Tones in Sutcliffe photographs

[Alan Clark]

Anyone familiar with the photographs of Frank Meadow Sutcliffe will have noticed that many of them have a distinctive tonality. Foreground subjects are portrayed in a full range of tones from lightest to darkest, but the backgrounds are much paler, with tones only going down as far as mid grey. This brings the main subject foreward and causes the background to recede, giving his photographs a wonderful pictorial quality and clarity.
Does anyone know how he achieved this?

Alan

[Keith Tapscott.]

Originally Posted by Alan Clark

Anyone familiar with the photographs of Frank Meadow Sutcliffe will have noticed that many of them have a distinctive tonality. Foreground subjects are portrayed in a full range of tones from lightest to darkest, but the backgrounds are much paler, with tones only going down as far as mid grey. This brings the main subject foreward and causes the background to recede, giving his photographs a wonderful pictorial quality and clarity.
Does anyone know how he achieved this?

Alan

It`s probably as much to do with atmospheric haze of the original scene than though photographic manipulation Alan.
No U.V filters or coated lenses back then.
http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/

[TheoP]

I think he just shot on misty/foggy days

[Alan Clark]

No doubt atmosphere made it's contribution, but I am convinced that there were other factors at work. A modern photographer photographing in and around Whitby today, in misty conditions, with modern film, even using old uncoated lenses, would be hard put to achieve the same pictorial look - in my opinion.
Did the wet plate process play its part? I don't know enough about the technicalities of this, or of the nature of early dry plates, which Sutcliffe also used.

Alan

[Dave miller]

Coal fire pollution was probably very high in and around Whitby; look at the gravestones adjacent to the Abbey for evidence of that. I think the main factor may have been the emulsions greater sensitivity to blue light than we are now used to.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Originally Posted by Alan Clark

No doubt atmosphere made it's contribution, but I am convinced that there were other factors at work. A modern photographer photographing in and around Whitby today, in misty conditions, with modern film, even using old uncoated lenses, would be hard put to achieve the same pictorial look - in my opinion.
Did the wet plate process play its part? I don't know enough about the technicalities of this, or of the nature of early dry plates, which Sutcliffe also used.

Alan

The light sensitive emulsions were very crude back then by today`s standards and very, very slow. Modern films are much faster, sharper, finer grained and some have a U.V layer. It is probably difficult if not impossible to replicate that look with modern films. The glass-plate negatives were most likely ortho-chromatic as well.

[Martin Aislabie]

Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott.

It`s probably as much to do with atmospheric haze of the original scene than though photographic manipulation Alan.
No U.V filters or coated lenses back then.
http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/

I think so too

Most of his shots were of Whitby or the surrounding area

There are much higher levels of both humidity and UV around the coast - which given his uncoated lenses and emulsions that were sensitive only to the blue to UV end of the spectrum - gives many more sensativity to haze.

The other thing that we overlook today is the effect of coal fires - everyone would be burning coal in their homes and the resulting soot and smoke would propagate mist/atmospheric haze (remember London was known for its thick fogs until the Government introduced the "Clean Air" act and banned the burning of coal in open fires - smaller places like Whitby would have similar problems but on a lesser scale )

You could try messing around with uncoated lenses and blue filters while shooting near the coast on humid/slightly misty days

Martin

[Keith Tapscott.]

Those photographs by FMS are very beautiful by the way. He was obviously an excellent photographer and craftsman.

[Martin Aislabie]

Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott.

Those photographs by FMS are very beautiful by the way. He was obviously had an excellent photographer and craftsman.

I don't understand why he is not held in higher esteem

IMO he is one of the photographic greats

I always enjoy a walk around the Museum/Gallery when I'm in Whitby

Martin

[Keith Tapscott.]

Originally Posted by Martin Aislabie

I don't understand why he is not held in higher esteem

IMO he is one of the photographic greats

I always enjoy a walk around the Museum/Gallery when I'm in Whitby

Martin

I agree Martin and thanks to Alan for starting this thread.
Those images are a pleasure to see.