B&W film for portrait session.

I am to shoot a portrait session tuesday night. It will be indoor

using one 800ws monolight and one reflector. I plan to use a 645 for

the color shots and my new M6 for the B&W.

 

The subject is girl about 18 very pretty with flawless skin. I am

looking for the the final images to have "glow" My usual film is the

chromgenics but will not give me the look I'm after. I do not plan

to use a soft filter and am thinking of trying Pan F plus.

 

I have never useed Pan F but I have read about its wonderful glow and

tones.

 

Will pan F give me the creamy tones Im after or would something else

be better?

Try XP2 and then have it printed / toned conventionally on B&W paper.

 

There is a plethora of B&W papers so its a matter of finding one that you like.

 

Maybe Ilford Warmtone FB...

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/warm_tone.pdf

 

This is very receptive to toning. (As the name implies)

Sam,

 

I always got the creamiest skin tones from Kokak Plus-X.

Of the chromogenic B&W films, I found Kodak T-Max 400 CN rated at

ISO 320 to give very creamy tones. Illford XP-2 is a tad more contrasty.

These films also allow almost infinate enlargement without displaying

grain. In the conventional darkroom it is even hard to grain focus them

because the chromogenic pattern is so fine. For shooting with 35mm they

are a good choice in case you want to make 11"X14" or larger prints (I

often make 13"X19" B&W ink jet prints from cropped scans of this

film).<div></div>

I've used Portra 400 rated at 100 and developed normally, and have been very happy with the results. If you want to use pan film, try tech pan. The skin tones are incredible, the film is grainless, and you can print photos as big as a house without grain.

If by glow you mean the classic fabled "Leica glow", it's an artifact of the optics, not the film. Not the latest super duper sharp aspherics either. An older 90mm Elmar, first model "long" Elmarit or the removeable hood first model Summicron. The latter even allows for shooting wide open for a touch of noticeable softness.

 

Film would be Tri-X or Plus-X. The T grain films don't give me caucasion skin tones that I like - too flat.

 

Honestly, if I'm going to set up lights in the studio, work with a 120 camera for color, I'd be just as likely to run some magazines of B&W through the same camera. Makes things simple.

why not shoot the b&w in your 645 also? the bigger neg will print

much creamier than a 35 will. (yes, it will--all you leica freak

naysayers can deal with me making the statement.) as for snap,

i think you will find that putting that soft filter will kill any snap a

lens might have. even a leica lens.

 

if it were me, i would shoot both in 645. for black and white film i

would choose fp4 or hp5, but that is only because i shoot

everything with those films and love them. though the batch of

hp5 i just developed last night looks far more grainy than it

should... maybe the developer was bad, or maybe the wash

temp was too high and i reticulated the film. i guess we'll see.

 

-m

check your f-stops at ASA 400 with your lighting set-ups.

 

F-stops OK for 645, unnecessary (and perhaps unwanted) for 35 mm. (yes, you can fiddle down on light output, maybe, but even at the low settings...., and such a hassle with two different cameras moving back and forth.

 

With Leica glass, you probably will want the lowe range of f-stops -- say, 2.8-5.6; even lower dependig on effect.

 

I think PanF would be fine, even ideal. But so would well done ASA 100-125 stuffs.

I like Tri-X for portraits, but it really comes down to a) what do you prefer in the look?, and b) how are you going to develop it? <p>

 

And I agree on the medium format thing.<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/mxg.jpg"><br>

<i>Portrait, Tri-X 120, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

<I>Will pan F give me the creamy tones Im after or would something else be better? </i><P>How are you processing it?<P>If you think your Leica will give you better shots than your 645 you've been reading the wrong forums.

I did resume shots for an aspriring actress using Tri-X, and the grain wasn't a problem at all. It's good in a fine-grain developer. You'll get MUCH better tones from the 645 though!!!

I do not think that my M6 will produce a better neg than my 645. I just want to use two cameras at the same time. T model has requested color but from my expeirence when I shoot both color and b&w I sell more B&W.

 

I simply wanted the finest grain and low contrast I can get with this girl. I don't know anything about the leica glow. By glow I meant fine grained and low contrast. I print most B&W full framed 11x14. Yes I could use a low contrast paper but that would not also mean ultra fine grained. Ive read pan f shows no grain. XP2 in my expeiernce shows grain in enlargements but Ive never rated it faster than 400. The shot I had in mind of her is a just her eyes. They are stunning.

