Vintage photography...curious about other people's views

[terri]

I much prefer the original, in the original there is a connection between photographer and subject

I prefer the original, too, but only because I think the contrast went too far in the one on the right. I have no issue with cleaning up the foreground shadows, but the detail in the highlights of the clothing are now blown out. I'd have cleaned up the shadows, done a bit of sharpening (carefully) and left it alone otherwise. Personal preference.

/Thread hijack.

To the OP: I think Leonore hit the nail on the head with her use of the word "connection." Vintage photos allow us true glimpses into the past, our own or someone else's, that allow us to feel that connection to people and places that were here before us. Our connective histories are vitally important to us as human beings, and we honor those who came before us, how they lived, the clothes they wore, by preserving these images. Like Lenny, I prefer a style of photography that seeks to offer that sense of connection to the viewer, even if it gives back only to me.

 

[dennybeall]

That photo is just a small file size copy of a photo made brighter to illustrate an article on photo restoration - it was not presented as a photo for C&C.
Keeping the shadow of the photographer does make a connection though - good point.
Thanks

 

[Derrel]

That photo is just a small file size copy of a photo made brighter to illustrate an article on photo restoration - it was not presented as a photo for C&C.
Keeping the shadow of the photographer does make a connection though - good point.
Thanks

It's not only the connection with the photographer, due to the presence of his shadow--it ALSO shows a very important point about the history of photography, and the time the shot was made: the old-time convention for amateur photographers and family snapshot shooters was to place the subjects FACING into the sun, and working in open, front lighted conditions....that was "the way it was done" back then, in large part due to the slow film speeds of the day. It was the standard photographic practice of the day, and it resulted in many,many images that included a bit of the photographer's shadow, most especially on the "tall" shots made with those old cameras. Sun coming over your shoulder and hitting the subject full in the face.

I have a wonderful photo of my grandmother made using the same, exact technique, with her posed about 40 feet from a large barn,m with a rather large photographer's shadow in the foreground. Sometimes, the shadow adds quite a bit in this type of shot.

 

[Designer]

Here's a sample of the before, on the left, taken in 1919 and the after, on the right, with just a touch of PS.

I'm quite happy that you removed the shadow. I like your enhancements and crop.

I will say, though, that the photographer had the presence of mind to frame the children's heads with an open umbrella, even though it wasn't raining, and it probably wasn't intended to shield them from the sun. More skill than most, I'd say.

 

[Jim Walczak]

That photo is just a small file size copy of a photo made brighter to illustrate an article on photo restoration - it was not presented as a photo for C&C.
Keeping the shadow of the photographer does make a connection though - good point.
Thanks

Again kind of interesting here in how this may illustrate some people's views about this. Personally I do prefer the second image myself (although at the risk of further uninvited C&C, I would agree with terri in that there's just a bit too much contrast) BECAUSE the shadows were removed. That said, I'm not sure I can see the issue of the shadow as being particularly relevant to the historical context. One the one hand, to some degree we are talking about the differences between the novice and the more seasoned photographer as it pertains to a vintage or historical context...and arguably such a shadow might be indicative of the novice factor. On the other hand, I can't say the inclusion of that shadow is particularly evocative regarding content either. Even back in my earliest film days, long before the advent of digital, I always tried to avoid such shadows with my own work, because personally I always felt it was a bit "sloppy" (no offense to anyone's sensibilities here), much like the proverbial tree growing out of someone's head or chopped off body limbs, etc.. To me it was always the photo itself that made the sense of connection to the photographer...after all someone had to take it. Perhaps the shadow itself does make a connection with the photographer in suggesting that this was more likely a snapshot...maybe taken by the children's mother or father (uncle, aunt, grandparent...), however to me at least, it's the children and the setting that make this photo interesting...even in a darkroom, personally I would have cropped that shadow out of there.

It's rather interesting how people would have such different perspectives on such a detail that otherwise seems rather insignificant.

 

[Derrel]

It's not insignificant at ALL...the shadow in this case is the photographer's signature...it's like the cave painter's handprint...

Shadowplay is a major theme in photography, and has been since the camera was invented. The photographer appears to have been a grown man, with a bald head. That shadow is his "stamp" on the image. Today we have Facebook pro's who emblazon their images with oversized script watermarks, proclaiming each image to be the product of Amazing Memories Photography by Katherine, or Happy Memories of Fun And Glee Images by Breanna, and so on...in 1919, that was not the case, but the same principle, the same idea is at work.

When looking at historical, vintage images, it pays to be familiar with the actual era and the actual practices of the time. In other words, it pays to evaluate historical images with some actual knowledge of the era,and what the standards and ideas of the times were.

