Modern film that looks like Vintage film...

Hi Everyone -

 

Does anyone know if there is a modern B&W film that gives you the look of the film from the 1940's and 50's? I know this is probably a silly question because there probably isn't such a thing. I know printing paper had something to do with it as well as lenses. I guess I'm wondering if there is a film that isn't quite as sharp...

 

Thanks - Steve

It’s not usually the film or paper, but how it was processed and what it was processed with. If you are a diy person, it’s not hard to duplicate. If you get your film processed for you, you will have to find someome to do it for you.

It would help to know which feature you were interested in.

 

Some older films had a grainy look that newer films don't have. Some of that can change with processing.

 

Sepia toning was popular some years ago, and that is still possible.

It can also easily be simulated, printing a black and white JPEG file with the appropriate color balance, on the usual digital (color) printer.

 

Old lenses have some aberrations that newer ones don't, especially off center.

There are filters intended to soften up the edges, as some find that desirable.

 

Some of the old look might be aging of the paper itself. The emulsion will dry, darken, and crack.

 

Films didn't change that much for many years, until the T-grain films.

(There might have been small changes in some, without a name change. Verichrome Pan, a popular film for many years, first came out about 1956, and was around until not so many years ago. Old VP is easy to find on the usual auction site.

 

Older style cubic grain films are still around, which some people prefer.

 

If you want the look of old film, buy some old film!

 

VP up to 50 years old gives pretty good results, and the less than perfect results might be the ones you want.

 

Tri-X goes bad much faster, but you still might like the look at 30 years.

 

Page House a long time ago | Facebook

 

is from Tri-X that was in the camera 30 years before I got to develop it. (I had borrowed the camera

from my father, after I bought my Nikon FM, which has slide film in it. I then returned it with the last

roll still inside, which he found 30 years later.)

 

Color films go bad much faster, so you might avoid those.

I too am curious about the "look" you're seeking.

 

One of the things I've noticed is that some of the older large format lenses impart a very different look than a modern lens. In general, I attribute it to the lower contrast(from less sophisticated coatings or a complete lack of them). I've also been told that in the 1930s and '40s, luminance, or the "bleeding" of highlights was considered a desirable trait, although I don't know how true that is.

 

While it's most noticeable in lenses like the old Kodaks that I've had on Speed Graphics, I also see it in my pre-war uncoated Rolleiflexes with Tessar and Xenar lenses, along with my Leitz 50mm collapsible Elmar in LTM.

 

Here's an example taken back in the spring with a 135mm 4.5 Kodak lens on a Speed Graphic. This is in-date FP4+ processed in D76 1:1 in an SP-455 tank. That particular tank is new to the market, and is a daylight tank for 4x5 that holds 4 sheets and 16 oz. of chemistry. It allows agitation by inversion, which is a bit different from the traditional "shuffling" method used in trays or when working with an open tank and stainless hangers.

 

 

 

It might also be worth playing with orthochromatic films, as they were still in common used up through the 1940s. There are still some on the market, although many are meant for graphic arts and take some playing to get continuous tones from them. Also, the ones I'm familiar with are only available as sheet films.

A few things of note--Ben & Glen have touched on a couple of them. "Old" films had irregularly sized, cubic particles of silver. They were random in the emulsion, and the number of them determined the overall 'sharpness' and edge definition of images. Films that were densely packed with smaller particles such as slow speed Pan types (think Panatomic-X) yielded very sharp images, while films such as the original Tri-X were much more granular in appearance. Indeed, developer plays a major role here also.

 

Developers are generally lumped into two groups, Solvent (fine grain) and Non-Solvent (sharpness). Two major examples of these are Microdol-X & D-76, respectively. Solvent developers yield sharp edges and fine grain, often at the expense of the contrast gradient. Non-solvent types give a longer and smoother contrast curve--but at the expense of edge sharpness. Now what happens when these are combined with old films?

 

Keep in mind that older films usually had much thicker emulsion layers--and bases as well. Being thicker, a greater range of density was available in a proper exposure. Now this is where it starts to get real interesting. Let's add those Tessar type lenses, and much simpler coatings (or not). Add a stark lighting source such as a bulb and certain effects begin to present in the negative. This is why old prints from newspaper photography tend to be much blacker, more contrasty, and have a 'dated' impact. Other films in daylight behaved much differently also. Then not only the choice of developer, but whether the photographer chose to stain or tone (in selenium solution) the final negative. Some photogs routinely used intensifiers and reducers in their work--and we have not even gotten to older formulations of staining type developers...

 

Lot's of things came together for the presentation of these images--ultimately they were all a result of the materials available at the time and standard practices. Newer BW films use a 'tabular' design for the sensitive silver emulsion. This has benefits, but trades off the 'hardness' and grain of earlier films. Companies emerge or produce slow speed, thicker emulsion films--many disappear from the market after a few years. I am still sad with the demise of Efke. You may wish to try Ilford Pan-F, a 50 speed film, and there are others as well. Soup in D-76, or for a real trip one of the Amidol, Rodinal, or Pyro/PMK developers.

