Erik van Straten
Veteran
Bingley
Veteran
Ha! Not older than me, Erik…. ;-). I do know that 1 + 3 is one of the recommended dilutions for Perceptol, but I’ve never tried it… I liked the results you were getting with 1 + 2, so have followed your example. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you know… LOL!!
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Imitation and variation is the way to art.
gelatin silver print (elmar 50mm f3.5) leica 1a (1928)
Erik.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Just a curious question on getting the look the OP is asking about...Does shutter speed have any factor in getting that look...???
markjwyatt
Well-known
See this picture: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/139199?p=4772224#post4772224
Erik van Straten
Veteran
gelatin silver print (elmar 50mm f3.5) leica 1a (1928)
Erik.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
It does. The speed of the movement of the curtains have such a factor. The early Leicas have the slowest running shutter, 1/20 of a second from left to right, 36mm; on the IIIc it is a bit faster, 1/30 of a second. The M Leicas have 1/50 of a second. You recognise a shot of a moving subject on 1/20th immediatly. Remember the shot by Cartier-Bresson of the cyclist?
Erik.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Good point and I'll add that a lot of enlargements were made using the camera lens in the enlarger and the enlargers and paper were slow by today's standards - not that anyone uses them today. But enlargements were made with the lens at f/6.3 and the extra stage would add a bit of fuzz to the picture. So no scanners allowed. And a lot of people in those "retro" days didn't have electricity in the house and so enlargers were powered by lead/acid batteries and so on; meaning very, very long exposures.
BTW, I've seen photo's from over 100 years ago that were/are just as good as those taken today; so I'm guessing "retro" doesn't quite mean what we think...
Regards, David
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I agree with Kostya's observation as well David.
In the back of my mind, I was always wishing for a photo app that simulates older photographic papers. A canvas of selecable papers and grades you can digitally overlay onto and manipulate. Maybe someday...
I always enjoy seeing scans of Erik's (Erik van Straten) and Ned's (NB23) and others' prints on the forums as they impart a special visual vibe that direct digital scans of negs or files don't provide. Its the paper, its characteristics and surface texture, development and printing techniques I believe that provide that special feeling. This is not to diminish other ways of exhibiting, but it just has a special visual impact that I find attractive.
I have boxes of B&W prints my Dad printed on old Dupont, Agfa, and other papers; mostly of friends, life, and wedding shots from the 30's-40's of the Boston area and surrounds. Some day, when I have time, I will scan them and share them. Also, he has lots of 1940's Kodachrome slides and16mm movies.
A local Boston paper, has a running feature called "Throwback Thursday". These images I'm sure are scans of older B&W images; some dating back over 100 years:
https://www.bostonherald.com/tag/throwback-thursday/
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Since the early fifties there was split grade printing, not for amateurs, but in some professional labs like Picto in Paris. There still is no digital way to get the effect of split grade printing. I love this effect, so it is necessary to make the split grade prints myself on Ilford multigrade FB classic glossy.
Thank you, Rayd, for the compliment.
Erik.
Thank you, Rayd, for the compliment.
Erik.
Ororaro
Well-known
Tmax 100.
The old look always comes from the film.
Film, back then, simply recorded differently. Tri-x had these massive mid tones. And they were all geared towards a certain chromatic sensitivity. The spectral sensitivity was much different than today.
The old look always comes from the film.
Film, back then, simply recorded differently. Tri-x had these massive mid tones. And they were all geared towards a certain chromatic sensitivity. The spectral sensitivity was much different than today.
Attachments
kram
Well-known
Vastly out of date film. I tried a 40 year old roll kodax Tri X (l think) photos looked vintage
Erik van Straten
Veteran
gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4 steel rim) leica m5
Erik.
Erik.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thinking about this I can't help noticing that a lot of what I would call "modern" lenses are mentioned even though they are rather old. The point being that the man in the street didn't have a Leica or Contax or even a Sanderson Junior in those days. Most of our, or my, family photographs were taken with very basic lenses without focussing and developed in rather crude chemicals; mixed at home sometimes.