The Ultimate Guide to Photo Shadow Play: 30 Ways to Show Shadows Some Love | Photojojo

 

[terri]

Completely agree with Derrel. Removing the shadow is treating the shadow as if it were a technical "fault," and I unthinkingly dismissed the connection between the subjects' faces and the person taking the picture (the shadow). If given this image to "clean up & restore" for a client, it's worth asking them how they feel about the shadow, particularly if the subjects are family members. I can't babble about "connection" in vintage photography on one hand, yet have a knee-jerk reaction to removing a (so-called) technical flaw like a human shadow. It's important to keep all these things in mind when handling these wonderful prints from the past, so I'm glad this point was expanded on.

 

[gsgary]

A photo without shadows is like a kiss without a squeeze

 

[jcdeboever]

The most interesting vintage photo's I have ever seen were pictures of civil war battlefield scenes and hospitals. It was a huge volume in the reference section at the Chicago main Library. It was fascinating and some day I am going back to review again.

Throughout the years, I frequently have bought vintage photo's from antique stores for reference material in art projects.

Even today, I prefer the look of film. In my opinion, it is more translucent, especially tin type stuff. Digital has more of an opaque visual for me. Nothing wrong, just different. Developing techniques have always fascinated me and remind me of watercolors / pen and ink.

It was mentioned it's about subject, composition and I agree. Looking back in time has a quality to it. Wonder what digital photography will look like to people 50 years from now? Wonder how today's old photos will be viewed as well?

Once I am comfortable and confident with my DSLR, I will go back to film. At this point in my noobness, I still prefer film.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[dennybeall]

The year is 1919, the camera is a black box with a single piece of ground glass for a lens, the film is B&W. Just capturing the scene was a win, "Uncle Joe" was not worried about shadows.

 

[Jim Walczak]

Wonder what digital photography will look like to people 50 years from now? Wonder how today's old photos will be viewed as well?

Also a very good question...with some of the responses here, I was thinking about that a bit myself. This is purely a speculative opinion, but if I had to make a guess, I suspect we will see some various phases with the development of photography. One the one hand, the technology continues to develop (no pun intended there)...the consumer digital realm is already creeping into the 30+ mp range, with medium format digital having already hit 80 mp and we're even seeing the likes of 3D imaging systems. This alone could suggest that in another 50 to 100 years, people may look at current DSLR photography as "primative", much the way a modern shooter might view something like an old Kodak "Brownie" or even Polaroids (no offense limr). For all we know, people may even have data ports installed in the side of their heads, so they won't even have to "look" at a picture...simply have it downloaded into their brains (don't laugh...look at all the people with Blue Tooth headsets that are practically glued to their ears!). The work of today will certainly have a fascination for some (as we've seen in this thread regarding what's currently considered vintage) and will likely be completely over-looked by others in favor of whatever is "new", "cool" or "totally fab" when it comes around. On the other hand, we've also seen that modern technology doesn't always usurp technologies of the past. There's still a lot of folks out there who do indeed prefer film and even with the advent of digital picture frames, where you can display multiple photos on a single device, as well as the proliferation of websites where you can upload, store and share your digital images, I suspect most of us still plenty of traditional framed prints, if not the proverbial shoe box full of "snap shots". Sure, for some folks today, that shoe box is really a "smart phone", but MANY still enjoy the beauty of physical prints and I really don't see the classic "photo album" going away any time soon.

As something of an art history buff, I would also be so bold as to suggest that, with art in general at least, there seems to be repeating cycles. Going back to the ancient Greeks for example, with the likes of sculptors such as Praxiteles, even that long ago, there was an emphasis on realism (at least regarding the human form), or at least idealism. Unlike other ancient cultures where forms were often distorted or geometric, with the work of the ancient Greeks (and later Roman copies), we began to see work that did indeed bear a close resemblance to reality. During later eras however, such as the Byzantine for example, such notions were virtually abandoned, however we then saw a resurgence with this sense of realism with both the early Dutch painters and later, the Renaissance in Italy (ala da Vinci). This sense of realism continued to develop even further with folks like Caravaggio and Gentileschi, however as the sense of artistic freedom began to take dominance with artists, we start to see the likes of Van Gogh, Monet. Renoir, etc., till we finally hit people such as Picasso and "The Fauves", where any sense of realism was virtually abandoned, leading even later to concepts of total abstract such as the work of Jackson Pollock. But then when we get into the 1970's we also see a resurgence in the dedication to realism with the likes of Ralph Goings, Don Eddie and other "hyperrealists"...paintings that do indeed look like photographs. From the standpoint of art, in short - the wheel turns and what goes around, comes around.

I think that just as we see people today who are still dedicated to film and even those who take photography to more conceptual extremes with the likes of Lomography and Photoshop manipulations, while we will likely have people who embrace the latest, greatest tools and tech of their time, there will always be those who have an appreciation, if not dedication to to those who came before them. If anything, I think the question is, will my 5 mp pixel Sony or 8 mp Canon Rebel XT hold up as long as those old Kodak Brownies have...and will I still be able to get batteries for the silly things? LOL!!!

