How do I shoot like this 1950 photo?

[Peter R]

I'd love to shoot with the look and feel of the attached image, shot in 1950 in Belgium by - I assume - a press photographer, and wonder if anybody here can shed some light as to what was used in the day & what I can do with my M4 to approximate it. I see this look and feel (depth of field/contrast/dynamic range?) in photos from the 30s to the 60s, but in the 70s everything seemed to change to a more modern look. Usually less quality, but with increased depth of field and colour, if that makes sense... hey, what do I know.

First, I'm used to shooting BW film at 800 to 1600 ISO, and the detail level here makes me think I need to start exploring slow films. Right?

Second, using my lens (ZM Planar 50), by the time that I'd focus on the bike rider, the horizon would also be in focus whereas I notice that a lot of the shots I like in this vein have a depth of field that's soft again at infinity.

Is this a matter of my finding the correct style vintage lens, or what? Combination format/lens issue? The Planar takes perfect photos, but I doubt I can achieve the same 'signature' as the old photos I like. It's a bit too forgiving, modern and perfect, I guess.

Any help appreciated, thanks!

- edit - removed image, playing safe with copyright etc.


​

 

[Savara]

Of course films were slower back in the day. Plus, I am sure what you are looking at is a scanned printed image, not the scanned film, this adds to look and feel it's specifics.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I use an uncoated lens with a blue filter......gives me that old timey look.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Your ZM 50 planar will be fine. Try shooting efke 100 (or even 50 or 25!) or fomapan 100. They all look like the 50s. Shoot at box speed or a bit slower and develop whatever you like. The slower speed will require you to open the paerture and your back ground will go soft.

Mike

Edited to confirm, don't use a filter - particularly the efke 25 doesn't have much red sensitivity and you want the sky pretty bright.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

First off, I think you should include the photographer's name with the image 🙂.

This image is probably made with a 4x5 Speed/Crown Graphic.

If you want that look, nothing else but large format will do.





Gregory

 

[user237428934]

Or is it the 50s content in the photo that you like (clothes, building, people). That's hard to find these days 😉

 

[NathanJD]

Slow films and wide aperture, coupled with a lens from that era and the right developer. Sometimes also, what makes these photos look the age they are is obviously the subject. Unsophisticated lenses and developing processes have a lot to do with it as far as I’m aware.

Realistically you can see the advancements in photography from it's inception and there are quite a few 50's photos that exhibit far more modern characteristics than that, but then there's nothing to say that this photographer is shooting with cutting edge 50's technology.

 

[newspaperguy]

As Raymond suggested - an older non-coated lens would be a big help,
and using something much longer than 50mm would add to the LF feeling.

If Nikkor AIS is right, and I suspect he is, the original was probably captured with a 135 or 150mm lens.

 

[Peter R]

Thanks for the responses!

To clarify, I'm not after the vintage look of the subject matter, it's the image 'look and feel' - the contrast that still includes a lot of detail in the shadows, plus that long-throw depth of field that seems to go from ca. 5 metres/yards to 30 or so. If I focus my Planar at a distance of e.g. this bikerider, the background to infinity tends to be in focus.

Is that related to the lens technology of the day?

P.S. Sorry I don't have the name of the photographer. The photo is scanned from a book on the European bike race classics, published by L'Equipe. I gather those guys didn't consider their photographers to be worthy of naming, which is a pity - many of the photos are fantastic.

 

[Peter R]

As Raymond suggested - an older non-coated lens would be a big help,
and using something much longer than 50mm would add to the LF feeling.

OK, so the 'long throw' depth of field is lens length related? Pardon my enormous ignorance... I just work with photographers but don't tend to bug them with tech questions while they work.

 

[Peter R]

there's nothing to say that this photographer is shooting with cutting edge 50's technology.

Being employed by L'Equipe, I'm guessing the photographer was a professional sports/press photographer in the 40's/50's, so whatever the standard kit was for those guys might be what was used here. Being Europe in the late 40s/early 50s just getting back up after WWII, it might have been fairly old technology, perhaps pre-war - so that would back up your thoughts.

