Quote Originally Posted by Darkbluesky View Post
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)
I know you may not want to hear this but I think the answer is that there is probably little or no data that carried through to the paper. (That brings up another wild card here too; whatever paper he chose, like whatever film he used, would have had a personality that would have contributed to the look. The negative doesn't work in a vacume.)

Seriously, it is very possible that Hurrell was guessing as the book was being written, based on his experience, about what he probably-sorta-kinda-possibly-maybe used for that special shot of "X", on that special day years earlier.

I don't know if there were notes taken by Hurrell or not, but I do know that I don't keep any camera setting records and only very crude notes penned on the boxes of my materials on hand.

The practical question is probably not "is the book is a true historical record?" though, but instead "is the information contained a reasonable guide?"

The latter seems likely and given the current market availability of Super X, at best the book gives you a reference of the type of film he may have chosen, liked, or got paid to say he used. Given that uncertainty, it would seem the specific answer is purely academic in nature.

Also given the maliability of most any film's/paper's characteristics/responses though development and exposure and filters on the lighting and Filters on the camera and ... It gets to the point where what Hurrell actually used no longer matters.

Most masters, in any trade or craft, get to a point where they can make various tools do the same work.