Again just some speculation. Thoughts?

 

[timor]

Jim, you just changed direction of this thread. LOL But good, I like the fire burning in you...
From enjoying old photos now we are at the philosophy of art. In the case you missed this, here is the link:

It explains (by proxy) how realism was taken away from painters by photography. Realism resurgence in late 20th century has different philosophical bases, than this from da Vinci times.

Couple days ago I had the opportunity to do service to a total stranger. Met in photo store she was asking the sales person to make for her prints from old negative. He offered no help, but I did. Negative was old, 60 years old in fact and in not the best shape, but still printable. Here it is:

There is not much I can do about all the problems. Digital restoration helped with the scratches, but the major problem of over exposure, over development and total lack of sharpness would probably require a lot of digital work with probably uncertain outcome. Nevertheless picture carries enourmous emotional value for the owner of the negative as it is the only surviving image of her father and discovered that it exists just recently. For most folks out there it is doesn't matter, how the picture was made. What counts is survivability. Negatives and paper prints have limited lifespan, but long enough for 3-4 generations. Digital file has unlimited lifespan, but requires some regular maintenance of the hardware carrying it. How average people will go about that ?

 

[desertrattm2r12]

Digital images (including mine) are ephemeral. They will not last. The images are unstable like early (silent film era) nitrate film stock that was highly flammable and tended to turn to dust if not stored correctly.
I have at least 200 5.25 inch computer floppy disks that will not fit any of my modern computers and the data on them is dead. The software used for most of it is long buried in the dustbin of history. Before that I used 8.25 inch floppy disks at work and they are dinosaurs.
This will be the barren generation who will leave almost nothing to their grandkids in the way of images.They will judge us in years ahead from the "bang bang" and the "if it bleeds it leads" of TV because the TV Robber Barons have a multi-billion dollar motive to save their junk.
The great majority of silent films is lost. Most radio shows are lost. The only recordings of the radio dramas are when the big networks recorded the 4 p.m. show to play it again at 8 p.m. for the West Coast audience. And nobody took much thought about saving the records. Many are in private hands of people who just took them home for fun.
Color feature films fade and many are lost. Curiously, the glorious Technicolor films will last because Technicolor was filmed at first on strips of b&w film and then 3 strips of b&w film. Different colored filters over the lenses allowed them to produce glorious (but unreal) Technicolor.
Early TV made copies of live TV shows and others via Kinoscope. They videotaped a TV set with lousy results.
Progress will do you in every time,

 

[JerryPH]

Digital images (including mine) are ephemeral. They will not last. The images are unstable like early (silent film era) nitrate film stock that was highly flammable and tended to turn to dust if not stored correctly.
I have at least 200 5.25 inch computer floppy disks that will not fit any of my modern computers and the data on them is dead. The software used for most of it is long buried in the dustbin of history.

That data is far from dead. It may be inaccessible because you don't want to (or don't have the drives anymore, to) take the effort to move it from one medium to a more modern medium, but its not like it is lost. I have several old drives, 1.44, 5.25, etc... they are still very functional on modern equipment, and if that does not work, I have one old PC I keep just for these kinds of situations that has a 5.25" drive that is fully functional.

The difference was that in the past, once that physical negative was damaged or cracked into a million pieces, it *was* forever lost. Just because you have data on a medium that you no longer own, this does not mean that someone else does not. Part of the responsibility for keeping those memories alive is making sure they are all brought forward in time, in terms of how they are preserved. In this case, digital media is ridiculously easy and near idiot-proof to keep, just move the original data to a modern medium... as long as you do that, your memories are preserved.

In the case of digital format, JPG was the first format that ever came out on digital cameras, it is still supported today (that said, I challenge anyone to send me an uknown file format that I cannot read. There are many applications out there that can read pretty much any file format). If it is a proprietary format (I don't know, some old version of RAW or something), again, it falls to the owner to translate this data into a modern format so that this data is preserved. It all comes down to acknowledging that if you *want to*, you can take steps to never lose those precious memories irrespective of what their current format is, analog, digital or physical medium.

I have some 1960's family films. Touch the roll and the film crumbles. I need to find some way to transfer that to digital where it is safer. It's going to take a different kind of projector to not totally destroy the film before I can get it on to digital media.

 

[480sparky]

That data is far from dead. It may be inaccessible because you don't want to take the effort to move it from one medium to a more modern medium, but its not like it is lost. I have several old drives, 1.44, 5.25, etc... they are still very functional on modern equipment, and if that does not work, I have one old PC I keep just for these kinds of situations that has a 5.25" drive that is fully functional.....

Sometimes, the data is dead not because it cannot be read, but because those who know how to read it are dead.

NASA is a perfect example. While they still have the data from many of the early space probes, there's no one still alive who is able to interpret any of it.

We are living in the Digital Dark Ages. Most of our digital stuff won't be around in 5 years.