Why are old negs so good?

[Paul Verizzo]

Originally Posted by el wacho

i heard lucky films give that good ole' time glow!!

Also Russian Chernobyl-X.

[Paul Verizzo]

Originally Posted by mabman

Could it also be that the 6x9's were all (or mostly) Verichrome or Verichrome Pan, which was a double-layered emulsion (and therefore harder to blow out or completely mess up exposure on, from what I've read)?

It predates my interest in photography, but there is a lot about it written here and elsewhere, and seemed to be the norm for box cameras and sometimes wedding photographers in its day.

Don't know about double layers, but it was definitely a more forgiving film than it's cousin PX. My understanding is that it was of lower contrast, thus being able to provide a usable image despite primitive cameras or error.

I bought a bunch from B&H now about seven years ago with the intent of "getting back into MF," get out the Rollei and play with my Ansco. Never did. Sold it all with a lot of other 120 film before I moved last fall. Sigh.

[Harry Lime]

I think part of it may have to do with the old developers being 'softer' working.
There are many pieces to this puzzle, but I believe this is an important one.

For many years I used Ilford DD-X, D76 and some xtol with Tri-X@400. D76 had the most vintage look of the three, with Xtol producing the most modern look. DD-X was in the middle.

Then about 6 months ago I switched to Barry Thornton's 2-bath for Tri-X@400. Thornton's formula is a variaton on Stoekler's formula, apparently tweaked for thinner modern emulsions.

Anyhow, I have notiched a few things about the Thornton negs compared to my previous efforts:

- vastly better tonality.
- vastly better shadow and highlight detail. I've found it very difficult to blow highlights and shadows have plenty of detail.
- The consistency from roll to roll is much higher.
- I shoot with a mix of Leica M and vintage Nikon F glass and even laymen have commented on the vintage look of the recent images I have produced with this developer.
Even just sitting on the lightbox they look a lot more like some Tri-X negs I have from the 1950's.

[Rolleijoe]

also there weren't any D*****L cameras to foul everything up, computer programs to fix your mistakes. You had to actually KNOW HOW TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH. Seems like these days only the Europeans are carrying on that tradition. Americans seem lazy & demand instant satisfaction/perfection.

[Paul Verizzo]

Originally Posted by Rolleijoe

also there weren't any D*****L cameras to foul everything up, computer programs to fix your mistakes. You had to actually KNOW HOW TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH. Seems like these days only the Europeans are carrying on that tradition. Americans seem lazy & demand instant satisfaction/perfection.

Those darned new roll film cameras by Eastman really fouled things up! You actually had to know how to do wet plate collodian (???) processing until he came along!

Come now, Rolleijoe. Time moves technology and society along. With the current state of digital technologies, there is only one reason to use film technologies: we want to. (I'm not talking silver prints v. inkjet, just the image taking and processing.)

I was digital only for 7 years, but I came back to my first love. But every time I use my Minolta A2, I am in awe. Just like when I see a print develop and make an image.

They are only different, not superior/inferior.

[fschifano]

Nah. I think it was the dry plate that messed things up. Roll film only acellerated the decline.

[apochromatic]

I feel like I've turned over an interesting stone here - thanks for your informed responses so far but I think ... the truth is out there :-)

[Paul Verizzo]

Originally Posted by fschifano

Nah. I think it was the dry plate that messed things up. Roll film only acellerated the decline.

If only we had stayed with Daguerrotypes!

[jnanian]

Originally Posted by Rolleijoe

also there weren't any D*****L cameras to foul everything up, computer programs to fix your mistakes. You had to actually KNOW HOW TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH. Seems like these days only the Europeans are carrying on that tradition. Americans seem lazy & demand instant satisfaction/perfection.

Rolleijoe:

i just got back from europe ... most people i saw didn't use film.
and when i went into camera-stores looking for fixer ...

i don't think it is an "american problem" ...

[John Shriver]

Remember that in 1940, the pretty much "standard" developing time for all Kodak roll films was 17 minutes in D-76 at 68F. Even with emulsions where it took a lot more time to diffuse the developer in (the emulsion was thick with Gelatin), those are going to be developed to a high Dmax with a Contrast Index of 0.65 or more.

Also, that shows why DK-50 was quite popular then, it was "fast working", you could get the same look in 8 to 10 minutes.