Why are old negs so good?

fschifano · Aug 4, 2008

Nah. I think it was the dry plate that messed things up. Roll film only acellerated the decline.

apochromatic · Aug 4, 2008

I feel like I've turned over an interesting stone here - thanks for your informed responses so far but I think ... the truth is out there

Paul Verizzo · Aug 4, 2008

fschifano said:
Nah. I think it was the dry plate that messed things up. Roll film only acellerated the decline.

If only we had stayed with Daguerrotypes!

removed account4 · Aug 4, 2008

Rolleijoe said:
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.

Rolleijoe:

i just got back from europe ... most people i saw didn't use film.
and when i went into camera-stores looking for fixer ...

i don't think it is an "american problem" ...

John Shriver · Aug 4, 2008

Remember that in 1940, the pretty much "standard" developing time for all Kodak roll films was 17 minutes in D-76 at 68F. Even with emulsions where it took a lot more time to diffuse the developer in (the emulsion was thick with Gelatin), those are going to be developed to a high Dmax with a Contrast Index of 0.65 or more.

Also, that shows why DK-50 was quite popular then, it was "fast working", you could get the same look in 8 to 10 minutes.

Akki14 · Aug 5, 2008

I vote for uncoated lenses... If only because I took this photo last night. Bright halogen light not very far away. Lens is... I'm not sure how old but it has a pat. date on it of 1903.. we think the camera is about 1920s.

HP5, EI800, Rodinal 1+25 8minutes, crap negative scan of 4x5 film on a flatbed.

apochromatic · Aug 5, 2008

glow not flare!

Thanks Akki and I take the point about uncoated lenses. Perhaps my description was misleading because the glow I'm referring to appears to be a quality of the negative itself rather than lens flare, however yours is an extreme example.
I'm going to have a look at D-23 with HP5 or FP4 and see what comes out of that. I still suspect the physical depth of the emulsion plays a big part.

Paul Verizzo · Aug 5, 2008

I think I remember my father telling me that people used to get their lenses coated as a service after coating came out. That would be in the fifties and sixties. You would send in your Rollei or Leica or whatever, they would dissasemble the lens, coat the elements, and reassemble. (Try THAT with a modern zoom!) Now your Tessar was as good as the new ones.

Does that sound right?

Paul Howell · Aug 5, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
I think I remember my father telling me that people used to get their lenses coated as a service after coating came out. That would be in the fifties and sixties. You would send in your Rollei or Leica or whatever, they would dissasemble the lens, coat the elements, and reassemble. (Try THAT with a modern zoom!) Now your Tessar was as good as the new ones.

Does that sound right?

I have after coated a few old lens at my local eye glasses shop. Last was a 1920 or so 135 5.6 that I had sitting around, I think it came with a Brand 4X5 I bought at a swap meet in the 80s. I had an antiglare, UV, and sratch coating added for $45, not a true MC as I am sure that what goes on a lens for glasses is not the coating that is used for a camera lens, but it does improve the flare and increased contrast. I use this lens for B&W so I dont know how it will affect color.

Jim Noel · Aug 5, 2008

Igor Savchenko said:
Hello Jim,

In that lab where you worked in 1940s, how did you re-new your D-23 in that large tank? Did you at some point just add small amount of fresh made developer to the used one, or just made fresh portion for the whole tank? I guess the same amount of D-23 couldn't work for let's say 5 years even with 'total development' technique... Or it did?

In your today's practice of 'total development' in tray, for how long do you use the same batch? And what's then - a new batch, seasoning it with outdated films, or the same batch with a kind of replenishment?

Thank you.

I don't remember the total amount ever being replaced. The developer was replenished each morning by bring the total up to a line with D-25.

My current batch of D-23 is at least three (3) years old. It has never been replenished because I have a much larger quantity than is necessary for use. I have no doubt that the pH has changed, but it still works. Before I started using this batch it was used in a dip and dunk lab at school for a semester so it is loaded with silver.

Igor Savchenko · Aug 5, 2008

Jim Noel said:
I don't remember the total amount ever being replaced. The developer was replenished each morning by bring the total up to a line with D-25.