 

Oh, and we have not even gotten to paper yet... :eek:

Companies emerge or produce slow speed, thicker emulsion films--many disappear from the market after a few years. I am still sad with the demise of Efke.

 

I too miss Efke, but it was an interesting film(I still have a few rolls and a partial box of 2x3 sheets tucked away).

 

It was not a "thick emulsion" film in the spirit of Koda Super-XX. Instead, it was a fairly thin emulsion-actually thinner than Tri-X-and was LOADED with silver. When I was processing it regularly, the amount of silver present showed in the life of my fixer.

 

The old technology also very much showed in it-it was incredibly easy to reticulate even inadvertently, while modern Tri-X requires major temperature shocks if you want the effect(I've run a 100ºF wash by accident and it didn't phase Tri-X). In addition, I don't think that I've ever had a film curl so badly.

 

For sheet film photographers, Super-XX was made up until 1992, although many folks hold on to it dearly. Still, it's out there, and what I've shot still looks decent even if it's been stored at room temperature.

I guess I should have explained my self a bit more. I have a book by Dorothy Norman called INTIMATE VISIONS. I looked for her work online to post some examples and could not find much. The photographs have a wonderful, rich, slightly soft feel. I'm going to try to find an example or two and post them.

It’s not usually the film or paper, but how it was processed and what it was processed with. If you are a diy person, it’s not hard to duplicate. If you get your film processed for you, you will have to find someome to do it for you.

I process all my own B&W film so that's not an issue.

A quick survey of portraits that she took shows a lot of high contrast lighting. She seemed to either like to fully illuminate the face and almost nothing else, or to create sharp shadows on faces. Even in still lifes and other indoor scenes, she seemed to favor highly directional lighting.

 

I think you'd find you could replicate much of the "feel" of her work with studying how she lit her subjects more so than looking at the medium used to create it.

A quick survey of portraits that she took shows a lot of high contrast lighting. She seemed to either like to fully illuminate the face and almost nothing else, or to create sharp shadows on faces. Even in still lifes and other indoor scenes, she seemed to favor highly directional lighting.

 

I think you'd find you could replicate much of the "feel" of her work with studying how she lit her subjects more so than looking at the medium used to create it.

Yes, that is correct. The problem I've found though is that using modern cameras and film won't give me that look no matter what type of lighting I use.

Yes, that is correct. The problem I've found though is that using modern cameras and film won't give me that look no matter what type of lighting I use.

Also, I was looking more at the "non-portrait" images in the book as examples (which I will try and scan later this evening and post).

I am in agreement with Ben on this. You don't say whether you will be digitizing the negative, or hard printing wet chemistry. A number of replication schemas exist for traditional printing--ranging from fixed grade to variable contrast. With digital, it can be whatever we want--and custom actions can be created to recreate any mood or range.

 

Whether Norman used 'hard' continuous lighting, or strobe is not clear. I keep an old early 60s Photogenic AA strobe kit for just this sort of purpose. For whatever reason, it is difficult to reproduce the lighting effects from these with more modern setups. Others may disagree with me... :p I also have a set of halogen based lights for continuous lighting--the combination of these plus an ortho film is a trip right back to the 1930s!

 

I remember now about the Efke--as I was looking for an equivalent to Pan-X in LF and 35mm. I still have a number of boxes and about 9 rolls sealed in the freezer. The results in Rodinal (PF formulation) were astounding--and I used them with Azo paper for a couple HABS projects.

 

It's purportedly the Bergger 200 of more than a decade ago that was a thicker emulsion. I have 4 boxes of that too in the freezer. Sad that these are gone now.

I am in agreement with Ben on this. You don't say whether you will be digitizing the negative, or hard printing wet chemistry. A number of replication schemas exist for traditional printing--ranging from fixed grade to variable contrast. With digital, it can be whatever we want--and custom actions can be created to recreate any mood or range.

 

Whether Norman used 'hard' continuous lighting, or strobe is not clear. I keep an old early 60s Photogenic AA strobe kit for just this sort of purpose. For whatever reason, it is difficult to reproduce the lighting effects from these with more modern setups. Others may disagree with me... :p I also have a set of halogen based lights for continuous lighting--the combination of these plus an ortho film is a trip right back to the 1930s!

 

I remember now about the Efke--as I was looking for an equivalent to Pan-X in LF and 35mm. I still have a number of boxes and about 9 rolls sealed in the freezer. The results in Rodinal (PF formulation) were astounding--and I used them with Azo paper for a couple HABS projects.

 

It's purportedly the Bergger 200 of more than a decade ago that was a thicker emulsion. I have 4 boxes of that too in the freezer. Sad that these are gone now.

I would be wet printing the images on VC fiber based paper. I could give graded paper a shot though.

Photos I found of Ms Norman show her using 4x5 film cameras. Are you trying to replicate that look using miniature 35mm film?

Photos I found of Ms Norman show her using 4x5 film cameras. Are you trying to replicate that look using miniature 35mm film?

No not 35mm. I'd like to use my Pentax 6x7, if possible.

No not 35mm. I'd like to use my Pentax 6x7, if possible.

