Color toning achieved with filter or during printing?

Hello! I was wondering if anyone here can shed some insight on how a particular color toning in a print is achieved. I've been noticing the work of a British photographer named Jamie Hawkesworth and in researching him have found that he shoots almost exclusively film, from what I can find. Many of his images have a warm, orange/brownish tone to them. I feel like something like this is easy to achieve in PS with a color overlay and a blend mode, but seeing as he seems to work primarily with film, is this the result of a printing process or a filter when exposing? Wondering if it could be something like an 85c filter or perhaps an orange filter that could be stronger than the 85 but less pronounced than an orange 16.

Thanks!

https://theredlist.com/media/.cache/database/photography/women/mode-mode-mode/jamie-hawkesworth/1468679918-016-jamie-hawkesworth-theredlist.jpg

Rianne van Rompaey by Jamie Hawkesworth for Alexander McQueen F/W 17/18 | The Fashionography

Jamie Hawkesworth for T Magazine

Natalie Westling by Jamie Hawkesworth for T Magazine October 2016 | The Fashionography

The traditional black and white toners chemically convert the silver image to silver sulfide or silver selenide. This only works for prints with a silver image.

If you have a file from a digital camera or scanned film, it can be converted with image editing software, and printed on a color printer.

Putting a filter on the lens, when using black and white film, will change the gray levels for different color objects, but not the colors of the print.

Many printers now print on photographic (light sensitive) color paper, producing a dye image. It is then very easy to get any image color at print time.

Hi, almost certainly this is an intentional decision on the part of the photographer, or perhaps art director, to give the images these tones. Nowadays one expects that even film images are digital, having been scanned, so any color tones are probably coming from digital processing.

Perhaps they have been printed, perhaps not, but all we see could have been done digitally, from scanned negatives.

Reading up on the guy he claims he does his own printing. That's fine from an art standpoint, but that would mean submitting glossy prints to his publisher. Even in the heyday of film few agencies would take prints vs demanding a transparency. Maybe things are different in London.

Some of the images with the heavy cast also have a normal whitepoint. That tends to indicate something done in digital post vs analog/chemical. I used to do stuff like this for some clients before digital like pre flashing paper, or underprocessing neg film, or cross processing e-6 begore optical printing, but it's tricky to be consistent with analog tricks.

Scanning your film with a high quality scanner and using any number of 3rd party retro/instagram effects is the easiest way to get a look like this. Using a camera filter wont work with print film because scanning or using an automated printer will null it out. Plus, his images are non linear in color shifts so a filter wont work anyways.

Or just shoot 30yr old VPH. Produced yellow skin tones no matter what you did.

Things like "toning" are certainly done much more easily in digital than in film, but given this forum, glen h has the answer. Various chemicals can replace the silver in a B&W negative with selenium, sulfur, gold, etc. Many of the "toning' agents also make the print far more resistant to "aging" for archival purposes.

Your comments relate to B&W images being "toned." The OP put links to color images, not B&W. Color negatives/prints should NOT have any remaining silver, so the toning methods used for B&W materials have no relevance here.

Nothing being said about B&W images relates to the original post.

Things like "toning" are certainly done much more easily in digital than in film, but given this forum, glen h has the answer. Various chemicals can replace the silver in a B&W negative with selenium, sulfur, gold, etc. Many of the "toning' agents also make the print far more resistant to "aging" for archival purposes.

+1

Toning prints in sepia for instance will give you those redish brown tones or printing on warm papers to get dark chocolate blacks.... but. In Photoshop, its just tweaking the color temperature of your B&W file, PS actually treats it as if it were color, then playing with brightness and contrast to finish the effect.

BTW I'm no guru on Photoshop... just discovered a few tricks by accident.

OMG.... color you say? thats not what he says in the text though. I never saw the links either.

.

Thanks for the replies. Apologies for not being more clear that there were links attached and that they were going to examples in color.

Scanning your film with a high quality scanner and using any number of 3rd party retro/instagram effects is the easiest way to get a look like this. Using a camera filter wont work with print film because scanning or using an automated printer will null it out. Plus, his images are non linear in color shifts so a filter wont work anyways.

+1

Was mostly curious seeing as how I'd also read that he does his own printing. Thought it would be something interesting to try as my printing is limited to black and white film and not color. Have tried out a few things on scans that involve putting a color fill over the image and adjusting the blend mode and masking it in/out in different areas of the file -- but was wondering if there was a printing process for tones like this as I've always found that extremely rewarding. Thanks!

Gregory, Scott is probably not well known here now, but fyi he was a member of this forum in its early years, and has fairly extensive experience in custom printing and various lab work.

I don't know him personally, but in those days I would occasionally see him say things that would not generally be known outside of the industry. So I'm pretty confident that his experience is real and fairly deep. My own experience is more specialized in mainstream portrait work, especially in process, chemical control, and film/paper matching issues, particularly in troubleshooting large lab color problems.

In my field we would not have (typically) printed with such color biases as shown in your links - they'd be kicked back for reprinting. But in a typical pro lab of years past, it wouldn't be that unusual for certain photographers to ask for that sort of effect (the place where I spent a lot of years did own, at one time, three well-known pro labs).

Anyway, in traditional optical printing, the sort of tones in your links could be sorta produced by simply color balancing to a yellowish or reddish tone. But... the sort of pro color films and papers that I've been familiar with wouldn't be able to get the amount of color saturation in some of the skin tones. (I would defer to Scott's judgment on whether other films might go this far.) Scott also mention "flashing" of the paper, and some of the images have the look of having been flashed to get a yellowish highlight tone. (But I wouldn't want to be definitive on this without actually doing a couple of tests.)

At any rate, digital manipulation could easily get these effects. Even if Hawkesworth has optically printed these, they still had to be scanned, and it would be pretty simple to just tweak the image files a little at that point. As a note, since he is processing his own film, it would be easy to overdevelop (intentionally) which will increase contrast, and thus color saturation.

To apply a more richer mix using multi-color tonal effect to digital B&W that doesn't appear to be your basic sepia toning, check out gradient mapping in Photoshop...

It's a bit more elaborate than applying a retro Instagram effect in that it provides a way to easily see, apply and control subtle color hue shifts in a gradient over attempting to do it with RGB curves which can take more time and not provide the same richness.