You still didn't answer the question about processing, and until you do, nobody should be giving film suggestions other than XP-2.

 

Fine grain and low contrast with conventional B/W films is *EASY*, if you do your own processing.

How about some EFKE 100 and an older lens? I hear Efke 100 is a butter smooth, old style emulsion. Should look great in 6x6 ot 6x4.5.

 

feil

I'll repeat. Leica and 35 mm in general offers at least a 1-2 stop advantage in terms of what f-stop you need/use. Take advantage of it, and use a low speed film -- you will have good results -- with studio portrait flash, why ever use fast stuff?. Plus, the real convenience of matching your -2- flash output needs (Are you using 100,160, or 400 in your color 645? -- you could use 50,100,125 in 35mm, and be in the correct aperture range for each format, without light fiddling, which sure makes you look less than pro).

 

There is no question of 645 vs 35 mm, using the same ASA, and you didn't ask that question. But, the answer does narrow using 645 Tri-X versus 35mm PanF. I won't side on that argument, just say they get closer.

 

PanF is classic smooth look. Delta100(? Tmax100) is a higher contrast, snappier, "sharper" look. FP4 goes back to the older smoother look, but I don't see a Studio Flash advantage over PanF. But that is discussed elsewhere. At 11X14, good focussing, high exposure speed from flash, both will enlarge with grain that you can see, if you look, but small. At 16X20, still tolerable.

Agfapan APX 100 in 120 format produces spectacular "glowing" skin tones.

I went to my photo lab this evening for some advice. While I do my own printing an do own a developing tank and reels I have not used them quiet some time since I have been using T400CN.

 

My lab informed me that while they would process the Pan F it would be done in an machine with agfa chemistry and not recomended. He them gave a choice of films that work well with their chemitry. (Tri X, Delta 100, Tmax 100, and one other I don't recall. I chose the Delta 100 and I bought some more T400CN.

 

I still wish to try Pan F and I probably will after I purchase some chemicals. The lab guy recomended XTOL. The chemicals are way overpriced here and I can order them much cheaper from B&H .

 

Thanks for the input.

Sounds like Refinal. UFG'ish soup if I remember right.

 

Delta 100 would be worth a shot in their developer, although by instict I'm just leary of commercial processing of B/W film.

 

My opinion is that PanF is flatter than Delta 100, but the later film is fairly easy to process and tougher for commercial labs to screw up. Certainly more lattitude and softer skin tones than TMX or Plus-X.

Eyes ? FWIW: Ilford XP2s shot at ASA 250, developed at a 1-hour lab and hand printed. Shot at 1/30s, f2.8, hand held. M3 SS, old 90mm Elmar plus Visoflex. Scanned on a table top scanner (UMAX Astra 600S) and cleaned up with Polaroid DSR.

 

Regards !

 

-Iván<div></div>

Ooops ! I hadn't seen the scratches until now. Basic Murphy at work.

 

-Iván

Samuel,

i hope your appointment with the girl with "the eyes" is not an assignment, but rather a friendly deal. If it is work, you should not use anything untried. camera, lights or film! Your request for recommendations suggest you are learning. My advice is to try what is available to you and get to know the materials and what they offer. Don't be seduced into using 'sexy' gear, be wary of the fast foto labs suggestion, it is angled at suiting them, not you. To be fussy, and you should be, you really need to take control of as much of the process as you can, and then a bit more! I would recommend working towards processing you own film, that way you can choose the film you want AND the process that suits it. Anything less is a compromise. Then, print digital or analog as it suits you. The real answer to your Q is you need to discover most answers yourself, with a little help.

Don't know if this helps, but I hope a bit of it does!

John

 

I shoot this girl several times a year and she likes to be creative so I normally venture from my normal materials and methods with her. sometimes it pays of and sometimes not. I have been shooting her since she was 13 and now shes twenty so obviously she must like what I do.

 

I agree with taking control. This is why I hate using color neg film (my like of control over the final print. I am almost always not pleased with my proofs. This is why Ive been shhoting slide film. It affords me the advantage of seeing firsthand the image I recorded and not someones interpretation of the image. I plan to buy chemicals this week and begin my own B&W processing again.

 

Thanks