philip__b_temple Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I AM A FAN OF TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES AND OFTEN WATCH OLD BLACK AND WHITE CLASSICS. THERE WAS A GROUP OF BUSTER KEATONS ON TONIGHT WITH BEAUTFUL B & W PHOTOGRAPHY FROM 1927 . BUT ANYONE WHO HAS WATCHED OLD B & W BOGART MOVIES LIKE " CASABLANCA" AND WHO SHOOTS BLACK AND WHITE FILM HIMSELF/HERSELF MUST HAVE ADMIRED THE GREAT SEPARATION THERE IS IN VALUES ZONE 1 THRU ZONE VI. ITS DARK BUT NOT SMUDGY, ITS VELVETY, ITS DISTINCT ? AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO IMITATE IT WITH MODERN FILM AND MODERN CHEMESTRY. BUT ITS EVADED ME. I'M NOW SHOOTING TRI-X400 AT ISO 200 AND USING A TAYLORED PROCESSING TIME WITH XTOL, BUT I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT, QUITE. ANY OTHER TRUE SEEKERS; AND CHEMISTS WITH THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE; ANY FILM IN USE STILL THAT CAN BE PROCESSED UNIQUELY ? ? ? phil templepepperell ma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 They were lighting masters and applied the correct amount of fill light. You need to emulate that. They realized that tones carried the image and not color, so the lighting was made to do that. Many of the classics were created with non coated lenses. These give less contrast in the shadows and although the shadow detail is the same or very close to a coated lens, the darkness of those values is higher. The shadows appear brighter, but contain no more detail. The highlights will flare somewhat also adding to the look. Coating lenses is supposed to stop the flaring and it also deepens the darker tones but does not get more detail to a significant degree. Try to find a non-coated lens like a 50 mm 3.5 elmar and do not develope your Tri x to excessive contrast. D76 should be fine. You will not be able to match it exactly as the films are different in many ways, curve shape and antihalation backingsto name two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 "AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO IMITATE IT WITH MODERN FILM AND MODERN CHEMESTRY. BUT ITS EVADED ME." It has little to do with film and chemistry and almost everything to do with knowing how to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 As Ronald says, it's mainly down to the lighting and to see excellent examples of the craft have a look at the world of George Hurrell. Other than that, try downrating your film a further third of a stop to 160 and reducing your dev time a further 10 percent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_schroeder Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Philip, I suggest you ignore Zones I and II. Dark starts to come to life in Zone III. Your shadows become more luminescent. Keep your 200 rating. Make sure your highlights don't get blown out with over developing. You can always print down the shadows if you want. I have used Tri X at 200 (with HC-110) for many years. I always meter the shadows for a very healthy Zone III or sometimes Zone IV. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Those old films from the 1920's were orthochromatic, not panchromatic, meaning that they were sensitive to blue and green but not to red. Try shooting through a blue filter to mimic the look. Don't expect to get dark skies with good contrast with the clouds though. Complexions will look darker unless you have a skilled make-up artist and red lipstick comes out black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_gallagher2 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I would also skip the Xtol developer and go with D-76 straight. D-76 was first used in the 20's as a developer of motion picture film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Another thing that's changed is the lighting style. Those old films were very slow by today's standards, maybe ISO 20, and the sets were lit mostly by multiple spotlights. They'd have lights above to put sparkle in the hair, grazing back light to seperate faces from the background, etc. Nothing like today's use of soft lighting from soft boxes, umbrellas, and reflector panels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank.schifano Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Ronald, Chris, and Al are 100% correct. This has little to do with any particular film and chemistry and a whole lot to do with lighting and set dressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc_w Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Until the late 1930s, emulsions were very slow and there were no coated lenses. It was ALL about lighting and even that changed considerably with the introduction of small and very portable incandescent spots (called "Dinky Inkies"). You can imitate that look with modern emulsions (use low ISO) by learning about the kind of lighting they used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profhlynnjones Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Hi Phillip, No continuous tone film has ever been designed to yield detail in Z1 or above Z8 with their recommended exposure and development. In physics, the theoretical maximum is 6 2/3 f stops, the practical level including detail in the shadows and the highlights is about 4 1/2 f stops. In certain circumstances where normal contrast must be maintained but very important very deep shadows need also to be maintained, Ansel Adams recommended pre-exposure. This kept deep shadows under heavy folliage to be detailed and printed without altering conventional shadows, mid tones, and high lights to still print normally. In case you are too young to remember, later in his career, Ansel used an 8 step and later a 7 step zone system borrowed from his late friend, Glen Fishback which he called, "Dynamic Range". Testing for for Gbar, curves,and speed, using cameras and conventional lenses, are from Z2 through Z8. For most condenser or condenser emulating enlargers, about .50 Gbar, CI, or formerly Gamma. Some film makers use .55 or .60 when they think that a portion of thier users have diffusion or semi deffusion enlargers. That way the results will be about half way between the two major classes of enlargers. Some of you won't like these statements! A user can alter the exposure and development to yield 9 or 10 f stops of image, but the results will be too flat to comtemplate. Lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now