My current batch of D-23 is at least three (3) years old. It has never been replenished because I have a much larger quantity than is necessary for use. I have no doubt that the pH has changed, but it still works. Before I started using this batch it was used in a dip and dunk lab at school for a semester so it is loaded with silver.

Jim,
Thanks a lot.

jmcclure · Aug 5, 2008

All of the negatives I have from the 1930's and 40's are all orthochromatic films. The look in them is much different due to the lack of red sentsivity. This may be part of the look you get.

Removed Account · Aug 5, 2008

I'd say uncoated lenses contributes quite a bit. Look at Jim Galli's photos on modern film with old lenses, many of them have a spectactular glow to them! I'd venture a guess and say that it's not flare but the soft-focus of the old lenses. Even even perfectly focused they don't have the resolution of modern lenses and I'd say it's this aspect that does it most of the time.

Mark Antony · Aug 5, 2008

I'm not sure about 'glow' but I like the way the Tessar draws on my Rollei T.
Kind of low contrast but sharp. I have been using a lot of Fortepan and APX in it and I feel like I'm getting a vintage look.
here is a gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/holiday_2008
Or I could just be kidding myself because I have a new toy
Mark

Rolleijoe · Aug 11, 2008

jmcclure said:
All of the negatives I have from the 1930's and 40's are all orthochromatic films. The look in them is much different due to the lack of red sentsivity. This may be part of the look you get.

One of the reasons I love Efke 25, as it's an orthochromatic film. Fantastic results. Bought a box of 4x5, waiting for my Ektar 127mm lens to come back from overhaul, then that should be the ultimate "old negative" look.

Remember the Portrait photographer to the stars back in the 30s/40s? His shots are what we would now call "glamour". His last professional shots were of Paul & Linda McCartney (one of which ended up as an album cover).

The others make Linda look like Lady Di! There was a man who knew the old methods no longer taught, and completely analog. He was a true photographer.

Not these nitwits running around with latest digital crap trying to make it look like film! Use film to start with!!!!

Rolleijoe · Aug 11, 2008

Mark Antony said:
I'm not sure about 'glow' but I like the way the Tessar draws on my Rollei T.
Kind of low contrast but sharp. I have been using a lot of Fortepan and APX in it and I feel like I'm getting a vintage look.
here is a gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/holiday_2008
Or I could just be kidding myself because I have a new toy
Mark

Nice holiday snaps. But if you want to complete the genuine "old" look, use some Fomapan 200 or Efke 100 in Rodinal or ATM 49. You won't believe your eyes!

Just my 2¢ from a fellow Rollei shooter.

Rolleijoe

srs5694 · Aug 11, 2008

Rolleijoe said:
One of the reasons I love Efke 25, as it's an orthochromatic film. Fantastic results. Bought a box of 4x5, waiting for my Ektar 127mm lens to come back from overhaul, then that should be the ultimate "old negative" look.

Actually, Efke 25 (and I believe 50) has some red sensitivity, it's just reduced compared to most modern films. I've seen the term "orthopanchromatic" applied to Efke 25. The effect with red objects is much less pronounced than it is with truly orthochromatic films. I've got some outdated, badly fogged, and I believe heat-damaged Tasma MZ-3L film, which is truly orthochromatic. Shoot something red with it (such as the red parts of an original Agfa Rodinal box), and it comes out black. With Efke 25, the same object comes out dark gray.

jfish · Aug 11, 2008

Jim Noel wrote: "Most glass plates I have print better on albumen because they have a much longer scale."

This is exactly why those older plates and films look better and have that glow. Plates were processed mostly for alternative processes, which required a long range scale but they also had an amazing internal contrast between the tones. I've printed plates and negatives from the likes of Dorothea Lange http://www.cartermuseum.org/Inspiring_Visions/Lange/lange_activities.htmland James Russel http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/collection/image_4.html to name a few and Russel's plates are amazing. Lange's negs, when she got her exposure right, give such a range it is unbelievable. Films have changed over the decades for a variety of reasons and although no modern film will look like the old ones, with proper exposure and development, you can still get a very wide range, with that "glow" and incredible internal contrast.

Good luck

Mark Antony · Aug 11, 2008

Rolleijoe said:
Nice holiday snaps. But if you want to complete the genuine "old" look, use some Fomapan 200 or Efke 100 in Rodinal or ATM 49. You won't believe your eyes!

