Ken Norton wrote:
> Dr Flash wrote:
>
>> Aunt Annie's wedding dinner photo really is amazing on many levels. There is
>> no way the DOF could be so great on a large format camera unless the camera
>> was capable of tilt or swing. Also, given the small
>> apertures of a large camera, the slow speed of film of the day and no
>> apparent subject motion I would have to assume that flash was used.
>>
There is definitely subject motion, although not much. There are a few
people who clearly moved during the exposure. On the other hand, there
is not much and some is rather subtle, indicating a fairly short
effective shutter speed.
>
> First of all, I believe that the photograph is consistant with a quality 4x5
> camera of the time. 8x10 was certainly used, but almost exclusively for
> contact-prints. 4x5, even on the films of the day, was capable of
> tremendous detail and smoothness. The edge-to-edge sharpness indicates a
> reasonable aperture and a tilted lens to increase the DoF.
>
I don't really know. Based on some 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negs and contact prints
from the same time that I do have, I'm just not seeing the clarity and
detail I saw in this print in person. It just draws one in.
I'm thinking it is probably a contact print from something like a Folmer
& Schwing 7x17 banquet camera. <http://www.fiberq.com/cam/ekc/fsbanq.htm>
"Notes: unusual swinging lensboard designed to focus on a large seated
group from the vantage point of a ladder. This is a very substantially
made camera. The camera was discontinued by the 1929 catalog."
- Made in NY, where the photo was also taken.
- Specially designed for exactly this type of photo.
- Made through 1929, only 18 years before the photo, during a time of
little change in large camera design.
- The photo was clearly made by a very accomplished photographer with
lots of experience with the equipment and this particular kind of shot.
I seem to recall that I didn't have a ruler with me, but that the short
dimension surprised my by appearing to be less than 8" I shot fairly
'tight', both to get the biggest possible image of the important part
and so the books holding it flat wouldn't show, so I may not have
captured the exact negative ratio. What I did capture is about 2:1
ratio. Looking at the image, the negative image could easily have been
cropped from 17" to 14" length for the print, as that covers all the
people there.
>> However, I can't find much indication of that in the shadows although there
>> certainly is some (see, especially, the lower left corner). Another amazing
>> point is that I can't find anyone blinking. I can find a few women not
>> looking at the camera who may have their eyes closed but no one looking at
>> the camera whose eyes are not open. Makes me wish I could talk to that
>> photographer.
>>
> I'm stewing on the lighting too. It looks barebulb, but there are telltails
> of flash-powder. In the 100% view, you can see the lady's arm/hand move. She
> may have flinched during the exposure, but this may be the clue that it was
> flash-powder, because the duration of the flash lighting would have been
> extensive.
>
Flash duration may be a key to both questions. I can't imagine that the
rather large flash bulbs of those days, especially ones that could light
such a large space, don't have a pretty long burn time. It would simply
take some time for the combustion to travel through a large bunch of metal.
If that wasn't long enough, I can imagine that a trick of this kind of
photo may have been to intentionally use long duration flash bulbs,
readily available as FP bulbs for the speed graphics.
Why risk the subject motion, you ask? So no one is caught with eyes
blinking. The "standard" for an eye blink is about 1/3 second. At a
second or more, the blink becomes just a slight softness of the open
eye. Tell everybody to hold real still and take a 1-2 second exposure?
Adults in the 40s were used to holding still for photos. Just an idea.
As Chuck says, it would be interesting to talk to the photographer.
Obviously seriously good at it.
> No eyes closed? I'm more inclined to believe the photo was touched-up.
> (Editing didn't begin with Photoshop).
>
If so, it was a real artist, 'cause I'm just not seeing it.
> Regardless, it is an amazing photograph and one which I'm not so sure I'd
> have a clue how to replicate today and achieve the same level of quality.
>
Film is still available for these old cameras and people are still using
them, according to the APUG user forums.
I suppose the scanning backs for MF & LF might do a pretty good job. Do
you remember the guy who rigged up a lightweight, flatbed scanner to a
view camera?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|