[LargeFormat] Photoshop plug ins

[Brock Nanson]

I understand what you mean... it's a very difficult quality to put into
words.  Two thoughts.

What would happen if it was photographed in very flat light, then
'sharpened' the original way, with an unsharp mask (film type, not the
Photoshop kind!).  That would define the hard edges a little more but not
change the surface texture too much (?)

The second though relates to the color temperature of the light and the
response curve of the film to color.  When I look at old photographs (Karsh
is a perfect example) I swear I can tell if they were shot with tungsten
light or modern xeon flash.  To me the tungsten source just makes the skin
look grittier than can be obtained with modern flashes.  I don't know if I
could prove this or not... it just seems that way to me.  But again, the
film at the time would have an impact on this look - I doubt it would have
responded just like the films of today.

If you figure this one out, please let us know!

Brock

----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Newcomer" <lnphoto@twmi.rr.com>
To: <Largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:40 AM
Subject: [LargeFormat] Photoshop plug ins


> Okay I realize this forum is more in tune with Mr. Ludd than Mr. Adobe but
> not being completely in tune with all of the list serves, I thought I'd
> ask the question with people I'm familiar with.  (Sort of like looking for
> your lost keys outside because the light is better)
>
> If you click here, you'll find a very bad scan of a hot mount press taken
> from a catalog out of the 30s.
> http:home.twmi.rr.com/lnphoto/hotmountpres.jpg  Please ignore the moire
> pattern
>
> Astute followers of this list will remember a thread about hot mount
> presses and while mine looks similar it does have the modernization of
> being electric. But I digress.
>
> My questions are:
> What is it about this image that makes it look like it does?
>
> How can I duplicate it?
>
> Is there a Plug in that can create this?
>
> Is there a better forum to ask the question?
>
> Granted some of the highlights are drawn in, and with this example, the
> smooth surface may have had help from an airbrush, but I've seen similar
> photos of Speed Graphic cameras with textured surfaces and the same
> overall look.
>
> I can describe the image in terms that the lighting is relatively flat,
> the background has been opaqued out and a non descript shadow as been
> added to ground the object.  The contrast is relatively low, but with high
> local separation.
>
> And yet that same paragraph can describe just about any 1950s catalog
> photo of a Pacemaker Graphic, and they look radically different.
>
> It seems to be a halftone version of an engraving, which would have made
> sense during the 20s.
>   Paper and the type of printing press doesn't seem to have an effect as
I'
> ve seen similar photos reproduced in Graphic Graflex Photography to show
> their old equipment and the effect is still there.  The same is true with
> 1970s reproduction catalogs.  I have a Graflex catalogs from '04 and 1919
> and while not quite as delicate, they still look old.
>
> I fear I may have to find a photo engraver that was working in the 30s.
> That should be simple. Finding one alive, coherent, and lucid poses
> greater obsticles.
>
> I've searched google for plug ins and got discouraged after the 5th page
> of blue flames spelling out ROLAIDS on ice-cream while the cone morphs
> into a mountain top above a cherry pie, and flying toaster running into
> Steve Jobs mouth.