Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,832   Posts: 1,582,342   Online: 946
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59
  1. #31
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,964
    Images
    226

    1945 Kodak 35RF!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    4 x 5 detail was essentially wasted in the process used to put the photographs on to newsprint - have you ever looked closely at the half-tones used in old newsprint photos .

    As 35mm cameras and lenses and systems became common, and 35mm film was improved, the smaller format was quickly recognized as being much more appropriate for deadline sensitive work.
    All news print to me is really "grainy" ya know the dpi is really low, and dots themselves are large, so being that I'm 30 I never lived through the 4x5 press camera era so I just assumed the 4x5 image was a common size for newspapers of the past and it was sort of a "contact" style print. I've never actually seen an old paper from like the 50's or earlier. Not sure I could even find microfiche anymore none of the libraries even have those machines anymore. Wonder where it all went...


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    4 x 5 detail was essentially wasted in the process used to put the photographs on to newsprint - have you ever looked closely at the half-tones used in old newsprint photos .

    As 35mm cameras and lenses and systems became common, and 35mm film was improved, the smaller format was quickly recognized as being much more appropriate for deadline sensitive work.
    I don't think sheet film was necessarily used for detail purposes, but more for layout purposes. You could crop a lot to get exactly what you wanted. There was also the issue of excessive grain and contrast when using 35mm cameras prior to improvements in film made after WWII. The large formats simply made formatting and producing half tones easier in a era with relatively lousy film.

  3. #33
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    This is why news photographers used Dektol. It was quick, grainy, and unsharp. Used for 3 mins. (1:3) or 7 mins. (1:7) with Super XX film and a quick wash and dry in Alcohol and they had a printable negative for the newspaper.

    There is another thread here on Dektol as a film developer. I wish this could be crossed over with that!

    PE

  4. #34
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,922
    Images
    60
    In the late 1970s I had a summer job working as a darkroom technician for the Vancouver Sun newspaper.

    By then, all of the photographers were using 35mm cameras. The "standard issue" cameras were Nikon F's, although a few photographers shot something else (Leicas and Pentax and in one case Konica, IIRC).

    No medium format or large format at all.

    As part of my job, I used to fill the quieter times by printing to fulfil print orders that would come in from members of the public. The Sun had a huge negative archive, and anyone could, for a fee, obtain a print from anything in the archive.

    The one and only print I have ever done from a large format negative was as a result of one of those orders. The Chief photographer at the Sun was essentially the department manage by then, but he had taken many many shots for the newspaper. Probably most famously, he had shot the iconic photo of Bannister and Landy during the "Miracle Mile" at the 1954 Empire Games in Vancouver - the first ever mile race where two or more racers ran a sub 4:00 minute mile.

    So someone ordered a print from that negative - approximately 25 years after the fact - and I did the print on the single remaining enlarger there that was set up for 4x5.

    I distinctly remember one of the older photographers there seeing me with the print, and saying something like "Is Charlie still riding on those laurels" .

    Here is an image of that front page: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/...ed/runner.html

    The print looked pretty good, but even then the grain and "tonality" of that 25 year old negative (processed to meet a deadline) meant that it didn't look much better than a print done at that time from a then current 35mm negative.

    And the 35mm films available today (including the so called "traditional" 400 ISO films) are definitely improved from the films that were available in the 1970s.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #35
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,964
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    This is why news photographers used Dektol. It was quick, grainy, and unsharp. Used for 3 mins. (1:3) or 7 mins. (1:7) with Super XX film and a quick wash and dry in Alcohol and they had a printable negative for the newspaper.

    There is another thread here on Dektol as a film developer. I wish this could be crossed over with that!

    PE
    Wait doesn't alcohol have a bad effect on film? I thought I read you weren't supposed to use that on film...

  6. #36
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,964
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    In the late 1970s I had a summer job working as a darkroom technician for the Vancouver Sun newspaper.

    By then, all of the photographers were using 35mm cameras. The "standard issue" cameras were Nikon F's, although a few photographers shot something else (Leicas and Pentax and in one case Konica, IIRC).

    No medium format or large format at all.

    As part of my job, I used to fill the quieter times by printing to fulfil print orders that would come in from members of the public. The Sun had a huge negative archive, and anyone could, for a fee, obtain a print from anything in the archive.

    The one and only print I have ever done from a large format negative was as a result of one of those orders. The Chief photographer at the Sun was essentially the department manage by then, but he had taken many many shots for the newspaper. Probably most famously, he had shot the iconic photo of Bannister and Landy during the "Miracle Mile" at the 1954 Empire Games in Vancouver - the first ever mile race where two or more racers ran a sub 4:00 minute mile.

    So someone ordered a print from that negative - approximately 25 years after the fact - and I did the print on the single remaining enlarger there that was set up for 4x5.

    I distinctly remember one of the older photographers there seeing me with the print, and saying something like "Is Charlie still riding on those laurels" .

    Here is an image of that front page: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/...ed/runner.html

    The print looked pretty good, but even then the grain and "tonality" of that 25 year old negative (processed to meet a deadline) meant that it didn't look much better than a print done at that time from a then current 35mm negative.

    And the 35mm films available today (including the so called "traditional" 400 ISO films) are definitely improved from the films that were available in the 1970s.
    Thanks Matt, very interesting, yea that's a terrible picture, shocking anyone would want a print of that by todays standards but I guess it was news, now people want to see Miley syric's (No idea how to spell her name) crotch shot, man how times have changed... really makes me wonder.

    Also PE why "unsharp" I've never honestly understood the sharp/unsharp thing, why is it beneficial to "unsharpen" something?

  7. #37
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Stone;

    For rapid drying of negatives, some people with deadlines and no concern for the arcivability of a negative, would give a short wash and then a rinse in alcohol. This allowed the negative to dry quickly. Often, they would rewash and dry normally after their deadline was met.

    Also, newspaper prints were so poor that sharpness was not a concern, but no one worked to unsharpen something. The negatives processed in different developers had different degrees of sharpness due to the edge effects of the developer on the emulsion.

    PE

  8. #38
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,922
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Thanks Matt, very interesting, yea that's a terrible picture, shocking anyone would want a print of that by todays standards but I guess it was news, now people want to see Miley syric's (No idea how to spell her name) crotch shot, man how times have changed... really makes me wonder.

    Also PE why "unsharp" I've never honestly understood the sharp/unsharp thing, why is it beneficial to "unsharpen" something?
    Stone:

    A print from the negative looks very good, and originally the photograph reproduced quite well (for 1954) on the original newsprint. What you see in the link in my post is a scan of the old, original front page of the newspaper.

    There aren't many versions of the original photo on the internet - as I understand it, Charlie Warner owns the copyright to the photo, and has protected it carefully.

    Scroll down to adjacent to the July 30th entry on this link to see a marginally better version: http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/chronology1954.htm
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  9. #39
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Matt;

    It is also a LOT smaller.

    PE

  10. #40
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,964
    Images
    226
    Thanks guys, it all makes sense now.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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