Union Soldier

While sepia is accepted as moden shorthand for 'old time feel,' contemporary photography would have been neither grainy nor particularly sepia toned.

Not saying I disagree with you on this but, my uncle collects daguerreotype photographs along with many other types of old photographs. Some of the photographs, due to reasons I don't know, were dirty or sepia-ish and there was a lack of clarity that I would submit to you was partially due to grain. The other reason for lack of clarity I'm guessing would be a motion blur.
 
While sepia is accepted as moden shorthand for 'old time feel,' contemporary photography would have been neither grainy nor particularly sepia toned.

Not saying I disagree with you on this but, my uncle collects daguerreotype photographs along with many other types of old photographs. Some of the photographs, due to reasons I don't know, were dirty or sepia-ish and there was a lack of clarity that I would submit to you was partially due to grain. The other reason for lack of clarity I'm guessing would be a motion blur.

daguerreotypes actually have no visible grain, they are the sharpest and most detailed form or photography ever invented which is amazing considering it was the first form of photography.

By the time of the civil war wet plate colodian (wet glass plates and and tintypes) had become the most commonly used form of photography for two reasons you could reprint the the image if it was made on glass and the ether used in wet plate colodian is not as deadly as the mercury fumes used in the daguerreotype process.

Glass plates and tintypes still didn't have a lot a grain mainly because photos could not be enlarged back then. If you wanted say a 11x14 image you had to make a 11x14 glass plate negative.
 
I'm not usually a fan of sepia, but it fits like a glove here. Lovely work as always. Someday I will make it to such an event!
 
While sepia is accepted as moden shorthand for 'old time feel,' contemporary photography would have been neither grainy nor particularly sepia toned.

Not saying I disagree with you on this but, my uncle collects daguerreotype photographs along with many other types of old photographs. Some of the photographs, due to reasons I don't know, were dirty or sepia-ish and there was a lack of clarity that I would submit to you was partially due to grain. The other reason for lack of clarity I'm guessing would be a motion blur.

daguerreotypes actually have no visible grain, they are the sharpest and most detailed form or photography ever invented which is amazing considering it was the first form of photography.

By the time of the civil war wet plate colodian (wet glass plates and and tintypes) had become the most commonly used form of photography for two reasons you could reprint the the image if it was made on glass and the ether used in wet plate colodian is not as deadly as the mercury fumes used in the daguerreotype process.

Glass plates and tintypes still didn't have a lot a grain mainly because photos could not be enlarged back then. If you wanted say a 11x14 image you had to make a 11x14 glass plate negative.
It has honestly been about 17 years since I had any discussion with my uncle about this and when it was talked about I was still in high school so I'm probably wrong. I thought though that I recall him saying something about the early daguerreotype photographs were dark and grainy. Then something about once figured out they were much clearer and that exposures went from 60seconds plus to much quicker. Of course that was a long time ago and my memory isn't what it used to be lol. The only thing I could say for sure is I do remember him having some photographs that were noisy and not sepia but, I could only best describe them as dirty.(not a clean b&w)
 
Not a fan of the sepia. A good BW conversion would have accomplished the same feeling.
 
It has honestly been about 17 years since I had any discussion with my uncle about this and when it was talked about I was still in high school so I'm probably wrong. I thought though that I recall him saying something about the early daguerreotype photographs were dark and grainy. Then something about once figured out they were much clearer and that exposures went from 60seconds plus to much quicker. Of course that was a long time ago and my memory isn't what it used to be lol. The only thing I could say for sure is I do remember him having some photographs that were noisy and not sepia but, I could only best describe them as dirty.(not a clean b&w)

Depending on the conditions that a daguerreotype has been stored in, most likely that noise you are referring to is from oxidization, dust dirt etc. In addition to that a scan or photograph just cannot do a daguerreotype justice because of the reflective silver coated surface of the plate.
 
Love that first one Lew. No complaints about it at all. Did you consider using texture as an overlay to give it that real aged look?
 
Love that first one Lew. No complaints about it at all. Did you consider using texture as an overlay to give it that real aged look?
I hadn't thought until you mentioned it.
I don't have any but may dig some up.

Thanks,
 
Depending on the conditions that a daguerreotype has been stored in, most likely that noise you are referring to is from oxidization, dust dirt etc. In addition to that a scan or photograph just cannot do a daguerreotype justice because of the reflective silver coated surface of the plate.

More than likely it was how the photograph was stored then. He owned an antique store in Texas and when he would come up to the WNY area he would go to other antique shoppes and garage sales hunting for all types of antiques not just old photographs. The only reason we talked about the photographs is because at the time I was taking a photography class in high school. So I was interested.
 
To me, it looks like it could use a third of a half of a stop bump up in exposure, just to bring a touch more light on his face. Love the processing and "feel" of this image. [emoji106]

Jake
 
I wanted the blade to be the brightest part so it is an important part of the picture but thanks for taking the time to comment.
 
I wanted the blade to be the brightest part so it is an important part of the picture but thanks for taking the time to comment.

Totally understandable. What about selectively lightening the shadows a little bit on his face?
 
I like the first one, Lew.

Love that first one Lew. No complaints about it at all. Did you consider using texture as an overlay to give it that real aged look?
I'd like to see how this would turn out.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top