Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,471   Posts: 1,570,921   Online: 820
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    gandolfi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    1,804
    Images
    370
    try to look at theese - at the bottom especially..

    http://www.edelmangallery.com/barilR2.htm

    I know it isn't what you're asking about, but seeing the images in your link, I thought:
    this could be a combination of selenium and tea toning - which gives this "split tone" to the image..
    hard to do though! requires a lot of practice, as tea is not just tea..

  2. #12
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    According to http://www.silverprint.co.uk/info/yespap.html, Ilford started producing silver bromide papers in 1884 and there were several earlier manufacturers (interesting article btw).

    Bob.

  3. #13
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    The hibiscus is gorgeous as far as the blacks go!

    I've been experimenting with tea lately, myself, oddly enough. I'd not considered selenium first. I just may have to try that!

    Quote Originally Posted by gandolfi
    try to look at theese - at the bottom especially..

    http://www.edelmangallery.com/barilR2.htm

    I know it isn't what you're asking about, but seeing the images in your link, I thought:
    this could be a combination of selenium and tea toning - which gives this "split tone" to the image..
    hard to do though! requires a lot of practice, as tea is not just tea..

  4. #14
    Gim
    Gim is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    399
    I have the book and I don't see where it specifically says the prints were made in the late 1800's. Jones died in 1959 at age 92 and worked around plants at least through WWII. The book speculates that the photographs were made 1895-1910. The book also says that "it is not known where or when Charles Jones created his extensive and highly focused body of work". It may be possible that many of these prints were made later than the date suggested. The author states that "the photographs, which were gold-toned gelatin silver prints made from glass-plate negatives".

    Anyway, an interesting book and so apparently was C. Jones. Again from the book "by the late 1950's, Jones and his wife were still living in Lincolnshire with no electricity or running water. He was a Victorian outcast who could not reconcile himself to the realities of living in a modern age".

    Jim

  5. #15
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    Surely 1895 would be considered the late 1800s? Certainly they could have been made later, and my memory put the dates a decade earlier than the book said and for that I appologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gim
    I have the book and I don't see where it specifically says the prints were made in the late 1800's. Jones died in 1959 at age 92 and worked around plants at least through WWII. The book speculates that the photographs were made 1895-1910. The book also says that "it is not known where or when Charles Jones created his extensive and highly focused body of work". It may be possible that many of these prints were made later than the date suggested. The author states that "the photographs, which were gold-toned gelatin silver prints made from glass-plate negatives".

    Anyway, an interesting book and so apparently was C. Jones. Again from the book "by the late 1950's, Jones and his wife were still living in Lincolnshire with no electricity or running water. He was a Victorian outcast who could not reconcile himself to the realities of living in a modern age".

    Jim

  6. #16
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    Perhaps the glass plates were exposed in the 1895-1910 time period and later printed using silver materials and then gold toned?
    Diane

    Halak 41

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vermont
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    348
    Images
    5
    I don't think what you are seeing has much to do with toning. The subtleties of toning are not going to be that dramatic in a web scan. No, I believe the thing going on here has more to do with the film emulsion. At that time, all that was available (I'm pretty sure) was color-blind film, i.e., blue sensitive only. Photographs of vegetables, and other things that have a red component are going to have a very dark rendition in the print. And the blue sensitive film also produced very high contrast, and this is apparent in the short toe of the film and resulting deep blacks. This is not unlike litho film, or copy film. High contrast, blue sensitive only. Similar prints by Strand were made a few years later, and the fruit in his still lifes has the same look, with deep blacks. Remember, the actual visual reflectance capability of any salted paper is limited. There's no reason to believe the papers in use then had better d-max or anything like that. It's about the scale and the relative curves of the glass plate and paper emulsions. Certainly it might be hard to duplicate these results using modern materials, but I don't think simply gold toning is giving the great blacks you see in this work.
    Robert Hunt

  8. #18
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    That ws my suspicion as well, I've seen plenty of gold-toned prints but none looked like those. Maybe I just haven't seen enough of them, but it struck me as interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by rhphoto
    I don't think what you are seeing has much to do with toning. The subtleties of toning are not going to be that dramatic in a web scan.

  9. #19
    Gim
    Gim is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Bosaiya
    Surely 1895 would be considered the late 1800s? Certainly they could have been made later, and my memory put the dates a decade earlier than the book said and for that I appologize.
    The book is vague and only "speculates". A couple of years would not make much difference. But in "my mind", the prints that were found could possibly have been printed later. He would not be the first person that went back and reprinted old negs or plates. There is so little information I would not bet on anything. It is some what of a mystery..his work...his life. He apparently had no interest in marketing himself. This would be a good study for someone.

    By the way, I purchased this book "special value" $7.98 on the Barnes & Noble discount art rack a couple of years ago. They had a whole stack of them and I consider it one of my best book purchases. I have not looked at it for a while...so thanks for bringing it up. It will be my bedtime reading tonight.

    Jim

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Out West
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by rhphoto
    I don't think what you are seeing has much to do with toning. The subtleties of toning are not going to be that dramatic in a web scan. No, I believe the thing going on here has more to do with the film emulsion. At that time, all that was available (I'm pretty sure) was color-blind film, i.e., blue sensitive only. Photographs of vegetables, and other things that have a red component are going to have a very dark rendition in the print. And the blue sensitive film also produced very high contrast, and this is apparent in the short toe of the film and resulting deep blacks. ]<snip>
    I second that. As soon as I saw the photos, I figured that it had to be a blue sensitive or color blind film. The black tulips were the giveaway here. I've been considering doing a series of portraits with a blue filter over the lens to see if it is possible to get that vintage look with modern films. This could be interesting.

    Grunthos

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin