"portrait film"

IS there a genuine, high grade portrait film for black and white film? I mean, a black and white equivalent of portra

How do you want it to look?

 

Sharp and gritty? Smooth tones? High/low contrast?

 

There are a lot of variables with black and white, choice of developer will play a big role, in addition to the choice of film. Paper choice will also have a role in the look of the final print.

 

The format used will also have a very significant influence on the results, in that grain will be much finer for the same print size when shooting medium format as opposed to 35mm.

 

Give us some idea as to what you're looking for and we can recommend a few starting points, but, as is always the case with black and white, you're going to have to experiment to get the look you want.

a genuine, high grade portrait film for black and white

Would offer a pencil retouching friendly carrier and come in 13x18cm or 8x10" Otherwise I wouldn't know why you shouldn't load whatever you like assuming it is panchromatic.

The color stuff sells via flattering skin tone rendering, right? - Few people see their co-humans in black and white and could tell if HP5 is closer to their impression than TriX. - To me BW would always be "abstraction".

A film with an extended red sensitivity tends to give smoother-looking skin tones than does one with a more blue bias.

 

This is probably why red-heavy incandescent lighting is preferred by many old-school portrait photographers.

 

Having said that, almost any old panchromatic film, coupled with almost any old lighting, will do the same job if you fit a red filter to the camera lens.

 

And you'll get more noticeably smoother tones by moving up to medium format than by using any 35mm film.

 

Try FP4+ or T-Max 100 in a 6x7 camera.

Yes, extended red sensitivity often helps with portraits. It can often minimize minor skin blemishes. The late Monte Zucker when he began using digital would take a color image and separated the file into RGB and keep just the red channel. I remember seeing some of his work in Shutterbug magazine. I've never really tried portraits with a red filter, though. Usually I don't use a filter at all.

But to return to original topic: when I sometimes take a portrait (at least informal ones) I prefer to use a fast film like Tri-X or HP5+ and rate it at E.I. 200 and cut back on developing a bit. YMMV.

Once upon a time, there was a huge choice of appropriate B&W films,

Modern Photography 1985-06

 

This may suggest some variables to look for in still-available films.

 

an excellent outfit still standing is

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/1-Film

catalog:

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/catalogs/freestyle_catalog.pdf

If shooting LF, I suggest TXP 320 and don't look back. It has a rather unique tonal curve among current production film with a very long "toe." It also has the correct backing for hand retouching if you're so inclined. It's one of my favorite general studio films for LF. There's still some old stock 220 kicking around, but it hasn't made since I think 2010 or 2012, and it's been made in 120 in a fair bit longer than that.

 

If Plus-X were still around, I'd suggest that, but it's not. FP4+ on paper seems similar, and I shoot a lot of it, but it seems to me like it has a lot more "bite" that I can't really put my finger on than Plus-X. I don't particularly like Tri-X for portrait work inside, although I have done some outside with it.

ive used the hp5 c-41 film, it is nice, however im more thinking on the lines of "really good film i can develop at home"

ive used the hp5 c-41 film, it is nice, however im more thinking on the lines of "really good film i can develop at home"

HP5+ is a traditional black and white emulsion, you're confusing it with XP2 Super, which is a C-41 monochrome film.

Since there aren't variable contrast color papers, you have to get closer with the negative.

Films like Portra are supposed to have about the right contrast.

 

With black and white, and VC paper, you can get any contrast you need to get

it to look right.

ive used the hp5 c-41 film, it is nice, however im more thinking on the lines of "really good film i can develop at home"

Your lighting, developing and printing technique, along with the camera format, will have far more effect than which film you choose.

 

Not to mention your rapport with the sitter. (Easier if you have a waist-level finder and you're not hiding behind an eye-level finder.)

 

No such thing as a pre-packaged great portrait. You have to work at it!

Your lighting, developing and printing technique, along with the camera format, will have far more effect than which film you choose.

 

Not to mention your rapport with the sitter. (Easier if you have a waist-level finder and you're not hiding behind an eye-level finder.)

