Old picture, little known, help needed

[Socke]

Hi friends,

I'm still scaning old pictures from my father and grandfather and I'm a bit puzzled how those where taken.

Here is an example from the early 50s, all I know is that it must have been taken with a Robot II because the negatives are 24x24 mm and my father had one he later traded for a Robot Royal 36. The film is Adox K17 and as far as I know the standard lens for a Robot II was f2.8.

This picture looks not like typical light in a german home in the early 50s, especialy not at a party. My father had enormous 1000W light bulbs but I don't think he used them there. I can remember when he bought his first electronic flash in 1964. So DOF is deeper than f2.8 would allow and the light is pretty even, what do you think?
Flash or those enormous light bulbs?

[cruz]

It doesn't looks to be pushed, not grainy enough. Maybe he post flashed or pre flashed the negative? Or used mercury vapors to push the film before development?

[VinceC]

Probably flash bulbs and a large circular reflector. Very common in the 1950s. It certainly looks like something was held above and to the left of the camera, also a typical bulb location. Most flash bulb shots are softer than modern electronic flash because they bounce the light around more evenly.

EDIT: Flash bulbs also allowed folks to shoot much deeper depth of field.

[ClaremontPhoto]

Before he got electronic flash did he use flash bulbs perhaps?

[Socke]

Originally Posted by Jon Claremont

Before he got electronic flash did he use flash bulbs perhaps?

I can't remember any flash bulbs and/or holders. But that seems to be the most probable explanation.

My mother can't remember but she wasn't very interested in photography, should have started to scan those negs when he was still alive

[Finder]

I would say flash bulbs. The light output is large and they burn slowly - it you look at the third picture, the dancer's hands moved during the exposure. With 1,000w tungsten lights, the abilty to stop motion is even less. Many flash bulb units had large reflectors and the buld itself can be large resulting in a softer light.

[Finder]

But looking again, it could have been tunsten hot lights. But not electronic flash.

[RdEoSg]

Not sure what kind, but you can see the shadow created by something and the shiny spots on the cheeks and such in some of the shots. I'd go with bulbs as well!

of course.. they stopped using most bulbs before I was born! I do recall flash cubes though

[Diggin99]

Just wanted to say I love these shots! No personal experience with this sort of camera myself...

Nancy

[Pablito]

Clearly flash bulbs as everyone says above. These burned relatively slowly and unlike electronic flash, it was possible to control exposure to some degree with the shutter speeds as long as everything was synched properly. My guess would be this was shot at a relatively slow shutter speed, thus the movement of the hands of the dancers. The even quality of the lighting and the position of the light sourece near the camera eliminate the possibility of tungsten hot lights.

[Nick R.]

The highlights in the eyes of the two women in the center photo could have only come from the camera position. It had to be flashbulbs.