[W&B] Pro-Photographer in 1886

Mon Jun 25 21:44:09 EDT 2007

Hey Milan,

Nah, I disagree for "anthropological" reasons.  Human nature.  Fascination
with technology.  Look at modern pro photographers...they MUST have the
latest, whether they need it or not.  A sweeping generalization, yes, but
it applies the majoirty of the time.  I agree that this 1886 pro might not
need to USE the Prosch shutter in that situation, but he sure as heck
would have arrived at the wedding with it proudly hanging on the front of
his camera.  It's no sweat to leave it open and cap it for a time
exposure, but it would have been there just the same.  An amateur, even an
advanced amateur, that might be different.  But a pro, he'd have the darn
thing, if only for show!

(Uh, for what it's worth, I think all my Prosch shutters shoot at 1/10,
whether I want them to or not...)

Then the dry plates, until the early 1890's they were basically continuous
tone, no genuine grain characteristics, so it didn't matter if you
overexposed for the shadows.  You didn't get detail, you just got lighter
grayer shadows!  That's why you DO see a lot of outdoor portraits taken in
more or less direct light...so the exposures were a tad quicker and the
highlights didn't burn out.  Shooting in subdued light just meant loss of
detail in those highlights, not added detail in the shadows.  You couldn't
control contrast in those early dry plates, everything was a bit muddy, so
you had to control it by the opposite of our modern take on B&W.  You
underexposed the negative because you could always kick up the print
later, and the papers were ahead of the dry plate technology at that
point.  Ansel never had to deal with that issue.

I agree on the lens.  A nice all purpose rapid rectilinear or something
similar.

Ah, I think from his earlier suggestion that Dan WANTS to have a 5 x 8
Flammang's back with Prosch shutter work in this situation, for reasons
he may express later.  I think it DOES work, it's a reasonable and
defensible suggestion for that scenario.  It simply isn't the only one.
But it works.

Best wishes,

David Silver--President
International Photographic Historical Organization
E-mail: silver at well.com  Telephone: (415) 681-4356
Webpage location: http://www.well.com/user/silver/

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Milan Zahorcak wrote:

>
> Well, the Eclipse shutter (382,581) carries an 1884 patent date, the rest
> obviously after that - so I suppose a Prosch is possible, but . . .
>
> Let's go with your ISO rating of 10.  The basic "sunny 16" rules says to use
> 1/ISO at f/16 on a nice sunny day with a sunlit scene.  That would put your
> basic exposure at 1/10th at f/16.
>
> 1.  I don't think a Prosch shutter could go that slow
>
> 2.  And even if it could, what's the point?
>
> Next, if given a choice, the pro photographer will want to shoot a wedding
> party in open shade - no harsh shadows, no squinting, no burnt out
> highlights (wedding dress), etc. - so figure on another stop or two, now
> maybe a half second exposure?  Cloudy day doesn't help, blue sensitive
> emulsions anyway.
>
> And then the other timeless rule for B&W kicks in - known long before St
> Ansel codified it - "expose for the shadows, process for the highlights" -
> also known as "overexpose, underdevelop."  So maybe another stop, so maybe
> one-second?  f/16 still sounds OK for reasons to come.
>
> Did we have reciprocity issues in those days at those exposure times?  Let's
> assume we didn't, else it just gets slower.
>
> So no, no shutter, I think.  Lens cap is just fine.
>
> OK . . . can we do lenses now?
>
> Me?  I'd go with the all-purpose outdoor lens (and fine for groups), a basic
> landscape lens, wide open at about f/11-f/16 because I'm an old softy and
> like the way it looks . . .
>
> Figure two rows of folks, maybe 6-8 across, men & women standing in the
> back, bride and groom seated in front, maybe a couple of kids on the ground?
> Have to figure the photographer would be about 16'-18' away for a really
> tight shot; further back to include some background . . . maybe a couple of
> overhanging leafy branches for composition . . . aahhhh, how sweet . . .
>
> But by the mid-1880s, a pro would probably use a nice basic RR lens (f/8),
> but probably stopped down to f/11 or f/16 anyway for the depth of field.
>
> One second sounds like a lot, but at that distance it isn't much, and most
> folks at a wedding are serious enough not to squirm around too much.
> Besides, a couple of blurred kids add character to the pic, and no one
> really cares about how the kids looked anyway.
>
> mz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: woodandbrass-bounces at kjsl.com
> > [mailto:woodandbrass-bounces at kjsl.com] On Behalf Of David Silver
> > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 5:09 PM
> > To: Collectors of 19th Century Cameras &amp;Photographica
> > Subject: RE: [W&B] Pro-Photographer in 1886
> >
> >
> > Milan,
> >
> > Once again, the same good idea for the camera choice, but why
> > not the Prosch shutter?  Did I miss something in the first
> > post?  What year are we talking about?  Too early for the
> > Prosch, or just a matter of not having a fast enough dry
> > plate?  I believe the speed rating for many general glass
> > plates by the mid 1880's was in the ISO 10 range, so a good
> > sunny exposure could require a shutter.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > David Silver--President
> > International Photographic Historical Organization
> > E-mail: silver at well.com  Telephone: (415) 681-4356
> > Webpage location: http://www.well.com/user/silver/
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Milan Zahorcak wrote:
> >
> > > Dan,
> > >
> > > Outdoor wedding party?  If it's in the country, by a local
> > > photographer *. . *. probably dry-plate, would have to be
> > on a tripod
> > > anyway - so a field camera, say an Anthony or a Scovill 5x8 with a
> > > landscape or RR lens. Certainly not a Prosch shutter.
> > >
> > > More details.  Your proposed scenario helps generate the
> > assumptions -
> > > the more tightly defined you can make it, the better the
> > > approximation.  How far did the photographer have to travel?  How
> > > professional a photographer?
> > >
> > > But regardless, I doubt anyone would schlep a studio camera and a
> > > stand on a wagon if they could pack an field outfit into a suitcase
> > > and sling a tripod over their shoulder.  A pro would have a field
> > > outfit for just those occasions.
> > >
> > > So, Dan, are we planning an event?  Your backyard out in
> > the country?
> > >
> > > mz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: woodandbrass-bounces at kjsl.com
> > > [mailto:woodandbrass-bounces at kjsl.com]
> > > On Behalf Of DColucci at aol.com
> > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 3:56 PM
> > > To: woodandbrass at kjsl.com
> > > Subject: Re: [W&B] Pro-Photographer in 1886
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shot taken in the US, for a group photo, lets say of a
> > wedding party
> > > of 15 people.  Would a photographer, on a "paid"
> > assignment, use a 5x8
> > > American Optical Flammang Rev. Back camera with Prosch shutter/lens
> > > for example ?  Or would it be a more formal portrait camera, taken
> > > from the studio, to the great outdoors ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   _____
> > >
> > > See what's free at AOL.com
> > > <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>