Thousands of historic pictures

[photax]

Hi !

I found this superb link yesterday and got lost for hours :

www.indicommons.org/about/the-commons-institutions/

MIK

[Berndt]

Good link. Thanks for sharing. A lot of things to discover !!! Often hard to find a good source of old pictures. Love to look at them and also always try to understand, why they are looking like they look.

For example, I found a photographer in internet yesterday by chance. His name is Edward Quinn and he obviously took portraits of nearly all famous people.
www.edwardquinn.com/
Unfortunately, most of his works are not free to watch Maybe, he just published them in books, etc.

He took a lot of really cool pictures in the 50s and what I noticed is, that those B/W pictures ( like others, shot at that time too ) are looking brighter than B/W pictures of today. Why might that be so ? One guess ... but just guess ... people used more orthochromatic film at that time ?

[julio1fer]

Mighty Quinn!

[nikonbob]

I have to avoid links like that, just can't afford to loose myself in them. I can see where you could be absorbed for hours wandering around. Very interesting.

Bob

[SidW]

I knew about the UK National Archives on flickr, but this was a wonderful find, to have so many museums, libraries and archives in one place. Thank you Mik.

Berndt, it's not easy to compare old B&W with B&W derived from the RBG cameras of today. For one thing we don't know what processing, if any, today's pictures have been through, and the old pictures have often been been through several stages of reproduction. I only recall panchromatic film in the 1950s, but there was so much to choose from. And such a wide range of papers of different textures and from cold to warm black. The established professional photographers often had brilliantly skillfull copyists. You also see the world differently for B&W vs colour photography, that would also make a difference. I've forgotten how to see B&W pictures around me, I've only used Kodachrome since 1970, that's too long. The pictures I take now are optimized for colour, not B&W, and don't usually convert well to B&W. It's a question of light/dark contrasts or colour contrasts.

[Berndt]

@sidw ... plus some techniques might have been different. For example, I guess, that flash has been much more often used than today. Films have often been less light sensitive ( lower ASA ) and there hasn't been any Photoshop for postproduction yet.

Back in times of film, I remember myself, that pro-photographers mostly used additional flash for minimizing shadows and getting more structures on dark surfaces ( especially clothes ) even at daylight conditions and especially in strong sunlight.

And ... flashes have been different. A parabolic metal shield reflected the light from the bulb and dispersed it pretty well. An effect, hard to get with modern camera flashes. Now, we are using more the technique of "bouncing" it at reflecting surfaces. The result looks more natural ... and completely different from the past.

[camerastoomany]

///////He took a lot of really cool pictures in the 50s and what I noticed is, that those B/W pictures ( like others, shot at that time too ) are looking brighter than B/W pictures of today. Why might that be so ? One guess ... but just guess ... people used more orthochromatic film at that time ?//////

I belong to a camera club which has b&w competitions. Since all members use digital cameras, they have to convert from colour to b&w. Perhaps that is one reason for apparent differences in appearance.

[Berndt]

Since all members use digital cameras, they have to convert from colour to b&w.

Are you serious ? May I say "what a shame" without being insulting ? I think, the most fans of B/W photography are still using film ( as I can see on Flickr as well ), many are even developing by themselves.

Of course, B/W pictures can look beautiful on digital as well, but their look is indeed another story then. And if shooting B/W on a digital camera, I would actually recommend, shooting in B/W mode directly ( and not converting afterwards ).

Sometimes, B/W is even a stopgap solution, because there are films available in B/W, which you can't get in color. Very high and low ASA films, for example ... or the white ballance is tough to master in a certain situation ( mixed light, etc. ). B/W film can also be very nice when using direct flash, because film can take more f-stops. The typical "white face in the dark" effect can be mitigated.

But I have to appologize for being an oldfashioned guy B/W photography by using a digital camera and converting from color lets my hackles raise ... hahaha ... but please don't take it personal

[mickeyobe]

I wonder if any of you - or how many of you have ever attended an exhibition or juried competition of B & W prints.

They are so beautiful. Just saying 'black and white' does not convey the great diversity of the prints.

They may vary in colours of black, colours of printing paper, high and low key prints, toning, paper texture and, of course, subject matter and the treatment of subject matter.

