing of a talk one of the curators gave at an international show in Tokyo last month. He was showing me how to distinguish between machine made and hand made glass slides for example, and some of these other things. We went on for over 2 hours.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I forgot...

Subject movement or blur. Due to the slow films back then, there was usually a lot of subject movement evident in pictures. That is one of the big things.

You see how little I know? I can only parrot what they say and only if I remember it.

PE

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I would ditto the sentiment that documentary photographs of the village and surrounding area would likely be taken with what we know today as medium or large format.

The big questions to ask of those seeking to recreate this "look" are: spectral response and lens design. My opinion is that film spectral response plays a bigger part in this "look" than does lens design if you are referring specifically to landscape images, where most objects are medium to far distances from the camera, and lighting is bright such that the lens is not operating near wide open. If this were portraiture or other subjects where the lens is operating at a wider aperture, then lens design (i.e. off-axis abberations and 'bokeh') play a bigger part of the image's final look.

If you can have a look at some of the images they are attempting to recreate, study the sky in outdoor landscapes and see if you can see cloud details against darker gray, or is it totally washed out to a bright whiteness, which would be indicative of some degree of orthochromatic emulsion. You may also notice skin tones of people outdoors will appear much darker than what we are used to with modern, red-sensitive panchro emulsions.

Granularity and other film emulsion artifacts are less likely to be evident in these older images, due to larger negative sizes and little or no enlargement. I'm still amazed every time I step into a National Park visitors center or museum and see a display of reprints from old, large format images of the American Southwest; their level of sharpness, detail and lack of granularity is striking. And most of them are ortho in tonal range (i.e. blown out white skies and dark skintones).

My recommendation, based strickly on personal bias, is to have these images shot on large format using grade 2 RC paper negatives. These can be scanned and printed digitally, and also 4"x5" paper negatives can be enlarged onto traditional silver gelatin paper with a surprising degree of detail and clarity.

But a Leica IIIa? Unless they can demonstrate that this specifically was the lens and format used in the original images, I would be doubtful.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Go with the Fortepan 400 expose at 320 and process in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes. Especially this time of year you will get some nice moody shots.


Bill

PS I shot both photos below with a Leica M3 with a 50 f2 Collapsable Summicron.

Bill;

In the 30s, shots like these would show cloud movement and automobile movement. Films would be so slow (ISO 5 - 20) and lenses so poor that you would be talking about 10 - 20 seconds if not longer at f4.5 or 5.6 if you were lucky and reciprocity (bad in that era) didn't hit you hard. There would be light flare like on a foggy night haloing the lights.

The very yellow automobile lamps combined with ortho films would give you very dim illumination and you would not see the red tail lights of cars going the other way.

I am not commenting on the quality of your pix, per se, but rather of the period feel I get having seen a lot of my family's old stuff here and at the exhibits at GEH.

PE

 

[Roger Hicks]

Bill;

In the 30s, shots like these would show cloud movement and automobile movement. Films would be so slow (ISO 5 - 20) and lenses so poor that you would be talking about 10 - 20 seconds if not longer at f4.5 or 5.6 if you were lucky and reciprocity (bad in that era) didn't hit you hard.
PE

Dear PE,

Of course you can't directly compare speeds (different speed criteria) but by 1934 Agfa Superpan and Selo Hyper Panchromatic were around ASA 25 equivalent (Kodak Panatomic was around 4 ASA equivalent) and by the late 30s Agfa Ultra Speed was over ASA 160 equivalent insofar as I have been able to determine. These were 'super speed' films but ASA 100 equivalent was fairly widespread by the late 30s: Perutz Peromnia, Gevaert Panchromosa, Kodak SS Pan. Even Pan X was 15 Weston (16 ASA) by the late 30s.

I am not sure whether these figures allow for the great readjustment of 1959-60 when the safety factor was eliminated. If they do, all these ASA figures can be doubled (which seems likely).

You know far more about sensitometry than I, but I thought it worth throwing in these figures; I have myself been taken to task for suggesting that ancient films were slower than was in fact the case.

On the other hand, Panatomic in an Odell physical developer probably didn't reach 1 ASA.

Cheers,

R.

