high silver

I've been hearing a lot about this "high silver content" look, but I'm

not really sure what are people talking about since I'm not much of a

BW shooter. But I am currious about it.

 

So can someone fill me in about what this is all about?

What is that look? How are images made from higher silver films

different visually from those made from lower silver films?

 

And if would be even better if someone gave me a visual example (a

photo) in which that special look is abvious

 

P.S. Are the color images on color films too affected by the amount of

silver in them?

Only the manufacturer knows how much silver is in their products, and they ain't talking. IMO, the whole concept of silver content vs image quality is rubbish and a waste of time to pursue. As soon as someone has verifiable data on silver content, and runs a bunch of blind comparison studies, then we'll have something to talk about. Don't hold your breath.

You may want to read the following (very long) APUG thread:

 

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11130

You can Google the archives on photo.net for previous discussions related to silver content in films and papers. Opinions differ on this subject. There are probably too many variables in the making of films over the decades to attribute differences in results to any single factor: silver content, emulsion thickness, film base, dyes, etc.

According to Retrophotographic.com ,Adox Fine Print Vario Classic FB is the only paper worldwide made on a vertical coating machine.The silver content is higher as the emulsion is much thicker.

Silver content of a film or paper can be virtually anything the manufacturer wants to lay down on the support, regardless of method.

 

Kodak can coat horzontal or vertical and have in-fact, done that for most all products. The pump speed is more important for coating thickness than the position of the web.

 

AAMOF, when an emulsion is made, a large proportion of the grains are 'dead' or insensitive to light or developer. Subsequent operations render these dead grains sensitive. If there are a lot of dead grains in an emulsion, then more silver must be coated to get a given density. The more efficient the emulsion making process and the sensitization process, then the less silver that needs to be coated.

 

Too much silver increases turbidity and reduces sharpness. Too little increases grain. In film, this is important, but in paper only the turbidity is observable and only in certain cases where sharpness is degraded. Design of a film is dependant on optimzing all of these factors.

 

A further problem is that there is not an exact 1:1 relationship between silver and density. The form of the developed silver particle is important in the tone and density of the final image. Data on this has been published here and on APUG. So, depending on film and developer, you can get higher density from a low silver film than you can get from a high silver film confounding your efforts to understand what is going on.

 

We used x-ray fluorescence analysis of the coating before and after processing to find out how much silver was coated, and how much was developed as a % of that coated and developed in a variety of developers. We plotted density vs actual silver content in mg/ft square to compare. In addition, if there was a coupler present, we would analyze dye density and compare it to silver density and silver mass to determine coupling efficiency (dye yield in terms of meq of developer/dye/silver in the imaging process). The silver density combined with dye density would give us an estimate of the effect of retained silver or 'bleach bypass'.

 

Since we found this to be a difficult comparison, and a varying one, we found that it would just confuse the average non-technical film or paper user. It is of use only during the design phase, but after that is not really meaningful even in manufacturing unless something goes wrong.

 

The statement that 'silver rich' materials are something special is another myth IMHO.

 

Ron Mowrey

so to summ it all up, there is then nothing recognizable in images shot on films with higher silver content?

 

Then what exactly is the main factor that makes older BW films (and color films) look so different (classic,retro,vintage, whatever you like to call that look) from more modern emulsions? Ron?

Edgar;

 

Everything contributes. Subject, lens, camera film format and curve shape.

 

Older films were made with one polydisperse emulsion that usually didn't have the long flat tone scale that we have today. Print materials typically had a sag in the mid scale. The entire film curve had more shoulder and softer toe for the most part.

 

Todays products approach the theoretical ideal in terms of straight lines and good reproduction.

 

In addition, older films were more subject to lens flare, film flare, and had worse grain and sharpness. Films were thicker and had no acutance dyes in them, just an AH layer. Acutance dyes cost too much speed with the older slower emulsions.

 

Part of it, I feel, is nostalgia. These are pictures from our childhood or from our parents life in a 'younger' world. I have seen really good photographers take pictures with modern products and produced pictures that looked 'old fashioned', and I've seen some people replicate old fashioned materials and replicate period pieces.

 

I have compared 'restored' old photos with the old ones and they old ones just look old to me, weathered and etc. Restored they look modern.

 

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder, but there were differences, it is just that the high silver was not a major contributor because I can coat high silver or low silver and can make both look similar and either modern or old fashioned depending on tone scale and etc.

 

Ron

Old films were panorthochromatic (sensitive to blue and green but not red) and had no anti-halation layer - that was more responsible for the "look". Try it for yourself with some Efke KB50 under tungsten light...

Did not the T-grain films come out of the fact that the price of silver was real high and Kodak was looking to cut the cost? If that is so where are those Ideas at Kodak today that impruve?

Larry

Guy;

 

Panchromatic films were available in the 30s, 40s and 50s, otherwise there would be no such thing as color film. In fact, there were tri-color cameras back then that used pan sensitive film to take in-camera separation negatives.

 

Larry;

 

T-grains had absolutely nothing to do with a desire to cut the level of silver in film. T-grains were developed to give greater light capture power to a given grain so that speed could be increased with less effect on grain. Also, they were easier to reproduce at a given grain size with more modern technology.

 

More myths than I can cope with going on here guys. I've been considering re-doing my myths article there are so many things that should be added. I could make this a lifetime project. (Oskar, are you out there? Just FYI, Oskar wrote those myths up and I consider him a Godsend in help, ability, good nature and - my co-author.)

 

Ron Mowrey

Ron - Yup, I know. My point was that the "look" of old photos can be attributed to this and is nothing to do with silver content per se.

For the curious, here's the link to:

 

"Color processing myths dispelled"

 

By Rowland Mowrey, edited by Oskar Ojala

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/color_myths.html#19

 

Ron, did you and Oskar collaborate on a similar project for b&w?

With Agfa and Kodak being out of paper production, is it a myth that Efke/Adox films and paper with high silver content produce different results to modern Ilford? I have not tried it.

Lex;

 

Oskar and I were working on a B&W myths article, but then Dick Dickerson and Sylvia Zawadski started publishing a 'myths' series in Photo Techniques magazine and I decided to wait and see which way that went. I also didn't want to 'crib' from them or appear to by accident. I have pages of notes here somewhere to do something like that. The high silver myth is high on the list as is the x mg of silver always = x density myth.

 

Alan;

 

Who knows without an exact comparison of the papers what is truly what. But knowing papers as I do, I feel that there is nothing new under the sun. You get a curve on a support. Thats it. Sometimes I feel that the support has more to do with the image quality than anything else due to the different Baryta supports and tints out there as well as the type of paper and the degree of calendering.

 

Guy;

 

You are right that an ortho film gives a subtly different look to pictures than a pan film, and a blue sensitive film, common 100 years ago gives an even different look. They were, by accident and not design, high in silver. It was just the nature of emulsion making and coating. This I also know by experience.

 

Regards to all.

 

Ron Mowrey

Alan, I don't know anything about the silver content but Efke R100 is a terrific film. I'd say, try all the films you're interested in now while they're readily available. If you like 'em, stock up now.

Yes,Lex,it's an interesting idea to try high silver content materials. The Efke film and Adox paper (looks like fiber only at the moment) are at jandcphoto.com

Edgar

 

Colour images do with start out with silver but the silver is bleached out during the processing stages, leaving only the multiple layers of colored dyes.

 

cheers

I do seem to recollect talk about reduced silver usage with the introductions of disc film and Advantix.

 

 

One could argue that the push to minilabs was driven by silver costs. Most of the silver is captured and recycled by the lab. Only the most dedicated enthusiast would even consider using this chemistry at home.