That pre-war, 1930s look.

[phfitz]

David,

To get that look, you can do what they did back then; over-expose AND over-develope then print it on grade 0 paper. Kodaks recommendations from 1945:

Panatomic X 25 speed x D76 for 11 - 14 min @ 68F
Plus X 50 speed x D76 13 - 16 min @ 68F
Super XX 100 speed x D76 16 - 20 min @ 68F
Verichrome 50 speed x D76 13 - 17 min @ 68F
Tri X 200 speed, not offered on in roll film only sheets.

The over-exposed would burn out the background and sky, the over-developed would increase the grain.

Have fun with your project.

[Roger Hicks]

David,

To get that look, you can do what they did back then; over-expose AND over-develope then print it on grade 0 paper. Kodaks recommendations from 1945:

Panatomic X 25 speed x D76 for 11 - 14 min @ 68F
Plus X 50 speed x D76 13 - 16 min @ 68F
Super XX 100 speed x D76 16 - 20 min @ 68F
Verichrome 50 speed x D76 13 - 17 min @ 68F
Tri X 200 speed, not offered on in roll film only sheets.

The over-exposed would burn out the background and sky, the over-developed would increase the grain.

Have fun with your project.

An excellent point, especially about overexposure, but bear in mind that with uncoated camera lenses, often high camera body flare factors, and uncoated enlarging lenses, a great deal of contrast was also lost in the system. Assume a flare factor of 3 at the taking stage (currently just above 1 with an LF camera and MC lens) and a subject brightness range of 128:1 (log range 2.1) was reduced to a projected image brightness range of just over 40:1 (log range 1.6) so for a negative log density range of 1.2 (to allow for enlarger flare) you'd need a MUCH higher gamma than with a modern camera/lens/enlarger combination.

Cheers,

R.

[gainer]

My experience with Super XX was that the long D-76 time was not overdevelopment. Those emulsions were much thicker than the later ones, and required a longer time just to get started. Over exposure is another question. The box speeds were determined by the old ASA method, which generally gave half the later ISO method. Most photographers with light meters realized this fact and exposed Super XX at 200, or took a shadow reading and set the meter at 800 or 1000. It was called "available light photography" then.

[Joe VanCleave]

Here are several examples of outdoor images shot with grade 2 RC paper in a pinhole camera. A glass lens camera would give superior image definition at the expense of reduced depth of focus.

The first image is the Sandstone Overlook at El Malpais National Monument, in western New Mexico, while the second is an older neighborhood near Halloween. The ortho nature of these paper negatives gives these images an old-style feel.

[Alan Johnson]

PE remarked that flare,the lack of AH backing in many cases,and the large format contributed.
Here it is noted that Lucky 100 and 400 halate a fair bit:
www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19630
Perhaps find a 120 folding camera on ebay and tape a blue filter on it?

[MCTuomey]

Go with the Fortepan 400 expose at 320 and process in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes. Especially this time of year you will get some nice moody shots.


Bill

PS I shot both photos below with a Leica M3 with a 50 f2 Collapsable Summicron.

OT: Very nice look, Bill.

[nworth]

There are none of the 1930's films left in the market today, but you could try either ADOX /EFKE KB25 or some kind of ortho film. Develop in Rodinal for maximum grain...

This was one of the first modern films. It may work, but the look will probably be more 50s or 60s. The EFKE 100 speed film or 200 speed may be better here. These are still basicly old style films. Development in straight (not diluted) D-76 may help, as will development to a slightly higher gamma.

[fhovie]

My negatives from relatives from the 30s are very dense -I think everything was overcooked due to uneven exposure and trying to get the weak ones printable. Only use 3 element uncoated - I have a Zeiss Iconta with a lens like that - lots of flare and only sharp in the middle. Rondinol and overdevelop - Nothing you can do about the paper. Even with ferrotype plates and an antique bottle of plate polish - modern emulsions are not soft enough to take the shine and they usually stick too. Maybe albimum or kalitype would do the best. I don't think 35mm will give the look you want - I think you need to use a fast grainy film at a high shutter speed and an open aperature to let the lens do what those lenses did - pinhole??

[Harry Lime]

ADOX (EFKE) 25 and 50
Your Elmar lens
D23 or Rodinal (D23 is a low contrast solvent developer)
;-)


Cheers

[gainer]

What we call the "Sunny 16" rule was the "Sunny 11" rule then. Not as many people owned exposure meters as do now. I started doing my own development when I was about 12, which was 1939. I had my first exposure meter in about 1952. The box camera was popular. My first one was a Brownie Bullseye, using 127 film. I'm not sure that was its name. It was all bakelite and the lens mount screwed in when not in use so you could carry it in a pocket.
I have over 100 5x7 glass plate negatives that my grandfather took and developed before 1905. I know, because he died in that year. They are nothing much like the look you appear to be trying to get. I never knew him. Not even my father knew him as he was born in 1903. I'll try to share some with the group if I can figure out how.