 

No such thing as a pre-packaged great portrait. You have to work at it!

 

 

As i dont print, dont have the equipment, Im just focused on the film aspect. I dont see the rapport with the person sitting for me as an important consideration. Its rather hard to get people to sit these days.

As i dont print, dont have the equipment, Im just focused on the film aspect. I dont see the rapport with the person sitting for me as an important consideration. Its rather hard to get people to sit these days.

 

Well, as I said, there aren't VC color papers.

 

But if you print from digitized images of negatives, you can process them all you want, including contrast, and then print from that.

All you need is a nearby (or mail order) lab to print from digital files.

 

Many print on silver halide based paper, so the result looks the same.

Hmmm...like Portra? I can’t think of anything. Films that I have used for portrait work include Ilford FP4, Ilford HP5 and Ilford XP2. Depends on the look you want. They all have different grain and contrast.

Several have mentioned Ilford XP2.

 

IMHO, it's a fantastic film -- the C41 process means dye clouds instead of grain. It is sooo creamy1

Several have mentioned Ilford XP2.

 

IMHO, it's a fantastic film -- the C41 process means dye clouds instead of grain. It is sooo creamy1

 

the c-41 film is pretty damn nice. However i cant process it myself.

Returning to my original question, if you give us some idea of what you're looking for, we can better recommend specific films.

 

How do you want it to look?

 

Sharp and gritty? Smooth tones? High/low contrast?

I dont see the rapport with the person sitting for me as an important consideration.

Wow! That's some admission.

Are you just taking identity photos?

the c-41 film is pretty damn nice. However i cant process it myself.

Of course you can. There are 3 bath C-41 kits available that are no more difficult to use than a standard B&W dev/stop/fix process.

 

The type of film really isn't that important. It's what you do with it.

Tri-X in a 5"x4" camera, FP4plus in a 120 TLR, or T-max 100 or XP2 in a 35mm camera; all can give fine portraits. And the final results would probably be near impossible to tell apart in a 10"x8" print.

I don't do portraits often, but when I do, I spend time chatting with the person while I'm also tweaking the lights, dialing in exposure after changing lighting, etc. Of course it's easier if I know the person already, which I often do, but I'll still make small talk with anyone. I'll also intentionally drag out all the tweaking, etc, if it means "cracking the shell" on the subject.

 

Even just having a basic level of rapport, to me, makes for a much more engaging portrait than having a bored, disinterested person on the other side of the camera.

 

Sometimes speed trumps that(i.e. you can't spend 10 minutes on every one when you have to get 20 done in an hour), but I don't and don't want to do that kind of work. I've seen photographers that DO high volume work who can do an amazing job of engaging their subject, getting their photo, and then sending them on all in the space of a minute or two, but I don't have that skill.

 

To that point, the times I've taken portraits with a 4x5 camera, I have a ready-made reason to slow things down and also many people want to know more about that "weird looking camera" with "the cloth over the back just like old time cameras" even if I'm using a relatively new monorail. Even MF can be a talking point since Hasselblads and the like are different from anything the subject may have seen(or if not they realize what it is and may want to talk to you about it) and a Pentax 67 can provoke a "Wow, that's the biggest camera I've ever seen" reaction.

As i dont print, dont have the equipment, Im just focused on the film aspect.

As it has been mentioned above, there is no b&w film specialist for poratriture... some prefer fine grained, soft looking, others prefer harsh grained images, etc.

 

So I'd instead search for a b&w film with optimal scanning results.

 

I only scan film in low res for archive purposes, so I cannot say about the best film to be scanned. But I have experienced that some films scan better than others. I'd say fine grained softer films work better with my scanner (V750Pro) than the opposite... there are films that are ugly for scanning. I use to wet-print my negatives so cannot say with confidence.

If I were right, a film like FP4+ sufficiently exposed, and correctly developed in D76 or similar to avoid burnt highlights should work.

If you establish a portrait routine in a controlled environment, say a studio or whatever to keep the right contrast, and a tested development, results should be satisfying. This way you can easily modify your procedures for the best scans if needed.

Edited October 27, 2020 by jose_angel

Get them to talk about something they're passionate about, for an MD, just ask about their company.

 

Fire off a few shots while they're talking, before the posed portrait, relaxes them and often makes for some good candids.

All of this trouble working with models and not wanting to be engaged with them sounds eerily like a long departed poster.

 

In any case, I'd say if you want compelling and not disinterested portraits, let them go on about something they're interested in and just put on a persona of politeness even if you don't agree with what they're saying. Either that, or there's a certain conversational skill to shut down/deflect from hot button topics for you if you don't want to go there-work on it. Most people won't pursue a topic if they're not getting any response from you. If you consider them "idiots" in the first place, you're off to a bad start.

 

With all of that said, we're drifting from the topic of the post. Ultimately, if you're seeking a certain look in your film, the emulsion itself is only half the equation. Most of your standard non-specialty films can be tweaked with developing time, conditions, and developer choice to change contrast and the sharpness/appearance of grain. You're not going to turn TX into TMX by developer choice, but I always like to compare TX in D-76 vs. Rodinal.

 

D-76 tends to soften the grain a bit(the amount depends on dilution) but tends to cost sharpness. 1:1 D76 will give lower contrast but somewhat better defined grain than straight D76, the latter of which tends to soften the grain more. Rodinal, on the other hand, tends to give very sharp results with well defined grain, and at normal dilutions will also give fairly high contrast results. Rodinal is a bit of a unique developer in that it can be used at very, very low dilutions in what is called "stand development" to give fairly low contrast results and the ultimate in laziness(you just dump the developer in and walk away from it for an hour). The graininess still stays, though.

 

Ultimately, though, 35mm Tri-X is still going to be a gritty looking, grainy film. I use a lot of it because I like it and know it, but it's there. Move to a larger format and the grain is less apparent. For a while now, I've been doing portraits with my Hasselblad and Tri-X(or my dwindling supply of TXP). My normal development for this situation is D76 1:1, and I like the results. Hanging in my office is an 8x10 candid I took of my wife using the 150mm f/4 Sonnar, a classic Hasselblad portrait lens(albeit I don't get caught up on the Zeiss glow :) ). On Ilford FB VC paper, it's a lovely, creamy looking portrait and makes me smile every time I see it(albeit as much for the subject as anything). I also have a tiny little contact of the same negative on Azo sitting on my desk at home, albeit the big one was printed at grade 1 and I don't have any Azo lower than 2.

 

I don't like T-grain films, but YMMV.

 

BTW, I haven't used it a ton, but Ilford's new(ish) Ortho Plus, which is a repurposed technical film made into roll film, is not super easy to take but when you do it can give really different and attractive results. My notes are in storage, but IIRC I settled on fairly dilute HC-110. Used with hot lights in the studio, particularly in larger formats(MF minimum, ideally 6x7, and preferably 4x5 or larger) it can give a very "classic" look to portraits that, with the right lighting, is sometimes called the "Hollywood Look." You're better off sticking to a mainstream Kodak or Ilford product before you go there.

Troll alert!

I wasn't aware of the fact that a frame of film(or a digital sensor) could somehow capture the political feelings of a person.

 

Aside from that, yes you can take a photo of anyone. To me, "portrait" implies some standard(whatever that may be) of capturing not just the person's face or whatever but a representation of the person. Maybe others view it differently, but actually connecting with the person can help you do that a lot better. After all, this thread was started on the premise of PORTRAITS.

 

If you're paying a model for their time, yeah maybe you should keep it just business, but that's a different story.

I said get them to talk.

 

Listening to them is optional.

 

 

It would appear that you have already mastered this skill where Photo.net is concerned.

 

 

 

You're never going to answer our initial queries, are you?

 

Oddly reminiscent of a member who's been back and banned a couple of times...