Beautiful photographs of Norway taken in the 1910s and 1920s by the very talented amateur photographer Kristian Berge, an engineer in his day job. More of his work can be seen here.
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
The Oppstrynsvatnet lake, 1922. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Ålesund harbour, 1922. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Utvær, 1913. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Ytre Kvalheim, Vågsøy. 1914.. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Berge's caption: "A happy evening." 1921. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Frognerparken, Oslo, ca. 1921-1922. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
A self-portrait of Kristian Berge, 1918. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Two men bringing home firewood, 1923. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Ustaoset, 1923. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Jøssingfjorden, 1917. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Grip lighthouse, 1923. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
A self-portrait of Kristian Berge working, 1913. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
This is also a self-portrait of Berge, at the beach, 1921. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
On the Boknafjord, ca. 1918-1920. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Tyssedal power plant, 1917. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
From the 1913 floods in Erdalen, Stryn. Source
 |
| Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane |
Byrkjelo, ca. 1918-1920. Source
4 comments:
Why do some people in old photos appear so tanned ("Another happy evening" - all the guys, except the one in the front)?
I've seen it elsewhere, too.
It doesn't seem like a natural tan, more like an effect of something in the photographing process... but I don't know.
That's a really good observation, I never thought about it before but I know what you mean. Almost all the photographic processes used in the nineteenth century were orthochromatic, meaning they were only sensitive to certain colour wavelengths. Red was not one of them, and ended up appearing much darker in the photograph than it would in real life. I think the "tan" is a result of the pink or red in some people's skin tones coming out darker because of this. I've seen that happen in person with an ambrotype--the sitter had light to medium brown skin, which came out very dark in the ambrotype. If a person was sunburned, their skin would look especially dark.
Orthochromatic film and glass plates, sensitive to all colour wavelengths, only came in in the early 20th C, and was adopted only slowly. I think it was still most common through the 1920s at least.
I think that is at least most of the explanation-- thanks for the great question!
I made a quick visual demonstration (I'm a picture person, can't do without the visuals!). Obviously this was done digitally but it's a decent approximation.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/formerdays/10845959765/
You'll notice that in the "orthochromatic" version, the very red chair might as well be black. If you saw that image alone, you would assume it was originally a dark colour. This is what's happening in most of earlier photography--that black cloth might be red!
Thank you, thank you for both your explanation and the visual demo.
I figured it might have been picking up on redness, but I wasn't sure.
Great explanation, you're wonderful :) .
Post a Comment