 

[athanasius80]

When printing, I'd try using somewhat less contrast than modern printing (eg no total black) and a warmtone FB paper to mimic paper yellowing and print fading. It always fools my friends. :0)

 

[copake_ham]

Leaving the technical issues to the experts - I'd like to explore a bit the "ethics" of this project.

I don't think there is anything wrong with making new pics look "vintage" as an artistic endeavor. But why in 2006 (almost 2007) would you want to make present day photos in the style of the 1930's if they are to serve as an archive for the local historical society?

The pictures taken in the 1930's undoubtedly used the best technology available at the time. Why not do the same now as a record of what the town was like 75 or so years later?

At the least, I would "parallel" all of the shots. Taking identicals, one using the "old style" the other using "state of the art". And I would certainly document very carefully to note that the "vintage" shots were done in a deliberately older style than what was possible at the time they were taken.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

By all means use the Leica... it was certainly an au courant camera for its day. The film choices available today would also be fine, given that you stick to a "traditional" emulsion and not a t-grain film. A lot of the look will come from the paper - they don't make gaslight paper anymore, but you can emulate the look to a certain degree with warmtone paper developed in a warmtone developer. As PE said, the ferrotyping is a big factor which is very hard to duplicate these days - I'd aim to underexpose my film a little, to get those deep black detail-less shadows that were common in many prints from that period.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Roger;

You are right, of course. My comment was a generalization picking a rather centrist position for speed and I didn't correct for all of the different speed ratings either, I just 'winged' it. But you understood my point because the ranges you mention are close to mine. The Odell one, I never heard of though, but I agree there too considering that it was a physical developer.

I think that if we listed out every film of the time, we would be surprised at the wide variety available, but just consider how common the cutting edge films would be to the average person... In the USA, Agfa Ansco was the source of most films from Agfa, and they lagged in producing the most modern products. Even in the 60s, Ansco was producing formulas that were pretty much from the 40s.

Cutting edge large and medium format film was very expensive considering the incomes of the time. People shot economy film, so another ingredient in this would be "is this job to be one simulating a professional or an amateur?"

This would add to the quality considerations and the type of camera and lens as well as film. Some of the lenses were f8. I have a camera of that era that is semi professional and the lens was quite good, but has a pretty small maximum f stop.

We could discuss this forever, and never get the real story out. What the OP needs is the advice of a real pro such as those guys at GEH. They can tell him exactly what to do.

PE

 

[Woolliscroft]

I would ditto the sentiment that documentary photographs of the village and surrounding area would likely be taken with what we know today as medium or large format.

If you can have a look at some of the images they are attempting to recreate, study the sky in outdoor landscapes and see if you can see cloud details against darker gray, or is it totally washed out to a bright whiteness, which would be indicative of some degree of orthochromatic emulsion. You may also notice skin tones of people outdoors will appear much darker than what we are used to with modern, red-sensitive panchro emulsions.

But a Leica IIIa? Unless they can demonstrate that this specifically was the lens and format used in the original images, I would be doubtful.

Firstly, thanks everyone for such a quick response. Joe, I think me and my Leica were asked aboard simply because this was the only working camera of the right era they knew about locally. I actually also have a kodak medium format folder of the same period, which would probably be more typical of the average person's camera (Leicas never were cheap) but its shutter died many years ago and I just use it as an ornament. As for detail in the sky, no, there seems to be none to speak of. In a lot of the pictures I have seen, you are lucky to see the end of the street before the distance burns out even when the foreground is well exposed. That is why I was asking about the blue and UV sensitivity of old films and whether a blue filter might help get the old look. I recently printed a load of mostly 127 format WWII photos taken by my (German) wife's grandfather who was an air force signals officer in Russia and they show a similar character with the negs blocking up on the background. Interestingly, by the end of the war he was using a 6 x 9 camera (both formats were on Agfa film) with a much less sharp lens and these shots don't produce this effect with distance.

I can reassure George on the ethical question. They are doing their modern archive shots with modern equipment and materials. From what I can gather they just want to try this mimicing of the look at the old pictures they are collecting as a way of educating the eye. Old pictures do have a different look even when you are comparing old B&W with modern B&W, rather than colour. The idea is that if you show today's world looking like that, when we know it doesn't, it will stop people subconsiously thinking of the past as a sort of dream world, rather than somewhere just as real as our own day.

David.

