Got ma picture made

[Jeb Hawthorn]

Hi everyone,

I know most folks take there photos from events and black and white them. There's nothing wrong with that. But I've been tinkering with the photoshop trying to recreate the look of an actual tintype. I wanted to know what you all thought of my latest attempt.

[GASharpshooter]

Re: Got ma picture made

Not bad, but you can tell the flash was next to the lens by the reflection on the chair. The old photographers had that flash powder thing off to the side. Also, it seems a tad overexposed, if you were in a dimly lighted room I'd use more natural light, move the camera back a bit, then after making the new shot photoshop out a bit of the contrast between your dark clothes and dark chair from your lighter colored clothes. $.02

It does look good in your avatar.

[Jeb Hawthorn]

Re: Got ma picture made

Thanks for the constructive critisism. I appreciate it very much.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Got ma picture made

You might also want to take a look at the wetplate photography research at www.vintagevolumes.com (see Virginia's Veranda, in the Archives), and the information available from numerous modern wetplate artists and dageurrotype society webpages, as well as books on the history of photography.

Tinkering in photoshop for an olden-time look doesn't replicate the way antique photography processes record light and color--search this forum for Color and Photography, and you should find some excellent discussions on the actual chemistry and photo properties of original techniques, with information on the various filters one would have to use with modern color photography or b&w photography to even begin to replicate The Original Results.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Got ma picture made

Not bad, but you can tell the flash was next to the lens by the reflection on the chair. The old photographers had that flash powder thing off to the side.

There's a good question... how common was flash in pre-1865 portraits? I'm guessing not very, but it'd be interesting to hear from those who've studied photography more. Thus a dominant light from overhead (skylight, outdoor natural light) or large side windows, rather than from the front, would be most typical in a period portrait. Any thoughts?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[90thOHCoG]

Re: Got ma picture made

I like the amount of dirt on the image, the crack, the writing, and the vignetting...that's looks quite realistic for an old photo.

Did you reverse it, too, as a tintype would be?

[tenfed1861]

Re: Got ma picture made

According to Wendell Decker,Mr. Trent,flash photography didn't come around until after the war.For exposer,they would just use the sun.

[Horace]

Re: Got ma picture made

It looks good. The scratchiness and the rough border are nice additions.
I'm monkeying with the same basic project. See the attachment for an attempt. It is very difficult to approximate a wetplate. I'm sure for all the reasons mentioned earlier; the process and the method of exposure resulting in two different 'looks'. Wet plate has that signature super sharp focus that blurs away to the edges.
I tried using the 'Sharpen' tool a little. Also, if you make a duplicate layer of the image, go to 'Threshold' under 'Adjustments', play with it, then fade down that second image in 'Opacity' in the Layers box and leave it in front of the original image, it seems to help with the sharpness and definition.
For that blur effect, I tried using the Rectangular Marquee tool -the "marching ants tool" -around the image, then changing it to the Circular Marquee tool, add that inside of the rectangle, and then use 'Gaussian Blur' under Filters inside that edge space.
Better yet, help support a collodian artist and go see one. It takes five seconds and the money you spend will compensate all the frustration of trying to photoshop a picture from a camera phone.
In regard to lighting for wetplate images: As I understand it, Mathew Brady had skylight windows installed in his studio. One of them broke one day and narrowly missed showering broken glass on the subject of his next sitting, one Abraham Lincoln.

[tsgalloway]

Re: Got ma picture made

Good advice, Todd. You're always doing some project to better your understanding of the period. Keep up the good work.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Re: Got ma picture made

As has been said, from an artistic and historical standpoint, there's no substitute for the real thing.

And, fortunately, since the real thing is obtainable, I don't see a need for a substitute; at least none that would have any relevance to the purpose of this board.

[tenfed1861]

Re: Got ma picture made

As Marc has said,you don't need to subsitute.Depending on where you are,there should be a few wet plate photographers in your area.But you did a great job as far as the look goes.It does have a good early war cav feel to it.

[Drygoods]

Re: Got ma picture made

Why make a look-like when you can make a real one? Take a workshop with Dunniway. Click on the image workshops link. You've got initiative, I admire that.:D

http://www.collodion-artist.com/

[ephraim_zook]

Re: Got ma picture made

Many good suggestions so far. I'd add two more:
1) Tintypes are generally mirror images -- reversed. If you were holding your rifle in your right hand and pistol in the left, flop the image.

2) Try using a verrry slow shutter speed. It will necessitate you sitting quite still for the duration of the exposure as they did back in the day: your facial expression will look more "period".

3) And as suggested elsewhere, use no flash. (This will force you to a slower shutter speed anyhow).

regards

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Re: Got ma picture made

Again, not condoning modern methods to replicate this available form of period art, but utilize a larger aperture to limit depth-of-field. Refer to one of the classic Lincoln portraits in which his face is tack-sharp, but a few inches back, his ears are blurred. http://www.civics-online.org/library...s/lincoln1.jpg

(One of) the inherent problem(s) with modern technology is that the combination of a wide-open aperture and extended time exposure is that, even at the lowest ISO ratings, you're likely going to get a blasted-out exposure using these methods; poor lighting would assist in preventing that, but then there's an obvious problem with that -- the subject is dark.

(I would be interested to know if anyone has calculated an equivalent range of ISO ratings for common collodion forumlae on different media.)

Digital "noise" is also present on long-exposure shots, which is not true to the very clean, virtually grain-free appearance of a well exposed wet plate image.

In the end, just do the real thing...other formats have no role in furthering historical interpretation or education.