Buffalo camp - wet plate photos

pete · Post by **pete** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:44 pm

James;
This topic isn't off the purpose of this forum at all. It is interesting to see a modern color version and the 19th century version of the same subject and it's easy to get the feeling those people lived in a ghostly black and white/sepia world when of course they didn't.
A digital camera can't compare with the real thing but it lets those of us that don't have access to period cameras to have some fun and play.

Clarence;
I want to play with the digital version too. I just got a Nikon D90 and it has more settings than I'll ever understand but I'm thinking that starting with the fastest shutter speed and largest f-stop possible to reduce the depth of field along with a coarser image setting and then taking it slightly out of focus will help.

Clark B · Post by **Clark B** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:38 pm

This is me back in 1998 using the colodian process.

splattersmith · Post by **splattersmith** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:55 am

Really cool pictures.

Pete, I might suggest drop the out of focus part. James' photes are very much in focus. PS, you will like the 90. Try to get through that novel sized manual, a couple of times.

I tried copying slide film on a Nikon slide/negative digitizer and then photshop into sepia. Just doesn't cut it compared to the real ol' time developing. Years ago tried sepia toned paper and normal B&W developing. Good but not like James' pictures. Sometimes enlarging through an old piece of glass helped but it still looked fake.

James Hunt · Post by **James Hunt** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:01 am

Pete: I didn't mean to demean any efforts at using digital to try and come close to a period appearance. I have a Nikon D-70 that I am really happy with. But I am thinking of returning to my old Nikon F2 and BW film to fool around with because I think that the tones in real BW (versus digital) seem more profound than those I get from digital, the question becomes what happens if I scan the negative in - do I end up with the same digital effect, do I have to return to a darkroom. Then again I just might not have discovered good photoshop technique yet.

I am very fortunate in that my living history partner developed a passion for this stuff, there are but a handful of guys who do this in the country. Several times I had my image made by guys who were doing it professionally and it cost me $40 for each. Greg has no interest in doing this stuff professionally.

Back to using digital. Below is a photo taken a few years ago by a friend who was a combat photographer in his early years, and now is into videography. The first image was in color and I photoshoped it to try and get the "Robinson" look of his period images. It's OK.

He then took the same color image and tried to get that tin type look.

It is better, but still not really close to the real deal. If you come up with a technique, it appears that there are those here who would be very interested in pursuing it.

Timberlake · Post by **Timberlake** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:59 am

Mr Hunt,

This is one neat thread. Thanks!

TL

boge · Post by **boge** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:44 am

James, there used to be several tintype fellas who followed the NSSA. I haven`t frequented that board in awhile however. There used to be one who did damn fine work years ago. You might want to fish over there for info.

http://n-ssa.org/phpBB3/

James Hunt · Post by **James Hunt** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:22 pm

Boge: Thanks I'll do that. I am lucky I have Greg as a friend to do this anytime he is interested. I was just thinking of fooling with BW film myself, particularly as it relates to horse images. Horses are tough to get to stand. They stand, until you pull that lens cap off. I'd like to see if I could not get some period looking images of horse stuff at no slower than 1/60 of a second!

The image below is of a very cooperative thoroughbred with my daughter taken on the same day.

Note that you don't have any close up action shots of horses during the period, to bad but there was a reason.

Clark B · Post by **Clark B** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:28 pm

Use a blue filter to help get modern photography to look more antique. A blue filter will help wash the blue hues a bit, and enhance the reds and yellows. Something about the chemicals used made the light blues real pale and reds and yellows real dark.

James Hunt · Post by **James Hunt** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:34 pm

Is this a blue filter with digital or color film? Or do you mean blue with BW film. My photo knowledge is limited, although I fooled with this stuff 40 years ago.

Can you photoshop digital to remove blue, and then convert to greyscale to get a similar effect?

Macon Due · Post by **Macon Due** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:08 pm

James
My guess is he means a blue filter with B/W film. Remember how a red filter with B/W enhances the clouds and sky by increasing contrast?
Macon

James Hunt · Post by **James Hunt** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:23 pm

OK, yeah thanks. Time to haul out the old F2 and all those nifty filters I never understood.

Clark B · Post by **Clark B** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:07 pm

James Hunt wrote:Is this a blue filter with digital or color film? Or do you mean blue with BW film. My photo knowledge is limited, although I fooled with this stuff 40 years ago.

Can you photoshop digital to remove blue, and then convert to greyscale to get a similar effect?

I was refering to b/w film. I gave up my rather short stint at amature photography years ago when I realized just how much all the cool add-ons cost. I am going to hazard a guess here that you could take a picture in color, change it over the grayscale and then play around with the tinting until you get something that looks right. Experiment with items that are light blue, scarlett red and canary yellow until you get the light blue looking light gray and the other colors dark gray.

pete · Post by **pete** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:16 pm

James;
No offense taken. As Timberlake said this is a neat thread. The one with your daughter on the horse is a great one. It's intersting to see where a horses tail or a flag is blurry in some of those old photos. The second shot of you is good but like you said it's still not the same.
I think at least for me is that other than modern photos being clearer and more detailed it's tough to put my finger on just what separates the old vs. new photos. I pretty much know it when I see it but trying to describe it is tough.

splattersmith;
I just thought going slightly out of focus would take the modern crispness out and give it a little softness. Not so much to make it blurry just softer. Yea you're right about the size of the manual for the D90. Sometimes I think some of this stuff is too much of a good thing.

Clark B;
That's a great look in your photo too. Good stuff.

Clark B · Post by **Clark B** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:10 pm

One small detail that is seen A LOT is the men tended to push their hats back on their heads, when they wore them in photographs. They wanted their eyes seen.

kantishna · Post by **kantishna** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:59 am

Hello.....First thing, I want to tell you I think your pictures are GREAT, and this is small stuff. The pots, pans and cups of the day would not have the aluminum shine.l Cast iron, tin ect. just reflect light different. Again, love the pictires. Just color me green with envy.. Take Care DWC

Shiloh Rifle Forums

Buffalo camp - wet plate photos

Tin Type Photos