I'll start looking for some 40s/50s LTM lenses for my M4 and slow film Efke... ditch the yellow filter... and investigate Crown Graphics...

 

[rickp]

tools

tools

while you're exploring, have a look at the NIK silver efex pro or the equivalent from alien skin as plug-ins for PS and maybe lightroom. both offer a lot of flexibility in converting color to b & w with a wide variety of effects, toning, grain, film emulation etc.

good luck

rick

 

[kossi008]

Try using your Planar wide open. DOFmaster tells you that you'll have a dof range of 8 to 13 meters when focusing at 10 (14 to 38 at 20), so you should be able to get unsharp infinity even with 35 mm.

I'd go with Efke 25 for the film look, plus it forces me to use the wide aperture automatically. I develop in Rodinal for a vintage look, or in Xtol for very smooth tones mimicking the tonality of larger formats...

I agree that non-coated lenses help somewhat, but for starters, your Planar should be fine...

 

[Peter R]

Try using your Planar wide open. DOFmaster tells you that you'll have a dof range of 8 to 13 meters when focusing at 10 (14 to 38 at 20), so you should be able to get unsharp infinity even with 35 mm.

I had no idea the Planar can focus those ranges. So far I've been shooting 800-1600ASA with a yellow filter for daylight at 5.6 minimum, and in low light at F2 it's been close up interior shots.

And there I was, thinking slow film was only for detail/resolution. (edit after Google - nor did I know large format cameras like Crown Graphics usually had such long lenses compared to 35mm bodies - that explains Rick's 135/150 guess).

Thanks for the replies here.

 

[Sparrow]

One can do a fairly convincing orthochromatic-film look simply by shooting in colour then removing the red end of the spectrum in photoshop, or shooting B/W with a tungsten to daylight filter, 82b is it?

 

[Finder]

If you want to use what you have, then I would start by using slower films--800-1600 ISO does not produce great results. You will see great improvement by just dropping down to 200-400 ISO and a T-grain film. And ditch the yellow filter. If you want to use large aperture in bright light, you can add a neutral density filter (you can take it off when light levels fall). Shot some images and see how things have changed. You can then adjust from that point.

To make a match, it will require a some significant changes on your part:

First, a larger format from 35mm. This looks like it could have been 4x5 or 9x12 (first is inches, the second, cm). This will do a few things. The depth of field will be what you want and the it will have a smoother grain structure and better tonal range. You could also use medium format which would bring you closer to the look especially with the covering power of modern emulsions.

Also, the spectral response of the film is not only giving light skies and dark brick, but also it is helping the shadow detail as the light filling the shadows is skylight, which is very blue. A blue filter can help you imitate this.

 

[swoop]

All these suggestions are good. I once had someone aak me the difference between HP5 and Delta 400. Delta is a modern emulsion, and HP5 is a classic emulsion. It's pretty self descriptive the difference you get with each. Same goes for Tri-X (classic) and Tmax (modern). That's why there are different varieties of same speed film. They're manufactured different ways for different looks. You'll also have to try different developers because each will contribute to the final look. And then there are paper options if you're enlarging your negatives.

Or you could save yourself some effort and buy a Leica M9 and use the Vintage B+W setting.

 

[Gumby]

Or is it the 50s content in the photo that you like (clothes, building, people). That's hard to find these days 😉

... or is the effects of 50 to 60 years of aging/fading from being hung on a wall? 😉

 

[Peter R]

Also, the spectral response of the film is not only giving light skies and dark brick, but also it is helping the shadow detail as the light filling the shadows is skylight, which is very blue. A blue filter can help you imitate this.

Right... so that's why all the detail in the shadow areas. One of the reasons I like these particular kind of shots is the combination of high contrast with what seemed to be a lot of detail left in the dark shadow range.

Will definitely shoot without the yellow, and try out a blue filter.

Looking forward to testing out the suggestions here.

P.S. I'll probably delete the photo I loaded here soon as I'm not too sure about how kosher it is to leave it posted here in copyright terms etc (?)

 

[ray*j*gun]

I used and old Fed 50 Elmar knock off uncoated and a blue filter and got the kind of look I was after......I'm not an engineer, what I do is based on my experience and the results I obtained.