NEW WAVE OF NOIR; Doing it how they did it(1920's-1940's).

[tonyb]

This one says "1920's politician" to me more than the others.

Love the hat, man. What kinda lid is it?

 

[Big Man]

Love the hat, man. What kinda lid is it?

The hat is my VS custom "1928 Reunion" patterned after one my grandfather was wearing in an old photo (from June, 1928). Art Fawcett made the hat for me several months ago. I highly recommend Art's work.

 

[suitedcboy]

You got it nailed!
These photos capture the period so well.
You have the look of a crime bosses' right hand man, the guy that runs a few of the bosses' rackets and has all the dames at the speakeasy running to greet you.

 

[Barz51]

You nailed it with this picture, very nice!

 

[PADDY]

FL meet - Scotland

Thanks to Miss Valentine for making this photo as good as it is.

 

[Cricket]

Well, if you're looking for "attitude" and a "vintage look", how about this? while it's not a suit, it most certainly is representative of what was seen a lot around here in the 1930's.

Wait a minute? Are you in my back yard? Yeah, that is more of what was seen around my parts too. Great picture!

 

[DerMann]

It's very difficult to make a modern photograph look vintage, and I have only seen it done very few times. This isn't meant to put anyone down, it's just an observation.

Making it blurry most certainly doesn't do it, as most, if not all, vintage pictures I've seen have stunning focus and clarity, yet not in the same way modern digital images look. Vignetting was not usually done on purpose. Early (Victorian) cameras would often produce an image that was ovalish in shape because of a design flaw (don't quote me, going from memory).

Even when it appears that the photographer was using a very large aperture (i.e. only the subject is in focus while the background is deliciously blurred), the blurred part still has a surprising amount of focus and clarity. This having been said, most pictures I've seen use a very small aperture (more stuff in focus), which is baffling. In the photography classes I've taken and the prices of lenses with absolutely huge apertures have led me to believe that you WANT as much depth of field as possible. Might have been technical limitations of the lenses, though - I don't know.

Contrast was generally higher in vintage B&W images, too, but not to an extreme.

Lastly, stay away from the film grain and other filters (by themselves) on Photoshop. If applied in a certain manner, the filters can create a very convincing effect. Although it is nigh impossible to get it just right. This is more of a suggestion, but steer clear of sepia toned pictures. Most images are preserved and have not turned into a sepia colour. Again, I say this mostly because it has been done so often and usually in hasty and poor manner.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm just trying to help and putting forth some ideas.

I'll try fooling around with the picture of you holding a shotgun, thunderw21, in Photoshop after dinner, as it is the least adulterated photo on here (I don't have any of my photos on my laptop).

Big Man, you do look strikingly similar to a statesman from the Golden Era, even your expression and body language is just right.

 

[tinmanzzz]

Detective Story

Here is my 40's (late) look.

"The Case of the crying Buddha"

"It was a Dark and Stormy Night"

Move over Sam Spade

 

[RBH]

Well, if you're looking for "attitude" and a "vintage look", how about this? while it's not a suit, it most certainly is representative of what was seen a lot around here in the 1930's.

I love all the photos!
BUT this is the one that does it for me. Man I really love it!
Big Man you more than nailed it, looks like you coulda been in my back yard! :eusa_clap

 

[Dinerman]

 

[ScionPI2005]

Here is my 40's (late) look.
Move over Sam Spade

Tinmanzzz, that could be your avatar picture! :eusa_clap

 

[Colby Jack]

What a fantastic thread!...What a wonderful job everyone...!!!:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap
Yeah...Bigman nailed it!...Now I need to get some overalls...

 

[EVEN-STEVEN]

Young Ronald Reagan?

Call me crazy... but you are a dead-ringer in this photo for a young Ronnie Reagan!

 

[J. M. Stovall]

 

[DerMann]

thunderw21, I hope you don't mind, but I modified your picture a bit.



It's still obviously modern. The more I think about it and compare your picture to pictures taken around 1940, it just seems that modern cameras capture too much detail - to the point where it's distracting.

Don't really know where I'm going with this, so I'll just stop.

 

[thunderw21]

thunderw21, I hope you don't mind, but I modified your picture a bit.



It's still obviously modern. The more I think about it and compare your picture to pictures taken around 1940, it just seems that modern cameras capture too much detail - to the point where it's distracting.

Don't really know where I'm going with this, so I'll just stop.

No problem. Here's my attempt at 'vintagizing' that pic.

I blurred it a tad (as you said, modern cameras can be too good), upped the contrast a little as well as the saturation (to give it that colored look). It might be a little blurry for vintage standards, but now it looks less modern.

 

[mingoslim]

Can't you just see him . . .

The young reformer running for District Attorney.

 

[donCarlos]

I made two from a 1917 train ride from the last week, hope they are enough for this thread. (BTW, it was fun, lots of people took photographs of me, they thought that I´m part of the show)

One slightly colorized:

And one purely B&W:

 

[Big Man]

One more ...

 

[indycop]

I think your'e enjoying this thread! You need one with a cane pole down by the pond!