Jump to content


Photo

How did vintage photographers achieve such quality?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Leaviathan

Leaviathan

    Planet Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Cod MA
  • Interests:Photography, Musician-bass, guitar, piano, lap steel, percussion. Audio Engineer-software & hardware platforms.

Posted 30 April 2017 - 02:21 PM

I've been looking through some vintage photography and I'm in awe at what these old cameras and photographers did with them. How do they do it?

 

 

Attached Files


Nikon D-3300 18-55 VRII, 1971 Nikkor 135mm Q-Auto, Tamron 70-300 AF. Not much! But I'm working on mastering what I do have.


#2 james23p

james23p

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis TN
  • Interests:I am an avid film user and digital user. I enjoy both formats and firmly believe they can live side by side.

    Right Jazz! :D

Posted 30 April 2017 - 02:23 PM

Skill and a lot of patients on both the photographer and the model. Plus the lab technicians where artist in their own right and in many cases the photographer was the processor.

 

Jim


God bless all those in harms way and Go Navy!




D700 w/MB-D10, D605 w/MB-D14, D200 w/MB-D200, D50, Coolpix P330.

Nikon 1 stuff: Nikon V1, Nikkor 10mm f2.8 pancake w/HN-N101 & HC-N101, Nikkor 10-30mm f3.5-5.6 w/HB-N101 Aspherical VR,, Nikkor 18.5mm f1.8 w/HB-N104, Nikon 1 FT-1, SB-N5 w/Polaroid Diffuser .

F100 w MB-15, N80, FM3a, FE2(Black and Silver) and EM.

Nikkor 24-85G ED AF-S VR, 70-300G ED AF-S VR, 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D, 50 1.8 AF-D, Nikkor 18-35 f3.5-4.5 AF-D ED.

Nikon Series E lens, 28mm, 100mm, 135mm, 75-150mm, 70-210 f4.

MF Nikkor's 50 f2 Ai, 500 f4 ED Ai-P.

 

MF Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED AE UMC(Ai-P)

MF Rokinon 85mm f1.4 ASP AE UMC(Ai-P)

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG HSM, Tamron's SP 70-200 f2.8 LD Di IF/Macro BIM, Kenko Pro 300 1.4 TC DGX, Tokina 100 f2.8D Macro At-X.

Pro Manfrotto 055XV with Markins M10 ,Sirui P-326 6-Section Carbon Fiber Monopod with Markins Q3 Emille, Manfrotto Compact MKC3-H01M with Combo Head, 3Pod PTT1H Table Top Tripod with Giottos MH1304 Ballhead.


#3 Dennis

Dennis

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado
  • Interests:Photography, music, hiking (part of photography).

Posted 30 April 2017 - 04:51 PM

And they used medium/large format film. Where they retouch the negative. The older version of Photoshop 😎

Thanks, Dennis.

Photography: 100 percent art, 100 percent technical. It takes a photographer to blend them into an image.

​Film: That tangible image that you can see and hold.

My Web Site.
My 500px page.

My Instagram.
Member; Colorado Springs Creative Photography Group

Nikon D4, D200, Fm2, FM, Mamiya RB67.
 


#4 justshootit

justshootit

    Deep Space Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland, O
  • Interests:Event photography, candids, travelogues, aircraft photography.

Posted 30 April 2017 - 09:35 PM

Even back then, an 8x10 negative could give astounding results in the hands of a photographer that knew what he was doing. Today, an 8x10 neg or chrome still blows away any digital camera for resolution.
Don
==========================================================
Digital: D610 backed up by a D1x.  Quoted from an unknown source by a fellow planeteer, "Never get rid of a working D1x." I've got to agree.

Film: N90s, F3, F100, F4s, C330s. A few lenses.

Why film photography? I like shooting with the equipment. 6x6 Velvia slides from a C330 have an appeal all their own.

Why automated 35mm/Digital cameras? Event photography is about capturing moments. It often requires quick response. Well done automaton can be your friend or your enemy. It all depends on knowing what it can and can't do. "A man's got to know his (camera's) limitations." paraphrasing Dirty Harry...

#5 480sparky

480sparky

    Planet Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1329 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2017 - 09:37 PM

Pure craftsmanship.  They knew how cameras worked, they knew how to control lighting, they knew how to process film, and they knew how to make prints.


Don't mind me..... I'm just out roaming around between Zone II and Zone IX.
Imagination Images of Iowa

#6 Art

Art

    Eon Timewave Master Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario
  • Interests:I have way too many interests and they include: Photography, My 2014 Mustang, Military History, Strategy Games, Video Games (Call of Duty: Black Ops and World at War), Computer Devices, Science Fiction, Movie Buff, Bad Science Fiction Movies of all types, Military Strategy Game Collector, Nikon Film Camera Collector, WWI 1/144 scale Plane collector, Wings of Glory and more... :)

Posted 30 April 2017 - 10:09 PM

I can't add anything to what has been said other than they were something to be admired!

 ...................... 🎥 Just another Photography buff! 🎥 .....................

|_____________________________________________________|


#7 pendennis

pendennis

    Planet Citizen Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeast Michigan
  • Interests:Photography -nature, still life, architectural. Shooting sports - shotgun, rifle, pistol.

    The body politic.

Posted 01 May 2017 - 07:49 AM

They all had(have) the fundamental understanding of light, how it affects the subjects, and how to modify it to suit their purposes.

 

Before the advent of artificial lighting, the studio was one which had a northern exposure, and preferably a skylight.  Scrims were used to soften shadows, and enhance highlights where necessary.  The lenses were, for the most part, uncoated, and all had some degree of astigmatism.  The anastigmatic lens was a late-19th Century invention, and "fixed" a lot of photographic problems, but photographers could get very pleasing results with the astigmat's lens geometry.

 

Women, especially those approaching middle-age, especially appreciated the "natural" softening of facial lines, adding youth and mystery to their portraits.

 

Modern lenses can't duplicate the softness of the old astigmats, opting instead, for filterization to try and duplicate the effect.

 

The softening feature carried over into cinema well into the 1950's.  Female stars, in their solo shots, were all photographed using the soft focus.  Only in multiple person shots were sharper lenses used.  And this mostly because men were the stars, and they wanted their "rugged good looks" to dominate.

 

Even after anastigmats became dominant, photographers wielded "magic" in the darkroom; burning, dodging, masking, all worked to get the desired effect.  On larger portraits, which were often overpainted, an artist could soften lines with the stroke of a brush.  Colorizing was done primarily before the advent of color film, and still carried over into the late 20th Century.

 

It's still an art.


Best,

Dennis


#8 Islander

Islander

    Planet Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo, BC, Canada

Posted 01 May 2017 - 10:43 AM

I agree with all the comments.  I'm not as old as all that but I did start out in the film age and spent a LOT of hours in the darkroom.

I've always said that a successful photographer must have a good fundamental knowledge of the aperture and shutter speed relationship.

In this age of automatic cameras this is often overlooked.

I don't miss the old days but I do appreciate what I am able to achieve because of them.


GORDON

 

p1092005242.png

 

Nikon D800, D300, D200, D70

500mm F4, 80-400VR

12-24DX, 24-70 F2.8FX, 18-70DX, 16-85DX, 16-35FX

and a bunch of other stuff...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users