Best film for B&W Hollywood glamor

<p>So the best part about being in college is that there is always an excuse to try out so many things in photography. Particularly portrait shooting. Recently I got a hold of some friends who are willing to model nude for me and put together a portfolio celebrating feminine figure and female form. Unaltered, unedited (except for maybe white balance corrections) just real women, in real settings. We're talking fine art here, nothing to objectify these women.<br /><br />I want to recreate the Hollywood glamor shots from the golden age of Hollywood. Of like Julie Garland and Audrey Hepburn. I know most of that is lighting, but then I look at these pictures and they have such a pearly quality to them that I can't make heads or tails what was used to create them. <br /><br />The Ilford Pan F plus looks promising from the description that is. <br>

"Ilford Pan F Plus is an extremely fine grain black and white film. It has outstanding resolution, sharpness and edge contrast. These characteristics make it the natural choice where fine detail and lack of grain are more important than film speed." From B&H's website.<br /><br />Since it's studio setting do I really need to worry about speed? Is 50 speed too slow for photographing people? Or should I stick to like a 100 or 400? Even if I am in full blown southern summer sunlight? I know it sounds silly but when I do digital I just do trial and error before I begin my session to figure what ISO I need. Though I rarely go beyond 3200. I know film is a whole other ball game.<br /><br />I want to do most of this outside in natural sunlight so playing with flashes and what have you is minimal. (I hate setting up lighting and using flash) But if the only way I can get that look is to set up a whole studio lighting system then I'm willing to do that also. Then again I know some of us in the group are also wanting to go for the 'natural' look and take advantage of some of the deserted fields and forests. There are a few abandoned housing developments that would work well too.<br /><br />Also, what is the difference between Kentmere and Ilford? I know they're owned by the same company and many people in the shops around here say they can't tell the difference, it's just basic B&W film but really there has to be a reason why one costs 40% less than the other. I sell computers I know there's a difference between Compaq and HP, so I'm a little skeptical when people tell me it's the same. That's not going to stop me from using both to see for myself!</p>

<p>If you can get the lighting right, I would think that you would also want to get the grain right. Tri-X or HP5+ might be a good choice! I would choose Tri-X though.</p>

<p>p.s. If you want to go grainless (whichh is not a bad thing)... FP4+</p>

<p>I believe format will be more important than the film. 4x5 should work and MF at a min. The Film should be a traditional cubic grain like PanF+ or Efke 50-100 Maybe even Foma 100. That all said lighting will be the key. Reflectors and open flash along with key placement of spots.</p>

<p>There's also a look to the "upswept curve" portrait films, such as Royal Pan, Plus-X Professional, and Tri-X Professional. The only one of those that's still available is Tri-X Professional, but only in sheet film sizes. These were used to get high tone separation in highlights, while compressing the shadows.<br>

Of course, this can be done with curves in a photo editor after scanning.<br>

Note that the "look" included a lot of pencil retouching.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are talking about images in the style of George Hurrell or Edward Steichen, they were accomplished in studio with hot continuous tungsten lights that were focusable, slow speed films, large format film that has been extensively retouched.<br>

For a modern camera approach check out this:<br>

<a href="http://www.darkmansdarkroom.com/photography-lighting-techniques-hollywood-glamour-photography/">http://www.darkmansdarkroom.com/photography-lighting-techniques-hollywood-glamour-photography/</a><br>

and the Youtube version:<br>

<a href="

<br>

To really get the vintage vibe, study the master photographs intensely. Where is the light coming from? What is the quality of the light?(direct, diffused) How many lights are used? How is fill accomplished? How does the lighting ratio create drama? How does lens selection, camera angle, depth of sharpness, pose and composition create monumental strength. What role does makeup and props play? It's all there in the photos. Study them. There is a masterclass in each one.<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Louis</strong>, that's it! You got it on the head. I've been reading on lighting techniques that Hurrell would use, such as rolling paper into a cone and focusing the light on the subject. From the pictures I've seen lots and lots of matte makeup to get the pearly essence in white skin. It was his work that really got me into B&W when I realized I could possibly recreate that and develop it myself. And I'll admit that's really, really what I want to create in these women. Recreate that ethereal, pearly white essence and use shadows to highlight each feminine curve. Is there any word though as to what film they used?<br>

<strong>Larry</strong>, all I have is a 35mm SLR and I have (at least at this point) no intention of using 120 or 4x5. I remember when my sister played around with a Holga in her photography class taking 120. It was a pain. Until I get some more experience I'd rather not deal with 120 rolls either. I'm a very clumsy person. Though considering when those classic portraits were shot it would make sense those formats were avaliable and aside for film that may no longer exists and formats outside my penniless student budget I may be unable to capture it just so as it is.</p>

<p>Re: John's film suggestions... Plus X can still be found in 35mm on some store shelves (and certainly on ebay for a price). Buy soon if that is your option!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any word though as to what film they used?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hard to say. Verichrome Pan, Super-XX, Tri-X and Plus-X were available. Of greater importance was the size of the format. Large film was easier to hand retouch.</p>

<p>Don't underestimate the importance of retouching to get that smooth look.<br>

<p>Scroll down an check out Joan Crawford's before and after Portrait. One of the reason in shooting 8X10 was the ease that retouching could be done right on the negative. </p>

<p><a href="

</a></p>

 

<p>People will tell you that "love" or "money" or both make the world go round. This is not the truth.<br>

Chemistry makes the world go round!</p>

<p>In "Hollywood Portraits" by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos it is suggested for 35mm to use a standard lens wide open to give the shallow depth of field originally obtained with 10x8 cameras.Orthochromatic film was used in the early days;in 1931 Kodak introduced SS Pan panchromatic film.They note that with modern film a very pale blue filter willl give a color response close to that of the 1930's and a stronger blue filter close to 1920's.<br>

I believe the narrow beam of light given by the fresnels is important to give the period look in some pictures,however,as fresnels are expensive, not many studios have them.Putting a honeycomb on top of a reflector on a studio strobe will give a resemblance to this narrow beam.</p>

<p>Hurrell was the master, so study him. But you will find these photos are more about lighting, makeup and hairstyle than what kind of film was used. You do have to learn studio lighting if you want to do this. Hurrell used mostly hard lights -- big fresnel spots -- more than the softboxes or umbrellas used today. In those days, film was slow and negatives were large, resulting in virtually no grain. So 50 speed will help if you're shooting 35mm. The tonality of film back then was different. I don't recall the name, but Freestyle carriers some European film that is described as having a 1950s formulation that might help.</p>

<p>Craig.<br>

That would be the EFKE/ADOX I suggested.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Scroll down an check out Joan Crawford's before and after Portrait.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oops, here's the link:<br>

<a href="http://fadedandblurred.com/spotlight/george-hurrell/">http://fadedandblurred.com/spotlight/george-hurrell/</a></p>

<p>If some of your shooting will be outdoors, think about shooting in overcast situations to reduce the dynamic range of the light hitting your subject (you can still get plenty of shadows and creamy highlights), or alternatively if shooting in bright light outdoors, have helpers with screens and reflectors. Lower ISO film gives you a little more flexibility in bright light, but used indoors, unless you brighten things up with good artificial light, your exposure times may be too long to avoid subject movement. My favorite film (in the old days) for this type of work was Plus-X, which you can still get in bulk rolls with a little searching. I'm also finding I really like EFKE 25 in the right light (haven't done nude photography in a long while) for portrait work. I am preaching to the choir, but don't forget the importance makeup, misting spray, light body oil...and RETOUCHING. The young lady who was my daughter's babysitter went on to become one of Europe's top models in the 1990s, including a lot of nude work, and when she would come home for the traditional summer neighborhood BBQs and recount her adventuresome life, she always complained that the makeup aspect often took longer than the shooting. Knowing her in real life and then seeing her in award winning shots....it was sometimes hard to tell it was the same girl.</p>

<p>Definitely get the book: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0817440208/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=credify&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0817440208">Hollywood Portraits</a>. It is great to look at, but also shows how those great shots were made and what the lighting looks like.</p>

<p>Definitely do what Larry is suggesting: get the largest format camera you can get, and I do believe Efke is a great choice. I would also recommend you try their Ortho film too.</p>

<p>Finally, you really need some control over the print in the darkroom. It helps to be a good printer.</p>

