john_murphy1 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I have spent so much time trying to get B&W photos that look good, that I was not prepared for an interesting objection raised by a family member. In viewing photos of my daughter it was noted that she doesn't look "real" in pictures shot with HP5 film. This is to say that she doesn't look as she does in real life, or simply, she doesn't look like herself. In other words, she looks like somebody else. Upon reviewing my old shots, I find this to be particularly true of the Ilford films. This doesn't mean that the photos are not realistic, because FP4 in Perceptol produced some very realistic photos, but they too don't look true to reality. Only the Agfa APX films seem to produce a true-to-life rendering of my child. Any thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland_mowrey Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Why don't you post a comparison so we can make an objective comment on your pictures? It might also be of benefit to us in selecting a film in the future. Thanks for the info though. Ron Mowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_murphy1 Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 The problem with trying to post scanned versions of B&W prints is that it introduces even more distortion into the image (even with my best scanning techniques). You'll have to just take my word for it that the APX shots are much more recognizable renderings of my daughter than the HP5 shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maesphoto Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 What a strange conclusion to relate the "real" look of somebody to the properties of a film! When you take a portrait of somebody you are freezing an expression in a fraction of a second. It depends on this expression and the mood of the photograph if people will say: "that's really him or her". In my experience the technical properties of the film have nothing to do with it. Of course the sharpness or softness of your lens and the way you do your image treatment will enhance or diminish the mood in your picture. But the right expression you have to observe it and be there at the right moment. No film can do that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimvanson Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 John -- how can anyone look "real" when their likeness is recorded on a gray scale material -- be it an Agfa or Ilford, Kodak or Fuji product?<P> B&W photography is interpretive so ones expectations of "reality" are seldomly (white dog, black night) obtained.<p>I shoot B&W exclusively -- tons of APX 100 & 400 and I never taken a shot that looks real.<P> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2390398"><b>Hope II</b></a> or <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1275804"><b>Gazing Into The Sun</b></a>.<P>I think you gotta rethink your position or maybe reword this post -- don't know which but good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_murphy1 Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 Think about it this way: if you were trying to identify someone in a photographic, which film would make it easiest? (Assume all other variables are held as constant as is reasonably possible.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 As pointed out above, the look of the film has little to do with this. Capturing the right expression on HIE might make someone far more "real" than capturing an uncharacteristic expression on APX 25. The question really doesn't make sense. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth_harper Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 The wonderful thing about B&W photography is just that, it's not real. As humans we don't see in B&W. Added to that, the fact that we can distort it further because it's not real and B&W materials readiness to be distorted. Colour can be real but B&W is surreal. When taking pictures of people B&W can be spectacular, it strips away all the distractions of colour and leaves us with a much more stark, raw if you like image. Bottom line, if you want reality then shoot colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_davis2 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Yousuf Karsh in an interview said something like " Colour shows real life. B&W is different everytime you see it. Every day what you see in the photo changes depending on how you feel" Something like that. If you want reality shoot colour. B&W is about interperting reality. It's not just the film but the paper. How you print it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titrisol Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Please define what are the attributes on the APX100 picures that made it more lifelike. May it be sharpness, tonality, contrast etc. By abstracting your picture into a gray world you are having a different "interpretation" of your daughter. FP4/APX100 require different light than HP5, so it could be a problem of that sort. Also your contrast may be different depending on how you prnt those. I was printing some 1940s negatives for my fathe rin law and I wasted a bunch of paper because I made them soft and full of tonality (VC filter 2) and he just hated them. I printed them again using a 3.5 filter and he loved them...... Maybe you can print 2 or 3 different versions by changing the contrast and see what your relative says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Just a thought. Could the spectral sensitivity be quite a bit different in the two films you used? This would account for some differences in brightness values for different colors, which can impart a different "look" to a black and white image. For instance, Tmax has a different "look" than Tri-x partly for this reason. I see a difference in Fuji Acros too. This quality of "realness" could be the shades of gray that are being translated from color. Altering contrast in the print would not greatly change that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_ingram Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 This reminds me of the old story about Picasso. Mr. Picasso was painting a portrait of some woman, and the subject's husband was looking over Pablo's shoulder as he painted. He grew more and more anooyed until he finally stomped his feet and declared "That looks nothing like my wife." "Well, then, how does she look?" asked Picasso. The man pulled a photograph of his wife out of his wallet and showed it to the painter. Picasso looked at it and then asked the husband "Kind of small, isn't she?" <br><br> Maybe the key is to have in the future only monochromatic children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry_kenstler Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I think Steve is onto something. Also, APX has a longer toe and can show earlier shouldering than the HP5+ and FP4+ and that could contribute to a relative contrast increase for the mid-tones of prints from APX negatives. Whatever the reason, I too have noticed that APX 100 seemingly produces more spirited, glowing, and life-like portraits than many other films. When I shoot B&W film portraits, APX 100 is the film I usually reach for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimvanson Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 To drag this back into it's proper place in the "Film & Processing" forum area, I'll state that every conventional silver halide film I know of is developer (and technique) dependant.<P>The look between APX100 in dilute Rodinal is going to differ -- sometimes greatly -- from the look of the same film in a different developer e.g. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008TDH"><b>TMax</b></a>.<P>Then if we want to change forums (Lex likes us towin' the line) we can mosey over to "B&W Photography - Printing & Finishing" and discuss all sorts of variables there.<P>Color? I shot a roll a couple years ago so I don't wanta go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_murphy1 Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 Someone asked me to specify what aspects make the picture look more real. This is actually why I posted the question, because I cannot tell, perhaps it is in the eyes. I am hoping someone out there has had a similar experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Is this the point where you discover that the processor got your rolls of HP5 mixed up with someone else's? I did once send away a couple of films with photographs of France and when they came back it looked like China. Do you think that could be the same thing :-) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_smith6 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 If they don't think the photo looks like them politely refer them to the first law of portraiture. If you want a better picture... bring a better face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_walton2 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 If it is the tonal range that looks odd... pop on a yellow/green or a green filter. This will make the tonal range of the face look more life like. It also may be a matter of exposure rendering the skin tones one stop brighter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob fowler Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Print the picture backwards (mirror image), then see what she says... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_oliveira2 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 David You paid a trip to France and China came as a bonus? Nice business! ((-: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Maybe you just have Agfa compatible kids. My portraits of my kids seem to look just as good on Ilford or Kodak as they do on Agfa. Maybe it's just my kids' mixed blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 As a portrait photographer I depend on the fact that people do not look the same in a photograph as they do in 'real life' - whatever that is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew_stanton2 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I agree that there is something unique about the tonality that is produced by apx-100 & 400. I personally find the tonality more satisfying for portraits than ilford fp4+ & hp5+. There is a beautiful look that these films produce on skin tones that could be partially related to spectral sensitivity. I find efke 25 and fortepan 200 to have similar characteristics. I dont know exactly why but I find the tonality of these films seems to subtly enhance the emotional impact of a successful image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now