Cameras that old were nearly all large format. The emulsion is generally sensitive to only a narrow band of wavelengths around blue, so the prismatic spread of uncoated lenses didn’t matter.
So, yes, badass camera and technique, with a little help from the intrinsic technology.
the prismatic spread of uncoated lenses didn’t matter.
I’m not really understanding how that relates to the remarkable clarity of the image, but then again I don’t know much about traditional cameras, so you’re likely way past my head already. 😅
So you know how prisms scatter the light based on color? That’s because different colors (frequencies, wavelengths) bend different angles for the same material.
Modern lenses have several elements a and coatings to minimize this. This is so all colors from a single point in space land on a single point in the film.
Using a basic lens (e.g. a magnifying glass), the colors spread, and that results in fuzzyness. So why isn’t this picture fuzzy?
Well, it only results in fuzzyness if the film is sensitive to all those colors being spread. But old light sensitive emulsions were only sensitive to a particular hue of blue. And since all that hue got deflected just the same, no blur.
The downside of that. Is that bright objects without much blue reflection appeared darker in the picture. Rosy faces become dark. Bright yellow paint a dull drab grey.
So only after the invention of panchromatic film (sensitive to “all” colors) is when we had to develop lenses that were sharp for all colors.
Well, uh… I’m vastly more of an artist than a science-trained person, but then again, color theory in the arts is huge, and photography is a major facet of The Arts.
That said, even in The Arts, I work from sort of a ‘primitive-arts’ style, so in essence, much of these things remain a fascinating mystery to me.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to explain. 🙂
RetroFed
PugJesus
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
A very famous image here. It’s called Fisherfolk by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe. He took lots of photos around Whitby in North Yorkshire.
Damn, that’s evidently a badass camera and developing technique. oO
Cameras that old were nearly all large format. The emulsion is generally sensitive to only a narrow band of wavelengths around blue, so the prismatic spread of uncoated lenses didn’t matter.
So, yes, badass camera and technique, with a little help from the intrinsic technology.
I’m not really understanding how that relates to the remarkable clarity of the image, but then again I don’t know much about traditional cameras, so you’re likely way past my head already. 😅
So you know how prisms scatter the light based on color? That’s because different colors (frequencies, wavelengths) bend different angles for the same material.
Modern lenses have several elements a and coatings to minimize this. This is so all colors from a single point in space land on a single point in the film.
Using a basic lens (e.g. a magnifying glass), the colors spread, and that results in fuzzyness. So why isn’t this picture fuzzy?
Well, it only results in fuzzyness if the film is sensitive to all those colors being spread. But old light sensitive emulsions were only sensitive to a particular hue of blue. And since all that hue got deflected just the same, no blur.
The downside of that. Is that bright objects without much blue reflection appeared darker in the picture. Rosy faces become dark. Bright yellow paint a dull drab grey.
So only after the invention of panchromatic film (sensitive to “all” colors) is when we had to develop lenses that were sharp for all colors.
Ah.. okay, I *think* I get that.
Well, uh… I’m vastly more of an artist than a science-trained person, but then again, color theory in the arts is huge, and photography is a major facet of The Arts.
That said, even in The Arts, I work from sort of a ‘primitive-arts’ style, so in essence, much of these things remain a fascinating mystery to me.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to explain. 🙂
My pleasure!