"Old fashioned Films"

[david_goldfarb]

Regarding Classic/ClassicPan/FortePan 400--the old version was thin and flat. They've updated it, and I've been testing the new version, and New ClassicPan 400 (which is the same as Classic 400, but no longer the same as FortePan 400) is a definite improvement. It's now more like Tri-X 320 with a longer toe and higher DMax--so not very forgiving of underexposure, but with better highlight separation. I haven't used it enough to decide one way or the other about it, but it's definitely more interesting than the earlier version.

[roman_sonnleitner1]

> If price was the same where you live, would you prefer the APX?

 

Hmmm, tough question - I guess I would simply decide by availability - and there are constant rumors that Agfa is going to discontinue the B&W films in 120 format; also, 'never change a running system', so I might stick with Foma (actually, I'm changing the system right now - testing w/ Barry Thornton's Metol-2-bath home brew developer, which I already use for Fuji Neopan 400).

BTW, a 10-pack of Foma (120) costs about 15 Euros, less if bought in Prague, APX100 is about 25 to 35 Euros for 10x 120 rolls.

 

I added a scan of a picture taken on Fomapan 100, Rodinal 1+50, 35mm format (used a 'classic' camera - a Kiev rangefinder, Russian Contax clone).

[roman_sonnleitner1]

And here's one on Efke 100 (Rodinal 1+50, 35mm camera, the same Kiev w/ 35mm lens, actually). A bit grainy (don't know how well you can see this on my bad scan), but it works for me for this picture - kinda moody & dark.

[conrad_hoffman]

Certainly modern emulsions are sharper and finer grained, no disagreements there. Don't forget that old photos were shot with old equipment, and I assume we're talking mostly about large format here. If you look at photo collections from the '40s and '50s, the image quality often isn't great, even though the images themselves overshadow the fact. IMHO, a large part of the look, as Grant brings up, has to do with simple lens designs, uncoated lenses, not quite perfect focus, and the DOF of large format. As far as the films, it still comes down to curve shape and maybe spectral response. I had very good results from Ektapan, results that I haven't been able to duplicate with other films. Why? Just look at the curve shape for Ektapan in the data books and compare it to something like TMX. BTW, though I really don't like TMX much, I've gotten decent results from that TMY some dislike so much. As for thin vs thick emulsion, you can't tell by feel. It takes a cross section and a good microscope. If you can't put numbers on it, it's going to be rather difficult to know if it's really responsible for some visual difference.

[janko_belaj]

Well, the cheapest film in "roll format" is line of efke "R" (25-50-100)... at least here in

Croatia, and specially if you have chance to get it directly from factory (as I have bought

my last efke PL 25 (9x12cm) don't ask for price... was really low :-)))<br>

Now, about "look and feel" of efke films. As much as I know, efke 25 and efke 50 (KB, R or

PL) are, so called, ortho-panchromatic emulsions. That name is not right by some

conventions (film should be ortho or pan, not both... or mixture, because panchromatic

emulsion is just wider in spectral sensitivity... maybe we should call those emulsions

"short panchromatic"?), but is describing what you can get - film which is more sensitive

to blue and green part of spectrum and just a little bit sensitive in red part of it. Film efke

100 is, on the other hand, more modern and normal panchromatic film with (almost) fool

sensitivity to all visible spectrum. That is difference of efke 25&50 and 100. Similarity is

that all 3 kind of emulsion is "single layer" emulsion - all silver stuff is layered on base in

one pass, not combining more passes (more layers). That is why that emulsion have to be

ticker than modern (let's call them "multi-pass-silver") emulsions, and are much rich in

silver. So, developer will need much more job, grain will be bigger, but you will have much

more material to work/play with in matter of pull-push game (original efke's low sensitive

emulsion was about 12 DIN, that will be 12 ASA, when I started to use efke films, those

were named "14" describing sensitivity of 14 DIN - 20 ASA, today it is 25 ASA (15 DIN)...

but is still "same" emulsion. at least derived from basic ADOX formulae.)<br>

I had few lousy days here on my vacation (lousy weather, not company:)) so I have made a

few test with efke 25, Xtol and Rodinal (and Xtol+Rodinal combination), but the results I

can not post until I cam back home. What I can say that (on the eye) I liked the most efke

25 exposed at 40, developed in Xtol 1+3 for... well, somewhere between 15 and 20

minutes... will have to do more tests. can't wait to get home.

[jay_de_fehr]

The J&C Classic 200 I have is identical to the Edu. 200 I have. The Edu.400 has a very cyan base, and is fairly grainy. The Edu. 100 is also very grainy, and I much prefer the Arista Ultrafine 125 which is available in sheet film sizes, and the Ultrafine 400 in 120. I bought big lots of each of these films, and I'm slowly familiarizing myself with each of them. Of the Edu line, the 200 is my favorite so far. I will be ordering some of the new chinese films from J&C, and some Efke and Adox too, and now my curiosity is piqued regarding the Foma films. What a time to be a B&W photographer! As an aside, I've shot a lot of TMY, and in my opinion, there is simply no better film on the planet. Some of the most beautiful prints I've ever seen were made from TMY negatives. One must know how to handle it, but that is true of any film.

[david_goldfarb]

Fomapan T200 is a really interesting film. I wouldn't use it for everything, but for a kind of 1930s look reminiscent of Fritz Lang or Alvin Langdon Coburn. I've seen dr5 transparencies from T200 that have that look as well, if B&W transparencies are of interest.

[b._poetz]

Hmm... according to Janko, if I understand him correctly, the Efke 100 emulsion is different - more

modern - than the 25 and 50.

 

Anybody want to comment on that?

 

David, where are you seeing Fomapan T200? I didn't see it on the Foma webpage or J&C.

 

Sorry to be such a stickler but when you write "...a kind of 1930's look" what do you mean

exactly. Your reference is subjective to you and it would simply make it clearer for everyone if

you describe that "look". Sounds very interesting...

[rowland_mowrey]

Has anyone seen Fritz Langs remastered version of Metropolis with the original musical score?

 

It is out now.

 

Ron Mowrey

[lex_jenkins]

Film was a minor, almost insignificant element of yesteryear's photography.

 

Most of the time when people bring up the issue of old style photography and the materials used, they're almost invariably thinking of photos taken using large format and, at smallest, medium format.

 

I've seen plenty of prints made from 35mm negatives over various decades. They all look pretty much the same to me. Prints from pushed or simply underexposed negatives then look pretty much the same now as they did then, with a few exceptions. Most important, prints from normally exposed 35mm negs then look identical to contemporary prints from recently exposed 35mm. Subject matter and style is usually the giveaway, not some mystical property of the films used.

 

What set photos apart in past years was, among other factors, heavy retouching done on portraits made from large format and, less often, medium format negatives. Other factors included lighting styles that were en vogue then but fell out of favor later.

 

Finally, perhaps the most important factor is originality, artistry and skill. By now, after about a century of modern and postmodern photography we've pretty much seen it all. Virtually everyone - not just photographers - has heard of Ansel Adams and seen at least one or two of his images. That style has been, if not dominant, so influential that some large format photographers expend all of their effort recreating that style. All they can do to set themselves apart is to choose other subject matter.

 

Pick a format or style and you'll find countless photographers who cite familiar names as influences. And if they don't actually cite their influences, it's still obvious. Hurrell for that classic Hollywood glamour look. Weston, whose work is characterized by glistening midtones regardless of subject matter, whether a nautilus or a nude. HC-B for 35mm street photography. Doisneau for those who prefer medium format for street photography. And so on.

 

As we struggle and often fail to emulate our influences (if we're honest) or to create what we believe are truly original images (if we're unwilling to admit to our influences), the temptation to become alchemists searching for the Philosopher's Stone overwhelms us. We think the answer must be in some mythical material. A "silver rich" emulsion. A little documented developer such as 777 which was associated with the success of the original user. A long-gone and lamented paper containing mysterium, now banned throughout the civilized world.

 

Don't misunderstand me. And I'm as much a fool in pursuit of the chemical marriage as the next adept or entered apprentice. I've sought the grail in Efke R100 and the Lance of Longinus in Neofin Blau. I flirt with foul potions in an effort to find the Lost Toner of Hiram Abiff.

