| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2011 02:02:52 PM · #1 |
| Thought these photos of Australian 'criminals' from 1920 interesting. The website suggests that they come from the police archives, but my French isn't good enough to read all the comments. The 'staging' of the shots is interesting, and for some of the subjects seems to have been a rather light-hearted experience - for others, though, clearly very shameful. |
|
|
|
01/08/2011 02:14:51 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
01/08/2011 02:16:01 PM · #3 |
| thats actually really cool. but did you notice that it was about half and half gender wise? maybe it was just me assumeing that there would be more men than women... |
|
|
|
01/08/2011 02:54:31 PM · #4 |
How come these are so incredibly sharp but the DOF is rather shallow.. Some of them are great portrait wise - this is my favourite - I love the composition, lighting and background blur.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2011 03:01:50 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Simms:
How come these are so incredibly sharp but the DOF is rather shallow.. Some of them are great portrait wise - this is my favourite - I love the composition, lighting and background blur.
|
Medium format film I expect...
Message edited by author 2011-01-08 15:02:00. |
|
|
|
01/08/2011 03:10:36 PM · #6 |
| These are wonderful to study! Great documentary, stunning portrayals. |
|
|
|
01/08/2011 03:11:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Simms:
How come these are so incredibly sharp but the DOF is rather shallow.. Some of them are great portrait wise - this is my favourite - I love the composition, lighting and background blur.
|
Medium format film I expect... |
Large Format. Probably 8x10.
Note the 3-in-one shots; those would be special film holders that had slides that allowed the exposing of just part of the sheet at one time. They were common for portrait sessions in those days, when film was expensive and laborious.
"Normal" lens for the 8x10 is around 210mm, so DOF is exceptionally shallow for a normal angle of view. Enlargers were uncommon, maybe even unheard of, at that time; I'm not sure when they first came into normal usage. Contact printing was the norm. 1920 was not that far removed from the days of the Daguerreotype.
R. |
|
|
|
01/08/2011 04:52:53 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...1920 was not that far removed from the days of the Daguerreotype.
R. |
Well said!
The early part of the 20th century was a time of rapid change in photographic technology. By 1939, the first 35mm SLR was hitting the market, but nearer the beginning of the century, large format ruled, and contact printing was the norm.
ETA: This is really cool stuff. I love to look at the clothing. Here we have a sneak peak into how ordinary folks looked and dressed, and not when they were dressing for a portrait, LOL!
Message edited by author 2011-01-08 16:54:56. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 12:31:33 AM · #9 |
| Great shots. I'm curious about the photo of the man with his back turned, wearing a suitcoat and skirt! Did they not want to embarrass him? Do you think there was another photo showing his face? Or maybe the skirt was just prettier from the back. :-) |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 12:45:33 AM · #10 |
| Oh c'mon, you know what he was doing. And didn't you notice in at least one other portrait some reflecting areas on the floor? |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 03:34:32 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Great shots. I'm curious about the photo of the man with his back turned, wearing a suitcoat and skirt! Did they not want to embarrass him? Do you think there was another photo showing his face? Or maybe the skirt was just prettier from the back. :-) |
Well, you know there are cross dressers in every community. That guy was just too angry to face the camera. ;-Þ |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 11:28:15 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Simms:
How come these are so incredibly sharp but the DOF is rather shallow.. Some of them are great portrait wise - this is my favourite - I love the composition, lighting and background blur.
|
Medium format film I expect... |
Large Format. Probably 8x10.
Note the 3-in-one shots; those would be special film holders that had slides that allowed the exposing of just part of the sheet at one time. They were common for portrait sessions in those days, when film was expensive and laborious.
"Normal" lens for the 8x10 is around 210mm, so DOF is exceptionally shallow for a normal angle of view. Enlargers were uncommon, maybe even unheard of, at that time; I'm not sure when they first came into normal usage. Contact printing was the norm. 1920 was not that far removed from the days of the Daguerreotype.
R. |
As an aside 210mm is actually closer to normal, for 4x5 for 8x10, it's 325mm...
More recently, David Burnett achieved a similar effect using a 178mm f2.5 Aero Ektar lens on a Speed Graphic while covering John Kerry's' presidential campaign. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 11:45:12 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by ScooterMcNutty:
thats actually really cool. but did you notice that it was about half and half gender wise? maybe it was just me assumeing that there would be more men than women... |
I don't know, some of those are questionably "women", like #3...
Amazing compilation. Some of the notes on the images are hilarious: "This man refused to open his eyes."
Message edited by author 2011-01-09 11:46:36. |
|
|
|
01/26/2011 03:43:52 AM · #14 |
Some of the eyes look a little crazy. Im gonna take an outright guess and just say the chemicals used with the film capture certain colors like blue or something very oddly.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/28/2026 04:54:24 PM EDT.