FWIW "modern" in this context started with the Sonnar and Summitar, then added coatings and so is vaguely late thirties to mid forties. It was about then that the fine grain films, and colour film and fine grain developers appeared. The date has to be vague as a lot of things were announced but didn't spread out to most of the enthusiastic users for a long time; mainly due to the war.
I realise that this isn't much help to anyone, films are too fast, the 1920 home brew chemicals may not be obtainable in small or safe quantities and 1920-30's box cameras are totally unsuitable with modern films without going to a lot of trouble.as the aperture and shutter speed are fixed.
So, just my 2d worth...
Regards, David
FWIW "modern" in this context started with the Sonnar and Summitar, then added coatings and so is vaguely late thirties to mid forties. It was about then that the fine grain films, and colour film and fine grain developers appeared. The date has to be vague as a lot of things were announced but didn't spread out to most of the enthusiastic users for a long time; mainly due to the war.
I realise that this isn't much help to anyone, films are too fast, the 1920 home brew chemicals may not be obtainable in small or safe quantities and 1920-30's box cameras are totally unsuitable with modern films without going to a lot of trouble.as the aperture and shutter speed are fixed.
So, just my 2d worth...
Regards, David
Ricoh
Well-known
markjwyatt
Well-known
I would argue that "modern' may have started with the Planar, then for sure the Tessar, even the Cooke Triplet in some cases. The typical amateur photographer did not have these lenses either.We did not need the Sonnar/Summitar until faster lenses were called for. Even a triplet at f8 can produce a very nice image (and coatings matter a lot less on a triplet).
Old Truck, front by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
David Hughes
David Hughes
Yes, I thought about the triplets etc which slowly evolved to f/2.8 and then stopped. Then the Sonnar and Summitar jumped the barrier to f/2 and we moved on. So I saw it as a natural point to go from vintage to modern...
My main point is that we need box cameras for that vintage look; especially the ones with a simple lens that's fixed focus.
Regards, David
My main point is that we need box cameras for that vintage look; especially the ones with a simple lens that's fixed focus.
Regards, David
markjwyatt
Well-known
I am getting some results with ADOX CHS 100 II developed in ADOX FX-39 II that have that vintage look:
slant by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
valley by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
across the bridge by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
These were all shot with a Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron, so I do not believe the lens is the key (though the Ultron has some issues with flare, so maybe it has sub-optimal coatings by modern standards). When I developed it, I agitated 5 times (seconds) every one minute for some compensating effect.
slant by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
valley by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
across the bridge by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
These were all shot with a Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron, so I do not believe the lens is the key (though the Ultron has some issues with flare, so maybe it has sub-optimal coatings by modern standards). When I developed it, I agitated 5 times (seconds) every one minute for some compensating effect.
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
If you really want the look of the 30s then it is best to make the images like they did in the 30s. That means old cameras and, dare I say it? Old enlargers. There is a big, and I mean huge, difference in enlarging lenses from the 30s and today. That is the main thing that makes the old prints look they way they do compared to a print made today. Keep in mind that uncoated lenses had more flare so film back then was developed more. Films and papers have all changed too of course. Nothing you can do about that. Scanning a neg of course is something they didn't do in the 30s. Personally I think the last films made that looked "old" were the Efke films. The Ferrania film Godfrey mentioned above looks interesting but I don't have any experience with it myself. Thick emulsion films have gone the way of the Dodo. Manufacturers have stripped out as much silver as they could. Shame really. I think Adox had that one silver rich film a few years ago. They stopped making it though.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Like some others here, I've long held to the belief that it isn't so much the film/s, cameras or lens/es that produce the 'soft' vintage look, but rather how the film is developed.
Now and then when I feel especially masochistic, I do scanning of old negatives for friends, mostly fading/faded color negatives but now and then some very old B&W. What strikes me most about these old images is how contrasty they are.
The films of that era were often as not processed locally (in my home town in eastern Canada in th 1950s the local pharmacist had a makeshift darkroom in a closet of his medicines shop and processed and contact printed all the local snaps after closing time. Many years later after he had retired, he told me he used Kocak Tri-Chem packs for many years and occasionally when he was out of film developer he would make do with D-72. No surprise the contrast of all those negatives were through-the-ceiling contrasty...
