Uncoated lenses do contribute to that 'glow' as well.
-Fred
My opinion is that the older films used more silver. This seems to give them a 'rich' effect. Because everything is so cost driven today, I think the manufacturers have to figure out how to get buy with the least of everything, especially silver, as it is a very expensive component. The same holds true for papers. I loved the old Kodabromide back in the 50's. I have a hard time getting that kind of print today.
Just as it seems to an old guy!
Thanks Jim - 'total development' - sounds like the tag line on a Mercedes commercial! If I wanted to reproduce that effect would it be possible with modern materials/chemicals? Presumably negative density was purely down to exposure... I'd like to hear more about this. I read an article about Mortensen in which it is mentioned he put his negatives in the dev and then went off into town for the afternoon!
Because they're the only ones that get to be old?
When I was learning in the 30's most photographers kept their film developers and replenished as needed to maintain activity. Use of developer in a one-shot method was just too expensive in those depression days. This re-use process provided workers with plenty of well used developer.
D-23 rarely needed replenishment, but could be with D-25. D-76, and Panthermic 777 and I'm sure many other developers were commonly replenished. These are the ones with which I worked at the time.
Try it - you may like it.
IMHO, it isn't density, its gradation. More silver seems to allow a wider gradation. Ansel Adams Zone Systems gives ten stops range to films in his era. I find it hard to do that now. I would say 7-8 stops is all I can get from FP4 or HP5, and I consider those good films. I'm no chemist, in fact, I barely made it through chemistry in college, but I think the chemistry of the film, which includes amount of silver, has been compromised. As I say, just IMHO.I can blow highlights with modern films if I make a processing mistake. How much silver do you really need? Too dense is too dense.
i heard lucky films give that good ole' time glow!!
Could it also be that the 6x9's were all (or mostly) Verichrome or Verichrome Pan, which was a double-layered emulsion (and therefore harder to blow out or completely mess up exposure on, from what I've read)?
It predates my interest in photography, but there is a lot about it written here and elsewhere, and seemed to be the norm for box cameras and sometimes wedding photographers in its day.
also there weren't any D*****L cameras to foul everything up, computer programs to fix your mistakes. You had to actually KNOW HOW TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH. Seems like these days only the Europeans are carrying on that tradition. Americans seem lazy & demand instant satisfaction/perfection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?