I admit I shoot only colour. Colour is the raison d'être of my photography. That is because B & W is a medium that I never mastered in my darkroom. B & W is, indeed, a different medium from colour and should be highly regarded for the superb artistic medium that it is.

Many B & W photographers were great artists with the medium and have created photographs that are considered masterpieces even today.

Mickey

[photax]

Mickey,

I visited an exhibition of B/W pictures from Henri Cartier-Bresson some weeks ago. This photographer had been a genuine artist !

www.kunsthauswien.com/en/exhibitions/current

MIK

[SidW]

Dec 14, 2011 20:25:13 GMT -5 Berndt said:

... And if shooting B/W on a digital camera, I would actually recommend, shooting in B/W mode directly ( and not converting afterwards ) ...

Berndt, a few years ago the general wisdom was don't do anything in the camera, do it on the
computer, due to the superiority of computer programs over camera programs. I don't know if
that's changed yet. So I would still convert from camera RGB on the computer.

And why not? After all that's what B&W films do, it's all RGB through the filters and lens right up to
the emulsion.

Just in case there are any misunderstandings out there, that means you should do any filtering
(yellow, green, orange etc) while you still have the RGB version, before converting to B&W.

[Berndt]

SiDW ... good point, I think.

I don't know, which technique is better regarding the technical issues, but I think ... if using a digital camera for B/W photography, I would also try to benefit from the option of "previewing my result". Often difficult to imagine, how a picture will look in B/W ( gives it often a completely different mood ).

I often noticed, that some pics do look better in color but others better in B/W, especially then, if we want to eleminate a certain attention to something. For example, if a person is wearing a red t-shirt standing in the green forrest, viewers will automatically put their attention on the shirt. If that is wanted, it's fine ... but if the face or something in the forrest might be the actual thing, which I want to be important, B/W might the better option.

There are millions of different possibilities and artistic intentions, of course ... that has been just a simple example, but often, we don't notice certain things while taking a picture. If I want to take a picture intentionally in B/W, I might choose a different technique, angle, zoom, lighting or whatever. So, it might not be a bad idea, shooting in B/W directly. Provides different inspirations then.

[nikonbob]

Lots of interesting comments about B&W then and now. Being a complete bumkin when it comes to traditional B&W and never having been to a juried competition of B&W prints or done the darkroom thing I have a somewhat different outlook. I see in colour and as a consequence any B&W I do is accidental/incidental to colour digital photos taken. While doing post on a RAW imagine you have the opportunity to convert it to B&W with filtering and all. I like the freedom of interpretation this give you. I do not try and compare digital B&W to the traditional film based B&W, they are similar but different and each should be enjoyed for what they are. Simply put neither is better than the other just different.

Some famous photographers like HCB did not do their own printing but employed master printers for that. I wonder how much influence HCB had in the final look of the print because of this. Others like Ansel Adams controlled the whole process from start to finish and had a few different printed interpretations of the same scene from the same neg. That leaves me to believe that there is no one proper/correct interpretation of a scene only what the artist wishes at the time and that may change over time too.

Every photographer has their own preference in how to interpret a scene from the taking to the printing. Just saying that you can't satisfy every viewer/critic of your print because they too bring their own personal preferences and therefore prejudices to the table. Too many good images out there to enjoy without worrying overly much about how exactly they came to be. That is unless you want to emulate them exactly for a particular reason.

Bob

[Deleted]

Until 2002 I estimate 95 percent of the thousands pictures I had taken since the late 1950s were black and white. I still believe that a black and white photo is often more powerful than a color image because often the color is a distraction.

W.

[mickeyobe]

Dec 17, 2011 15:38:11 GMT -5 @wayne said:

Until 2002 I estimate 95 percent of the thousands pictures I had taken since the late 1950s were black and white. I still believe that a black and white photo is often more powerful than a color image because often the color is a distraction.
W.

Wayne, you are quite correct.

On the other hand, colour often brings out details that are invisible or indistinguishable or unimportant in black and white.

Having carefully read all the postings on this thread I feel that everything everyone has said here is correct at some times in some instances.

Mickey