<p>Another vote for Efke 25, it's really pretty stuff, but if you're developing it yourself, be very careful, as it will scratch easily. Also, something to consider is the Dr5 process, while pricey, if you aren;t developing your self it may not be that much more. Some films in that process do amazing things, and could be worth taking a look. </p>

<p>Robert<br>

Correct if he is stuck only using 35mm then DR5 may be an option.</p>

<p>Larry what is the alternative to Adox ? Or is there one ?</p>

<p>It sure has the 'old look' to it...but darn the film curls with no end in sight....</p>

<p>EFKE and Adox are the same film just different names due to Country they are sold in. The new ORWO UN54 sold only in bulk is a good replacement for Plus-X. Foma 100 film is a little newer than than the EFKE stuff but is still in the ball park. Stay away from Chinese film if you want the older look. But development of any film also makes a difference. So chose your developer and as already mentioned the lighting and if you must use 35mm you will have to retouch in post processing on a computer and not on the Negative. If you print on good paper then you may be able to touch that up. Life was not easy in the golden age.</p>

<p>Ilford Pan F would be, in my opinion, the way to go. Are you shooting 35mm of medium format? I would strongly suggest you shoot medium format. You might also look at Adox CHS 50 since it has a somewhat 'old-fashioned' look to it.</p>

<p>My only issue with Adox/Efke is that you need to use hardening fixer, or risk damaging a fragile emulsion. OTOH, I believe the emulsion is one of the easiest to spot dust and other damage.</p>

<p>As you only use the 35mm format, then any medium speed film from a reputable film manufacturer should deliver very satisfactory results from your 35mm camera kit.<br>

FP4 Plus, Plus-X, T-Max 100, Delta 100, 100 Acros etc.<br>

Pan F Plus should work very well too in controlled lighting.</p>

<p>Maybe I'm missing it, but wasn't a big part of Hollywood glamour objectifying women? As far as films, it will depend on what kind of grain you want. The suggestions above are good.</p>

<p>You guys are amazing! Sometimes I forget that post editing before the advent of the computer was not limited to just painting color on a negative. So yes there would be a great deal of editing as mentioned in the Joan Crawford shots. The large format of 8x10 negatives would indeed lend to the ethereal beauty of these portraits. God can only guess as to what type of film he used though. <br /><br />I agree, most of what makes these images so striking is the hard light he used to cast shadows over the faces, and yet he somehow managed to keep their eyes visible. I still think a fine grain is paramount to the effect though aside from retouching and lighting technique. Even when I watch my colorized version of Gone with the Wind (I'm assuming it was originally B&W) there's this 'misty' haze over the actors that I would assume to be grain. Even so it is definately evident in Wizard of OZ. So no grain, at least for my purposes, I think would be a bad idea. <br>

<br />With that said, I've been dying for an excuse to use efke film but the fact that it is not only a thin emulsion but a thin base scares me. I've also heard about the blue 'dye' that coats the film so would you want to prewash it? I'm assuming it's an anti halogen coating that many films have. But then I also live down a dirt road, so developing it might be suicidal almost. <br /><br />I'm using Kodak everything as for the chemicals. I have D76 I need to get through first because so many of the people I know use D76. I might switch it up and try the caffenol and see if that might lead to what I want too. I am however using the powdered hardening fixer from Kodak so in that respect I am set for Efke. But am I going to cry over lost negatives when I go to scan them? I hear that the emulsion will flake off the base with just a fingernail. <br /><br /><strong>Barry</strong>: When I said objectify, what I meant to say in a very delicate fashion was that I am not after pornographic material. Some may consider this project toeing the line of mild erotica because as a feminist I feel it is possible to not hide the whole anatomy of a woman and still be considered art. Renaissance art being my cue. Which is why I'm after Hurrell's style. It would be perfect to capture every curve and plane of the ladies I get to photograph!<br /><br />I do recall having seen some shots in a vintage Hustler from the early 70's and thinking the model very beautiful and artful despite the fact she was...*ahem* It was in this case the magazine that objectified her not the photographer in my opinion. Much like the famous pin ups from the 40's, 50's. Either way, modern materials displaying the female figure are hardly as natural. Now everything is so injected with silicon and pearly pink lipstick that it is abhorrent (I'm looking at you Pam Anderson) Yes, many parts of Hollywood do objectify women, but then one could easily make the case that men have been just as objectified.</p>