Nowadays I process those few films I still shoot in my ageing cameras with a Job and I mostly scan. I've found after much experimenting that I get the best results by cutting development by 15% or even 20% to deal with the harsh Australian sunlight. My negatives do look slightly underexposed but they scan beautifully - lots of lovely silky greys in the mid tones and a pleasant pattern of light grain. I also use older films (am now working thru the last of a big batch of Kodak Panatomic-X 35 and 120 I bought in the early 1990s and have kept refrigerated but not frozen) which have aged with a slight gray tint which, so I'm told, actually helps to cut down contrast in scans.
Admittedly I wouldn't use certain films (Ilford Pan F for one) for my everyday photography, not so much for its legendary high contrast which I've found an be tamed by careful processing, but because I no longer want to stock up big time on films, at my age my shooting time is now very limited and I'm trying to not leave too much detritus behind for my partner to have to deal with when I'm no longer in this universe.
The two oldest cameras I own are 120 folders, (1) a Zeiss Nettar with an f80/4.5 Novar from about 1950 and (2) a Voigtlander Perkeo I with a wonderful 80/4.5 Color Skopar lens from about 1953. These two lenses are contrasty and I've worked out that with full exposure, even then my readings are all over the place anyway due to the age of both my films and my 1960s Gossen Lunasix, a 20% cut in developing time produces easily printed or scanned negatives as long as I shoot in sunlight.
Some of you may be interested that the softest lens I own and use is a Schneider Xenar on a 1960s Rolleicord Vb. The Zeiss lenses on my other Roles - two Tessars and a Planar - are higher-contrasty, especially the latter.
Ao much good and useful information in this thread I've bookmarked it for future reference.
Now and then when I feel especially masochistic, I do scanning of old negatives for friends, mostly fading/faded color negatives but now and then some very old B&W. What strikes me most about these old images is how contrasty they are.
The films of that era were often as not processed locally (in my home town in eastern Canada in th 1950s the local pharmacist had a makeshift darkroom in a closet of his medicines shop and processed and contact printed all the local snaps after closing time. Many years later after he had retired, he told me he used Kocak Tri-Chem packs for many years and occasionally when he was out of film developer he would make do with D-72. No surprise the contrast of all those negatives were through-the-ceiling contrasty...
Nowadays I process those few films I still shoot in my ageing cameras with a Job and I mostly scan. I've found after much experimenting that I get the best results by cutting development by 15% or even 20% to deal with the harsh Australian sunlight. My negatives do look slightly underexposed but they scan beautifully - lots of lovely silky greys in the mid tones and a pleasant pattern of light grain. I also use older films (am now working thru the last of a big batch of Kodak Panatomic-X 35 and 120 I bought in the early 1990s and have kept refrigerated but not frozen) which have aged with a slight gray tint which, so I'm told, actually helps to cut down contrast in scans.
Admittedly I wouldn't use certain films (Ilford Pan F for one) for my everyday photography, not so much for its legendary high contrast which I've found an be tamed by careful processing, but because I no longer want to stock up big time on films, at my age my shooting time is now very limited and I'm trying to not leave too much detritus behind for my partner to have to deal with when I'm no longer in this universe.
The two oldest cameras I own are 120 folders, (1) a Zeiss Nettar with an f80/4.5 Novar from about 1950 and (2) a Voigtlander Perkeo I with a wonderful 80/4.5 Color Skopar lens from about 1953. These two lenses are contrasty and I've worked out that with full exposure, even then my readings are all over the place anyway due to the age of both my films and my 1960s Gossen Lunasix, a 20% cut in developing time produces easily printed or scanned negatives as long as I shoot in sunlight.
Some of you may be interested that the softest lens I own and use is a Schneider Xenar on a 1960s Rolleicord Vb. The Zeiss lenses on my other Roles - two Tessars and a Planar - are higher-contrasty, especially the latter.
Ao much good and useful information in this thread I've bookmarked it for future reference.