Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,653   Posts: 1,481,321   Online: 1071
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Knife???? Really! I hadn't heard of that kind of retouching. Wow that is a risk! Well, I would certainly make a dupe neg before attempting that Imagine you get a few minutes with some famous film starlet and then you take a knife to the neg...

    Looking at that image in the link I pasted in, there are two quick giveaways of red sensitization. (1) The shadows are deeper in the red-sensitized film. Note that in many of Hurrell's images you have dramatic, deep shadows; this is actually hard to do with ortho film. I've found that the UV sensitivity actually tends to create the appearance of more fill and gives a less graphical, uh, Rembrandty look. Even with very directional light, ortho film gives quite a lot of fill. Also (2) there are of course many more blemishes in ortho shots.

    Anyway my guess is that Hurrell started using red sensitized film he suddenly had a lot less work to do, to get the look that he wanted. Pure speculation on my part, of course.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #12
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,276
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkbluesky View Post
    As said, now I don't know if I should believe, for example, the types of light/power used described in the book or if they are also completely wrong... this is just an example.

    Tx!
    Right or wrong it's irrelevant past generalities, IMO.

    It's has a real scientific basis and studio sets are very good at repeating effects, but each and every subject that may sit for you will differ in both shape and reflectivity. Adjustments here and there to suit a subject would probably have been the norm not the exception for Hurrell, similarly they will be for you.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #13
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,276
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Knife???? Really! I hadn't heard of that kind of retouching. Wow that is a risk! Well, I would certainly make a dupe neg before attempting that Imagine you get a few minutes with some famous film starlet and then you take a knife to the neg...
    Yeah I think I'd shoot at least 4 sheets.

    Now imagine trying to retouch this way with 35mm film.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #14
    neelin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    winnipeg, canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Knife????Even with very directional light, ortho film gives quite a lot of fill.
    Not when you're indoors using tungsten lighting, exactly the opposite. OTOH that shot looks typical of outdoors, where there is a lot of actinic available light. My experience is with xray film though, and it's very contrasty, and you need oodles of tungsten to get enough light for ortho film. My ortho outdoors greatly washes out distant trees and clouds.

    Robert

  5. #15
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    2,906
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Knife???? Really! I hadn't heard of that kind of retouching. Wow that is a risk!
    I think the bigger problem is attaining the skill level to use it.

    Attachment 42637

  6. #16
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,760
    Blog Entries
    1
    The etching of film with a very sharp blade was common practice in the time of Hurrell and his contemporaries. The use of an Adams Retouching desk ( not associated with Ansel) made the task of retouching with blade or pencil much easier, but real experts could manage without it.
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

  7. #17
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    If you see 19th century photographs of children with sharp looking hands, those lines have most likely been cleaned up with a knife on the neg.

    Need to reduce a hotspot? One way to do this is to very carefully thin the overly dense spot on the neg with a knife blade. I've read that this was something everyone had to learn at Brooks at one time. Another approach is to sand the hotspot down with abrasive reducer--a product that Kodak used to make. I've managed to make it with brown tripoli abrasive and mineral oil.

    Pinhole in the emulsion? Using a sharp stylus perpendicular to the base side of the neg, with the neg emulsion-side down on a lightbox, stipple the area over the pinhole to scatter the light when it passes through the base and it will blend in the pinhole.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  8. #18
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129

    Quote Originally Posted by neelin View Post
    Not when you're indoors using tungsten lighting, exactly the opposite. OTOH that shot looks typical of outdoors, where there is a lot of actinic available light. My experience is with xray film though, and it's very contrasty, and you need oodles of tungsten to get enough light for ortho film. My ortho outdoors greatly washes out distant trees and clouds.

    Robert
    I find that with blue-sensitive film or a blue filter there is always a lot of filll, no matter how directional the light. The reason is the scattering power: 1/wavelength^4. So you get much, much more scattering with blue light, most of whch you can't even see with your eyes, but blue/UV sensitive materials pick it up.

    If you look at that Kodak advert in the link I posted, the effect is very clear around the nose. (The ortho image is on the left). So with ortho film, it's hard to 'sculpt' the face and create thinner features or dramatic shadows. Hence the need for retouch.

    Here is a shot with a 403 (UV) filter; note the amount of fill. This was in (deliberately) very harsh, direct overhead sunlight. I wanted to see just how bad the skintones would be! The poor gal looks like leather.

    BTW xray film has quite a lot of green sensitivity, because (I suppose) it is used to image phosphoresence from a screen, not the actual, direct xray image.

    P.S. Ah yes here is a pretty good overview of how xray films work:

    http://www.e-radiography.net/radtech/f/film.htm
    Last edited by keithwms; 12-26-2011 at 11:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7
    Thank you a lot to everybody for their comments and info, which I really appreciate but I would like to come back to the main topic, which is a relatively specific question: at side of the importance or not of knowing the film used, in order to replicate the style, does someone know (or has an idea) why they could have put Super-X for almost all photos in that book? Was that true? Does someone know why they have put Super-X even for the photos pre-1935?

    A mistake? I thought Hurrell colaborated in the making of the book (but I am not 100% sure), and I think that they must had access to some archival info, because I feel *impossible* to remember all the data for more than 150 shots (place where the shot was taken, lens, shutter speed, f-number, film, number, type and power of lights, and their emplacements, etc) 30/40 years later! (so if really they had access to some notes of the time, I should guess there is not too much place for errors (?!) ). Does someone know the story of this book, Hurrell involvement in it, etc?

    (Please, don't get me wrong: sure, I am always interested in discussing what you are telling me, it is fascinating, but for now I would prefer to try to solve/advance on the main question of this topic)
    Last edited by Darkbluesky; 12-26-2011 at 02:48 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,344
    Images
    69
    I think in "Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits", Vieira mentions that the retoucher would often do a contact print of the negative before doing their work on the negative. (Then do a contact print after) This was done so they'd have a "before and after" comparison rather than a backup image. Some films you can do retouching on the opposite side as the emulsion, which makes it a less less scary.

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