Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,094   Online: 1023
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli View Post
    My guess fwiw: Kodak 4a Studio camera with a Wollensak Velostigmat 12" used at f4.5 on 5X7 film. I'm gussing 12" at f4.5 because of the shallow depth of field. Still it is of the "smooth / sharp" persuasion which indicates an Anastigmat like the Wolly. A Heliar of 12 or 14" would look very similar.
    Assuming this photo was made in the UK, a lens like the one on the left here is far more likely: A Ross Cabinet No.2, a 14" f:3.5 Petzval lens. A post card is about "cabinet" size, and a 14" lens would give a good working distance to the sitter. The very good sharpness in a very limited area is also a hint that it might be a Petzval.

    The print could be albumen, collodion/silver, gelatin/silver POP, or even an early "gaslight paper". It's difficult to tell the difference on a PC screen.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails OldStuff79_600.jpg  
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Norwich, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,405
    Images
    90
    Thanks to all who have contributed.

    If this was on postcard stock coated with emulsion, how would they have acheived the toning (or is it just discolouration over the years)?

    Jim, I am keen to find a piece of glass that will provide this look. If you go back to our PM discussion regarding the old barrel lenses would I be on the right track?

    Phill
    It is not tradition that secures the survival of our craft, its the craft that secures the survival of our traditions.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Norwich, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,405
    Images
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole View Post
    Assuming this photo was made in the UK, a lens like the one on the left here is far more likely: A Ross Cabinet No.2, a 14" f:3.5 Petzval lens. A post card is about "cabinet" size, and a 14" lens would give a good working distance to the sitter. The very good sharpness in a very limited area is also a hint that it might be a Petzval.

    The print could be albumen, collodion/silver, gelatin/silver POP, or even an early "gaslight paper". It's difficult to tell the difference on a PC screen.

    Hi Ole

    Image was definitely made in UK. Family was reasonably poor so I think it would have been done as 'cheap' as possible.

    Thats a nice selection of lenses you have thee

    Phill
    It is not tradition that secures the survival of our craft, its the craft that secures the survival of our traditions.

  4. #14
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Phill,

    there were two basic "routes" to postcards in those days: Either through a mechanical print onto thick postcard stock, or an original print on very thin paper glued on the thicker paper. I don't know where the "balance" point would have been - for few copies, the mounted is cheaper, for large editions the graphic method would be cheaper.

    Assuming your uncle's mother was not a) rich, b) famous, or c) had about 300 relatives all over the world who all wanted pictures, I'd say the thin print mounted on thick paper is the most likely.

    I wonder if that could be a "wet-plate fingerprint" there in the left edge, just below eye level? Regardless, I don't think it's "ortho" film. I believe it must have been shot on an "ordinary" plate - blue and UV sensitive only. It's easiest to tell the difference with blue-eyed people, which this woman was not.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Norwich, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,405
    Images
    90
    I have had a good look at the paper and its a one piece print, i.e printed on the card with an emulsion not a seperate print thats been glued on.
    It is not tradition that secures the survival of our craft, its the craft that secures the survival of our traditions.

  6. #16
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    Rich or not Phill, she has obviously taken a lot of care with her dress, make-up, and her hair to create the best possible picture; the rest being down to the photographer, who certainly knew his craft. Most people of her age would have had such a picture made, which would not have been cheap. They were circulated around the family, and most importantly exchanged with potential suitors.
    As an aside I have a similar one of my father, which he gave to my mother soon after he first met her with the throw away line hand written on the back “you may as well have this, I have plenty more”! which always amuses me.
    As for the technical details, I can’t help much except to surmise that it was almost certainly a contact print, and probably made on POP.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  7. #17
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    I do not think this was a cheap photograph.

    I'm not familiar with the fashions of 1910, but that looks like a costume, rather than everyday wear. A lot of care seems to have gone in to this image. It looks like it has been post processed with the photoshop of its day: a soft pencil on the back of the negative... Looks more like a publicity shot for an actress than a quick 1/- portrait.

    I think albumen had essentially died out before the turn of the century and either POP or "gaslight" papers were the in thing by this time.

    Cheers, Bob.

    P.S. At the V&A museum:
    A free opinions service, where curators can offer information (though not valuations) on photographs, operates in the Prints & Drawings Study Room from 14.00 to 17.00 on the first Tuesday of the month.
    Last edited by Bob F.; 11-28-2006 at 04:34 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added V&A info...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    109
    I'll point out one thing that I've seen from being the custodian of my families heirlooms, I noticed that when the top of the image was inserted first into its sleeve, the bottom of the frame which is pointing toward the opening of the sleeve tends to fade first. I think this has happened to this image.

    'I think the secret is more with the photographer than the equipment.'.........................100% on the money, the most important technique of all is getting a smile/an emotion that is warm and/or legit.

    Her shoulders aren't squared off, in competition w/the framelines, which I think you can get away with once your inside the shoulders. The way the lighting hits the neck, looks absolutely right to me. She has deep inset eyes, but I don't find the shadows under her eyes objectionable,...........this image for me gets a 10 for the smile/emotional content, and a 10 for the way she was lit.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

  9. #19
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,361
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Yes- the fading in the lower portion of the image, while perhaps assisted by an original vignette, is more consistent with damage over time than with a strict vignette, which would have been most likely to be more consistent the whole way around the image on each border.
    I'm very fortunate to have inherited a gigantic family photo collection, spanning over a hundred years. We have a LOT of cabinet cards from the 1870s to early 1900s, and a good number of picture-postcard photos as well. Most of the images were preserved in albums or boxes and untouched or examined for the better part of forty years until my grandmother passed on. I've seen a lot of the postcard prints like that one- they were often very well photographed, like yours, and were intended to be inexpensive giveaways to family and friends. A good chunk of my family photos were taken in Wales, as that's where the family is originally from. If you can scan in a copy of the reverse and post it, I'll take a look at some of mine over the weekend and see if there are any other common features that might help identify the paper.
    Last edited by TheFlyingCamera; 11-28-2006 at 03:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    109
    OMT...........as I look at the image again, whatever the angle/distance from the illumination, it's perfect as it tails off and forms shadows along the ridges of her cheeks, along with the way the shadow forms on the neck, and selective focus, there's a tremendous sense of depth...................a heavyweight shot this.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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