 

[Photo Engineer]

David, a large percentage of films of that day were only UV Blue sensitive, and some were UV Blue Green sensitive. Most lenses were not coated and many admitted a fair amount of UV.

This was the basis of my response.

Most emulsions had 'odd' curves compared to today's products.

Only people used to doing that type of work could advise you properly.

Best of luck.

PE

 

[copake_ham]

.....

I can reassure George on the ethical question. They are doing their modern archive shots with modern equipment and materials. From what I can gather they just want to try this mimicing of the look at the old pictures they are collecting as a way of educating the eye. Old pictures do have a different look even when you are comparing old B&W with modern B&W, rather than colour. The idea is that if you show today's world looking like that, when we know it doesn't, it will stop people subconsiously thinking of the past as a sort of dream world, rather than somewhere just as real as our own day.

David.

David,

Thanks for noting this, I am really glad to hear that is the case.

I wish you tons of success in the project, it sounds like a lot of fun and commend you to the real techinical experts here, particularly PE and Roger.

Both of whom I'd love to see some day discussing these kinds of things in person with in a real time exchange of ideas and opinions.

 

[jimgalli]

Most of the time what seperates a new look from an old one is the smoothness of the tonality from the LF cameras that were the norm. Our modern lenses are too sharp and too contrasty to duplicate the look. Couple a Wollensak Velostigmat and an 8X10 and you will easily begin to make photos indistinguishable from their 1930's counterparts. Like comparing a massive straight eight flathead with a tiny turbocharged 4 cyl. They both make 160 hp but it just happens differently.

 

[phfitz]

David,

To get that look, you can do what they did back then; over-expose AND over-develope then print it on grade 0 paper. Kodaks recommendations from 1945:

Panatomic X 25 speed x D76 for 11 - 14 min @ 68F
Plus X 50 speed x D76 13 - 16 min @ 68F
Super XX 100 speed x D76 16 - 20 min @ 68F
Verichrome 50 speed x D76 13 - 17 min @ 68F
Tri X 200 speed, not offered on in roll film only sheets.

The over-exposed would burn out the background and sky, the over-developed would increase the grain.

Have fun with your project.

 

[Roger Hicks]

David,

To get that look, you can do what they did back then; over-expose AND over-develope then print it on grade 0 paper. Kodaks recommendations from 1945:

Panatomic X 25 speed x D76 for 11 - 14 min @ 68F
Plus X 50 speed x D76 13 - 16 min @ 68F
Super XX 100 speed x D76 16 - 20 min @ 68F
Verichrome 50 speed x D76 13 - 17 min @ 68F
Tri X 200 speed, not offered on in roll film only sheets.

The over-exposed would burn out the background and sky, the over-developed would increase the grain.

Have fun with your project.

An excellent point, especially about overexposure, but bear in mind that with uncoated camera lenses, often high camera body flare factors, and uncoated enlarging lenses, a great deal of contrast was also lost in the system. Assume a flare factor of 3 at the taking stage (currently just above 1 with an LF camera and MC lens) and a subject brightness range of 128:1 (log range 2.1) was reduced to a projected image brightness range of just over 40:1 (log range 1.6) so for a negative log density range of 1.2 (to allow for enlarger flare) you'd need a MUCH higher gamma than with a modern camera/lens/enlarger combination.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gainer]

My experience with Super XX was that the long D-76 time was not overdevelopment. Those emulsions were much thicker than the later ones, and required a longer time just to get started. Over exposure is another question. The box speeds were determined by the old ASA method, which generally gave half the later ISO method. Most photographers with light meters realized this fact and exposed Super XX at 200, or took a shadow reading and set the meter at 800 or 1000. It was called "available light photography" then.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

Paper Negative Landscape Example

Here are several examples of outdoor images shot with grade 2 RC paper in a pinhole camera. A glass lens camera would give superior image definition at the expense of reduced depth of focus.

The first image is the Sandstone Overlook at El Malpais National Monument, in western New Mexico, while the second is an older neighborhood near Halloween. The ortho nature of these paper negatives gives these images an old-style feel.

 

[Alan Johnson]

PE remarked that flare,the lack of AH backing in many cases,and the large format contributed.
Here it is noted that Lucky 100 and 400 halate a fair bit:
www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19630
Perhaps find a 120 folding camera on ebay and tape a blue filter on it?