 

This might be as good of an excuse as any to get yourself a 4x5 camera.

 

A Speed or Crown graphic with a 127mm or 135mm Ektar or Raptar lens will likely serve you well and give you something of an "old" look(although these lenses are plenty sharp and look good when stopped down-I think Ektars are specifically made to be color corrected). There are all kinds of films out there now to play with. The Arista.edu line from Freestyle is, I think, made by Foma and is both inexpensive and somewhat of an older emulsion(albeit not as dated as Efke).

 

Alternatively, you can look for a miniature Graphic, which gives you a roughly 6x9 negative(2 1/4"x 3 1/4"). I mention this as an option as the cameras are a fair bit smaller and the negatives can be printed in a medium format enlarger. The selection of film is limited, but there is some out there.

 

I still think a lot is going to come down to your lighting, but one of your enemies may be that modern lenses(and I'd consider anything made for the Pentax 67 to be modern) are just too good. If you were taking the sensible approach of using an RB67 :) I might suggest the 150mm Soft Focus, which is very poorly corrected wide open but sharpens up around f/8. I don't know if there's a similar lens available for the Pentax.

 

One last thought-you have to keep all parts of your system in mind, and that includes your enlarger lens. My main MF lens(for 645-6x7) is an 75mm Rodenstock. I was given a 100mm Kodak projection lens, however(I forget the full details on it). It's a lovely piece of pre-war uncoated optics(not sure of the formula) and gives its own special "look" to prints I make with it. It's not a lens I use all the time, but I keep it mounted on a board and ready to pop in. I'll also mention that I find 100mm to be a more comfortable length for printing 6x7, although I have done it plenty of times with the 75mm.

A few observations.

35mm format cameras didn't come into common use until the 1960s, and certainly not for "serious" professional use. While most amateurs were using rollfilm snapshot cameras.

 

The clothing, hairstyles and general manner of people has a lot to do with the look of an era.

 

There's far more visual pollution around today - advertising, traffic signs, graffiti, parked cars, etc.

 

Film itself has no particular "look". Apart from the comment about orthochromatic film being more common, which can easily be emulated with a blue/cyan filter.

 

So; forget the film type. If you want to emulate the look of the 1940s & 50s you have a lot of work to do in organising the clothes and styling of anyone appearing in the picture, along with the background and surroundings. The easy bit is sourcing a suitably vintage camera and loading it with modern film.

 

Doubtless you'll end up digitising the negatives anyway, and after that you can add all the grain and faded effects you like.

Edited October 5, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

Do a Google image search on "Hurrell portraits". Is that the sort of tonal quality you're looking for? If so, it's a sought after look that few succeed in duplicating. IMO it's the result of many factors- all listed above. Lighting is huge, but with crisp coated lenses the results will probably be harsh. You might need a bit of diffusion. Old films had poorer anti-halation backings (or none) and that imparts a certain glow. Diffusion in the enlarger is the inverse effect, sometimes useful, but not at all the same. I think the 6x7 will get you much of the way there, but 4x5 or 8x10 is how they did it back then. Here's an older discussion- George Hurrell lighting Edited October 5, 2017 by conrad_hoffman

This is sorta off-topic, but my mother knew Dorothy Norman back in the Forties. IIRC, she used a Graphlex 4x5, probably with an uncoated lens.

I almost exclusively use 5x7 and 8x10 non-panchromatic xray film and uncoated lenses, which would be authentic for about 1920. If you don't see what you like in my pix, then it is not the materials, but something else: http:flickr.com/michaeldarnton

 

I do suspect that it is the printing style you like and not the materials. Their printing ideals were quite different from ours.

Edited October 6, 2017 by michael_darnton|2

Nice! Though I do have to wonder about putting a perfectly good machinist's scriber under glass with an umbrella!

You had to be there!

I almost exclusively use 5x7 and 8x10 non-panchromatic xray film and uncoated lenses, which would be authentic for about 1920. If you don't see what you like in my pix, then it is not the materials, but something else: http:flickr.com/michaeldarnton

 

I do suspect that it is the printing style you like and not the materials. Their printing ideals were quite different from ours.

Thanks Michael. Your work is very nice. That's about the closest I've seen for the look I'm after. Where do you buy your film? Any special processing advice? Thanks - Steve

There is also cold-tone vs. warm tone paper, and some dependence on developers.

 

A well as I know (maybe not so well) the older papers were AgCl based,

and newer ones chlorobromide. That is, the crystal grains have both bromide

and chloride in them. That effects the look of the developed grains.

 

And then there is the paper base itself. RC vs. fiber based, and the different

surface finishes.

I use Fuji HR-U film, 100-8x10 sheets are about $40 on Ebay. I develop by inspection, red light, in very dilute D76 or D23 that I mix myself. There's a gigantic thread about using xray film on the Large Format Photography Forum, and several xray film groups on Flickr.

 

I snap the highlights up, because I like that, but a more traditional look would be to not do that.

 

But I suspect a lot of what you see is my attempt to somewhat replicate the lighting of Steichen's Vogue period, with some Karsh thrown in.