 

But face it, folks. It all comes down to experience, talent, skill, vision, lighting, not fixing the film before developing it and remembering to turn off the main lights before opening the paper safe.

 

Of course, I could be fulla beans.

[david_goldfarb]

Well, I suggested Lang and Coburn as glosses on what I meant by "1930's look." Look them up. Really, what I mean is that, as in Coburn particularly, the action is happening more in the midtones with thick steely greys rather than, say, the strong sense of line one gets with Tri-X, or the very linear B&W video look of TMX.

 

Try www.fotoimpex.de for Fomapan T200. That's where I ordered it from last. I think now it's called "Creativ 200" or some such due to a trademark issue with Kodak and their "T-grain" films.

[skygzr]

Much of the "look" of the Efke KB films has to do with their odd spectral response.

 

Otherwise, what Lex said.

[b._poetz]

On another thread, I those participating to post a photo that they felt was representative of their

work. This suggestion was made in the context of discussing "vintage papers".

 

I wrote that sharing one's work reveals something of ones talent, skill, and personal vision.

 

Certainly, we are more than just the sum total of developer, paper, film and lenses. "We are in

fact, photographers .....artists, not merely chemists and scientists" I reminded my fellow

photographers.

 

The Helmut Gernsheim quote "Neither camera, nor lens, nor film deterimine the quality of

pictures..." (see thread for complete qoute) to reinforce the message.

 

To this, you replied with the presumptuous tone that I was implying....blah, blah, blah. (those

interested can read the thread.) Then you went on ad nauseum about the problems associated

with posting pictures, etc.... never acknowledging the core of my message.

 

Rather than debate you, I chose to largely ignore your rant and summed up with "You seem to

have all the facts but have missed the point entirely".

 

I bring this issue up now only because of your last contribution to this thread. Specifically, you

wrote:

 

"But face it, folks. It all comes down to experience, talent, skill, vision, lighting, not fixing the film

before developing it and remembering to turn off the main lights before opening the paper

safe."

 

Gee, Lex... that sounds familar. Isn't that exactly the point I was making? Yes, it was.

 

As, Mr. DeFehr concurred, '...posting pictures is helpful and meaningful and illustrate one's point.

 

If I was "implying" anything it was simply that if in trying t acheive a "classic" or "old fashioned"

look, we must consider more than paper, film, lenses etc.

 

I was treading lightly, not wanting to appear judgemental or combative.

 

You make the point that we often emulate a certain photographer and in doing so fail to produce

anything original or creative.

 

"Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must"

 

We all have differennt expectations and standards. I suspect for some, recreating an AA

lanscape would be Nirvana. Approaching the look of an admired photographer is success

enough.

 

Indeed, photographic chemistry and equipment are only the means to that end.

 

My suggestion to show work was intended to help reach that end by actully looking at one's

work rather than simply describing it.

 

I respectfully accept and abide by the rules parameters of Photo.net and do appreciate your

thoughts. I realize that we can show our work in other "places" in this forum. Granted. But again,

that's not the real point.

 

I am a great lover of the "old style". This might mean different things to different people. Sharing

images IN a relevant thread might help others as well as myself in refining our creative proccess.

 

In conclusion, I offer these words in the spirit of our mutual benefit. I love Photo.net and value it

tremendously. If, for some reason it were no longer available to us, I would mourn that loss

more than any extinct paper or film.

 

Cheers!

 

PS - I post the following photo as an illustration as a representation of the type of work I

continually strive to create. If anyone is interested in technical details, feel free to ask.<div></div>

[b._poetz]

Agfa MC 118 Semi-Matt paper. ( I think you like this paper, Lex.)<div></div>

[andrewlamb]

I liked your tight head shot and would be very interested in the technical spec

on it. Personally, I can't see anything wrong in wanting to recreate an old

fashioned look in b/w if that's what you like.

 

I think there is something rather lovely, almost tactile, about early b/w photos.

I, for one, am very keen to see the major Lartigue exhibition on at London's

Hayward gallery. I definitely think Lartigue's early pictures, when he shot on

larger formats, have a nicer 'feel' to them than his later work. I'm guessing this

has something to do with the nature of the film he used, the size of the negs

and the uncoated lenses. Whatever, the prints that I have seen of his on

previous occasions had a very appealing glow. What's wrong with trying to

replicate that?

 

Isn't it interesting to use old techniques in modern settings? Couldn't a mix of

old styles and techiques and some modern technology lead to interesting

photos?

 

One of my favourite photos that I took was taken on a pre-war Super Ikonta. It

was sharp but, not surprisingly, a bit low in contrast. Hey presto, a bit of

tweaking on the computer and we have an acceptable picture. A 30"x 30"

print hangs in my hallway. Not bad for a camera bought, for $50, at Portobello

Market in Notting Hill.

 

Good luck with your experiments. I'm waiting for an ancient 8" f2.9 Dallmeyer

Pentac to be mounted onto a Sinar panel. That 'might' be fun used in tandem

with some Efke. Then again, it could be total rubbish :)

[rustys pics]

Some good points were brought up here about old photographs.

I think we all need to realize that looking at vintage prints in a book, and expecially via

computer monitor tells little about antique processes. The papers really WERE a lot

different than what we use now. The images seems to "float" just beneath the surface. The

conventions of a print were different. Old printers loved to overprint the mid-tones and

make a print that would be considered too dark and flat today. In black & white photo

classes, people are taught to hang in the shadows and punch up the highlights. Probably a

leftover from journalist photographers of the '60s.

 

If you can get to a local museum, gallery, or even estate sale seeing how those images

were printed will be an education all in itself. Duotone reproductions on fine paper (Not

from your inkjet printer....) are pretty close to the old prints.

 

I do agree with Lex that going for a classic look in 35mm is kind of like trying to get a VW

bug to race at indy 500. The Bug is great for economy, but you just can't get the tonal

range from 35mm before it breaks up. Unless...you shoot slides in the Dr5 process which

someone mentioned.

 

And last of all, the lens is important. Most of the old lenses were simple 3 or 4 element

tessar designs. Coating? Not until after WWII or later. People dog the Speed Graphic's

135mm Optar made by Wollensak. I think it's a real window back in time and quite

capable. This thread is great because it shows that film (b&w at least) is far from dead.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

You misinterpret me, BP. I'm not ranting or chastizing you and certainly not dismissing your points about the artistic end of b&w photography. I'm simply pointing out that as moderator of these forums I'm obligated to keep focus mainly on the technical aspects.

 

That was the tone set by the founder of photo.net and while that doesn't mean a website cannot evolve there does seem to be a general consensus among most participants on these forums that they're most appropriately used to ask questions or exchange ideas about the more technical aspects of our craft.

 

As a matter of fact I took your point of view several months ago for the purpose of debate with another, former, forum participant (long gone due to behavior that was relentless uncooperative with photo.net policy - but that's another long winded story). I'm perfectly willing to take almost any reasonable position on an issue for the purpose of an intellectually stimulating debate. That doesn't mean, however, that because I value the artistic end of photography above the technical that I am free to either allow these forums to veer in that direction, or lead them that way. I try to stay as neutral as possible.

 

And while I tend to be verbose in writing I don't intend to come across as pedantic. My apologies if you felt you were being lectured.

 

BTW, yes, I'm a major fan of Agfa 118 and will mourn its passing if it finally becomes unavailable. It's a terrific fiber paper at a near bargain price that is in no way compromised in performance.

 

And while I really admire the photographs you've uploaded the web does not do them justice. There are variations in color casts that probably weren't intended (should the photo of the woman be green?). This is the reason why I'm dubious about the value of using the web to compare our work for technical merit. For example, how often can we really demonstrate online the differences in effect between one developer and another on a particular film, or between films using the same developer? Pretty seldom IMHO. Among the few instances are in my "Square" folder. This photo:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1710632&size=lg

 

does pretty fairly represent the look of Efke R100 in Neofin Blau, mostly because of the small section from a very large print shown in context of the entire print.

 

And most photos I've seen from films developed in Diafine, especially Tri-X, whether my own or those of other photographers, have that distinctive look that characterizes Diafine.

 

However, color casts aside, you have a real eye for composition and lighting. We can usually appreciate artistry and originality in a photo even online, despite color casts, jpeg artifacting and gamma problems.

 

But I still believe the best place to display our work is in our photo.net folder space. As for the numerical ratings game and other nonsense, it's best to simply ignore it. A single comment - whether favorable, negative or in the form of a suggestion for alteration - from one of my peers on the b&w forums who really understands and appreciates the craft means far more to me than meaningless numbers and breathless exclamations of "Wow!" and "Great!".

[david_goldfarb]

Regarding posting of photos, if you're interested in someone's general style and subject matter, be sure to click on the name under the post to see if they have a photo.net gallery or a separate website. When I became concerned about photo.net's terms of use and evolving commercial character, I deleted my photo.net gallery and just moved everything to my own website. I have more control in my own space and I don't have to be involved in the ratings game.

[b._poetz]

Lex, thank you for you apology and for your kind words about my work. And no, the woman

was not supposed to be green(!) ; - )

 

Ahh, case in point. We have experienced the prombems inherent to viewing pictures online

and yet, the image still conveys my taste, style, skill, talent or whatevever attributes one may

attach to a photographer.

 

As you pointed out, I am new to Photo.net and until now was unaware of the "folder space".

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

 

You must admit, however, that technical problems notwithstanding, the photos posted have

added interest and meaning to this thread.

 

In every field of endeavor where one is involved in a pursuit of personal expression and ideally

improvement, the search for the "magic bullet" is a comman syndrome. The market, well aware

of this, exploits our struggle with the promise of panaceas. While it 's foolish to imagine that any

chemical or film or paper will magically turn a bad image into a good one or a bad photographer

into a good photographer, for that matter, we must become aware of the tools that are at our

disposal.

 

For example, a 35mm shooter might be in love with the "old look" we've all been attempting to

describe here in this thread, but he'll never acheive the look with small format. No amount of

dedication or talent or chemicals can change that. As someone once pointed out, it's hard to

imagine HC-B with anything other than his Leica. By the same token, AA would not be AA

without his Deardorff. Of course, I'm referring to format here, not brand names). We have tools

to help us realize our vision. The right choice is important.

 

Discovering new techniques to fine-tune our work is worthwhile. Others are at a different stage

and are not fine-tuning but aquiring basic skills. All depends on the context.

 

I've been in my darkroom most of the day and doing a lot of examining and thinking about "old

style" and the means (and reasons) for creating it. In particular, looking at my first EFKE PL25

images, I see what I believe is the defining characteristic of this film. The "look" can not be

attributed to only one or two things. In my opinion, there are several things about this film which

gives it a certain appearance. The important thing is to be able to recognize it and understand

WHEN it makes sense to use this film. In the right application it imparts synergy. In the wrong

context, it may just look like a less-than-sharp, nothing special film.

 

It's the result that matters. The only way to achieve a repeatable outcome is with vision and skill.

And my feeling is that VISION is the more important of the two. With vision, we call upon our

sense of taste and way of approaching the world. The way we address life and interact with

people have more to do with creating great images than the miniscule differences between

papers. One hundred photographers can shoot the same subject and end up with very different

results.

 

Blah, blah, blah.... well, anyway, I think you all get my drift.

 

So, Lex, from one long-winded photographer to another, keep up the good work,

 

Cheers!

 

PS - I do have one question to which I would love to get a direct and accurate answer: Does the

EFKE PL100 have the same look as the PL25 ?

[b._poetz]

Good idea, David. I couldn't agree with you more.

[jandc_photo]

"What the heck is a "50s style film" supposed to look like anyway???"

 

The Adox KB 14 and KB17 films that are the original versions of the Efke 25 and 50 films were the first films to employ thin layer technology. This made them sharper than the thick emulsion films that preceded them. Unlike modern crystal films the speed is controlled only by grain size. The formulation of these films yields a unique spectral response. The very simple single layer emulsion also plays a roll in the look of these films. Are they the best film for every job, no. Are they different than other available films, most certainly.

 

"Another victim of marketing hype! Film is film."

 

I would say that film is film just like wine is wine, and cars are cars etc. They all do the same basic thing but there are differences. It's not just curves and spectral response. It's manufacturing methods and 50 year old technology that yields something different from modern films.

 

"Speaking of Super XX, do you feel that J and C's 'Classic 200' is in fact comparable, as they claim it to be?"

 

Unlike the Efke films the Classic films are older emulsions that are thicker. They compare to Super XX in their style of manufacture and design. They are similar technology films. What's interesting is that we're hearing that the Efke PL100 and the new emulsion Classic 400 are performing closer to Super XX in terms of N+2 development.

 

"BTW, I would not rank the Foma films among 'classic' emulsions (like Efke and Forte, which are very different from each other, though) - their T200 is a modern flat crystal type (loke Delta or TMax), their Fomapan 100 is hardly distinguishable from APX100 (if souped in Rodinal 1+50 - that's what I used, don't know about different developers), and the Fomapan 400 is has finer grain than HP5+!"

 

The Foma films are much more modern emulsions. The 100 film shares some basic charasteristics with the Agfa films and is similar. They also use the same type of base material.

 

"BTW, I just checked on the FotoImpex page (www.fotoimpex.de) - they do carry Foma sheet film, but only metric sizes (9x12, 13x18 and 18x24 cm)."

 

Foma does not cut sheet film in inch sizes.

 

"Regarding Classic/ClassicPan/FortePan 400--the old version was thin and flat. They've updated it, and I've been testing the new version, and New ClassicPan 400 (which is the same as Classic 400, but no longer the same as FortePan 400) is a definite improvement."

 

Classic 400 has been improved as David says. The Classic 400 roll and sheet films are the same emulsion. He is also correct the Forte 400 roll film and the other Forte relabeled brands are not the same film.

 

"Fomapan T200 is a really interesting film."

 

This is the same as Foma Creativ 200.

 

"Hmm... according to Janko, if I understand him correctly, the Efke 100 emulsion is different - more modern - than the 25 and 50."

 

Efke 100 has a different spectral sensitivity than the 25 and 50 films. It is also a somewhat thicker emulsion. Totally different look and feel than the 25 and 50 films. It is more modern in the terms of spectral response, similar to other B&W modern films.

 

"PS - I do have one question to which I would love to get a direct and accurate answer: Does the EFKE PL100 have the same look as the PL25 ?"

 

Significantly different look and feel.

[b._poetz]

John, thank you for addressing all of my questions and answering them in a clear and

straightforward manner. I can finally sleep soundly.

 

Now, if you would be kind enough to indulge me in this last question:

 

Am I correct then to conclude that Efke PL100 and Foma 100 will provide a similar look (9x12)

all other things equal ?

[conrad_hoffman]

Ok, different how? And what differences don't show up in terms of curves, spectral response, and resolution/acutance? Frankly, when one starts making decent measurements, differences can be described with some degree of precision, or they disappear, having existed only as ghosts of subconscious beliefs and desires.

[murrayatuptowngallery]

Has anyone used the 120 rolls of J&C's 'cheapest' film (1.19/roll right now; I missed the special on 0.79/roll film!) ? I am in the habit of testing cameras in unknown condition and making gross errors with misplacement in Zones by going the wrong way...at this point I just want to get thru the learning curve and am not in a position to be that critical....really, the next thing I should probably shoot is a whole roll (or a few) of 18% gray card, bracketed for my own sanity.

 

Until I start producing work that calls for 'better' film, cost appeals to me.

 

It would be nice to know if it meets or perhaps even exceeds needs at my 'level', or if it's roundly reviled!

 

Thanks

 

Murray

[b._poetz]

Murry, sounds like you're aware enough to realize that first you need to improve your

knowledge and gain experience before nitpicking over the sublte differences among films.

 

I would suggest that you buy the cheapest film and stick with it awhile. Learn to master it. Don't

be too quick to change films or developers or anything else right now. Keep it simple. Improve

your technique and skill. Don't be in a rush to change your materials. Concentrate on mastery at

this point. Then, when you you're ready, you can always start experimenting with new things if

you feel the need.

 

Remember.... "Good judgement comes from experience; Experience comes from bad

judgement".

 

I hope that helps a bit. Good luck.