Re: Aging a fraud-o-graph

The effects added are a little over done, as far as the scratches, dust and such. Over all a not to bad job.

My opinion: As brought up earlier , To sharp, to contrasty, to much shadow detail, to much Depth of Field.

As a working pro photog with a studio and formally a pro wet lab operator, I have printed litterly hundreds of "Old" negs. I have also scanned hundreds of old negs of all sizes. And until just a few years ago, I shot 10" film in a 1916 camera with a 1912 convertible triplet lens. Bottom line, even with "modern film", if i wanted a modern look to the photo I shot with a Schnider, or Nikor. If I wanted the old look I shot with the 1912 lens. There was a bigly noticeable difference in the "LOOK" of the two images. It was the lens and how it handled the light and the circle of confusion it produced.

I shot a 190deg cirkut photo of all the D&S's engines from the center of the turn table, just after they got the roundhouse rebuilt after the fire... The first time was with the 14" Schnider.. it looked wrong! Bad.. Not old at all, modern, sharp, crisp. Re-Shot with the 1912 triplet... Looked just like a old Cirkut photo should! These 7 ft. negatives were contact printed, no enlargement induced changes.

We can't get "Old" film any more, But we do know how it reacted to light, and its overall image quality.