Just my 2¢ from a fellow Rollei shooter.

Rolleijoe

Thanks
I do use quite a bit of Efke and Foma- Rodinal is my dev of choice, so I guess I'm a 50's feel fan.
That said I just picked up 20 rolls of Agfapan 100 in 120 for pennies...
Mark

Rolleijoe · Aug 11, 2008

Mark Antony said:
Thanks
I do use quite a bit of Efke and Foma- Rodinal is my dev of choice, so I guess I'm a 50's feel fan.
That said I just picked up 20 rolls of Agfapan 100 in 120 for pennies...
Mark

I'd LOVE to have 2 bricks of APX 100 120, but since I can't seem to find any, I decided to just freeze what I've got, and move on with fresh film and have been happy with those which I mentioned before.

Why start a project on a film I'll not be able to finish it on? Is my POV these days. But congrats on your find!

Rolleijoe

Rolleijoe · Aug 11, 2008

srs5694 said:
Actually, Efke 25 (and I believe 50) has some red sensitivity, it's just reduced compared to most modern films. I've seen the term "orthopanchromatic" applied to Efke 25. The effect with red objects is much less pronounced than it is with truly orthochromatic films. I've got some outdated, badly fogged, and I believe heat-damaged Tasma MZ-3L film, which is truly orthochromatic. Shoot something red with it (such as the red parts of an original Agfa Rodinal box), and it comes out black. With Efke 25, the same object comes out dark gray.

Here are 2 shots of the same building, same day, within minutes of each other. Processed together in Rodinal. I'd say the Efke has a more profound effect with the red brick than the Plus-X, and just as fine a grain if not better. I'd say the effect is more than dark gray! Although the Plus-X does appear sharper, it probably is, but I was using a bad scanner as well.

Both printed on Varycon Fotokemika Fiber paper.

Paul Verizzo · Aug 11, 2008

Rolleijoe said:
One of the reasons I love Efke 25, as it's an orthochromatic film.

I've seen no evidence that regular Efke films are orthochromatic. The Efke ORT in sheet film obviously is. For instance: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000002678

Paul Verizzo · Aug 11, 2008

Rolleijoe said:
Here are 2 shots of the same building, same day, within minutes of each other. Processed together in Rodinal. I'd say the Efke has a more profound effect with the red brick than the Plus-X, and just as fine a grain if not better. I'd say the effect is more than dark gray! Although the Plus-X does appear sharper, it probably is, but I was using a bad scanner as well.

You don't say which is which. I presume that the Efke is on the left. However, since the two shots are not taken from the same position, the results are inconclusive. A reflective surface, even a matte one like brick can change radically in its reflectivity by changing position.

While Efke (not ORT) may indeed be less red sensitive, it is not ortho. For general photography, there's a reason panchromatic and even with extended red is preferred.....it's more like what our eye sees. Special uses and desired results otherwise, of course.

srs5694 · Aug 11, 2008

I ran some informal tests of this a while ago. I shot the same scene with objects of various colors, including a red frisbee, with several films, in the same light and from the same angle. The Efke 25 did produce a darker result than most other films, but this effect was dwarfed compared to the results of Tasma MZ-3L, which produced something that looked completely black for the frisbee. Your brickwork example, by comparison, is dark gray (except for a few areas in deep shadow). Unfortunately, I don't have scans of my test scenes handy to show for comparison.

I suppose another way to test to see if a film is orthochromatic is to expose it to a red safelight and see if it fogs. I can't say that I've tried this particular test with any film, though.

Oh, and I just went Googling, and found this page with spectral sensitivity graphs for Efke's 25 and 50 products. These shows sensitivity clearly into the red region, although without any comparison graphs for other products it's hard to draw conclusions.

Mark Antony · Aug 11, 2008

I thought Efke 25 and 50 were ortho-panchromatic, in other words reduced red sensitivity.
Fotoimpex have some info
http://www.adox.de/ADOX_Filme/ADOX_CHS_Filme/ADOX_CHS_25 /ADOX_CHS_25.html
Its in German which I don't speak but the end of the first paragraph seems to suggest reduced red sensitivity...

Why are old negs so good?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency