B&W Portraiture + Grain

[robin_cruz]

I've set up a natural light studio for actors' portraits. The light is very soft & I'm happy with this look.

They'll require standard 10 x 8 " prints which I will print. Regarding film choice and grain: can I get away with

Neopan 1600 rated at 800 as mentioned on this forum? I need an extra stop above 400ASA ideally.

Cheers

Robin

[lex_jenkins]

By "actors' portraits" do you mean headshots for commercial work, or artistic and interpretive portraits that happen to be of actors? There are very different requirements for headshots and portfolios.

 

Unless you're shooting medium format or large format those 8x10 prints from 35mm at ISO 800 and above will be too grainy. While I appreciate grain for the unique aesthetic, I'm betting you'll have some unhappy clients after they compare their headshots with other actors, or their agents point out the flaws.

 

While actors headshots and modeling portfolios do go through phases and trends, it's always a safe bet to go with a standard look: fine grain, good detail and, above all, the portrait should very closely resemble the actor's current appearance.

 

Okay, nitpicking aside...

 

Neopan does seem to have finer grain than Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200. However, it's a slower film and even 800 is a bit of a push. Even at 800 you may need to use a fine grain developer, which usually means sacrificing some effective speed. Most of the speed enhancing developers I've tried also tend to exaggerate grain a bit.

 

You might try ID-11 or D-76 at full strength or diluted no more than 1+1. HC-110 also works well. There are finer grain developers but getting the best results might mean shooting Neopan at closer to 640.

 

I've had good results with 35mm Tri-X, HP5+, T-Max 400 and a few other films at 800 in HC-110, ID-11, D-76 and, other than for HP5+, Microphen. For some reason HP5+ turned out unusually grainy in Microphen, even with modest enlargements from medium format.

[aurelien_le_duc]

Well that's a reason to Ask Bergger to relaunch the BRF 200 film.

 

My first choice for portrait work, but discontinued since forte has closed.

[frank.schifano]

No. If resume type headshots are your goal, you need more light - period. If you are doing this with 35 mm gear you need at least two more stops because ISO 400 films are too grainy for this kind of work. If you're shooting medium format, you can use an ISO 400 film and get away with it. In your shoes, I'd be looking at using Plus-X, FP4+, TMax 100, or Delta 100. I have some very powerful strobes, and sometimes do this sort of thing with PanF+ at ISO 50.

 

Fortunately, getting enough light is easy. It can be done with one or two Vivtar 285 strobes, an umbrella, a reflector, a backdrop, and a couple of light stands. I like the Vivtar 285 because you can dial in as much power as you need and they aren't expensive. They're pretty sturdy too. Light the background with one strobe, and use the other to light the subject. Use the reflector to fill in any dark shadows. Read up on portrait lighting with strobes. Google "portrait lighting" and go from there.

[robin_cruz]

Much appreciated comments on the 'headshots' - this is what i'll be doing, and it seems there's no taking chances with grain. Thats a pity. I prefer this natural look as I say. I own a Mamiya 7 with standard lens which is no good, but the 150mm would overcome the 35mm format grain problem. Not cheap though.

 

At 400ASA I could shoot on a 'usable' shutter speed, but it wont be anything like 250 sec.

[frank.schifano]

Mount the camera to a tripod and you're good down to 1/30 or 1/15 second. The big problem then becomes one of subject movement.

[robert lee]

"I own a Mamiya 7 with standard lens which is no good ... but the 150mm ... Not cheap though."

 

Oh, just pick up a beater RB-67 and lens. There's good reason why this was the studio camera of choice for many,

many years. A full kit now is probably from $300 to $500, depending on exactly what lens you bundle in.

 

I believe the 127mm lens was a sometime standard. If this is too short, I've also had very good experience with

the 250mm.

 

For film, try Kodak 400 TMAX and develop in Xtol. Just like the datasheet specs, I've found it to truly require

no development adjustments when used at 800ISO. As for grain, there is none on an 8x10 print.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

It's not that difficult to make flash look like natural light. A good place to start is here:

 

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

[brucecahn]

New Bergger film is supposed to be available by the end of the year. When I did headshots I used T Max 100 for 35mm, once Agfapan 25 was discontinued. The T Max is too contrasty for a lot of work, but with controlled lighting it can be very good. For 120 Tri-X shot at 125-160 is preferable. The agents and casting people do not want grainy photos. They want to see the person clearly.

[jpo3136b]

Strobe it through a diffuser. Many cinematographers use a diffused artificial source through their windows. If you pick the

right flash, you'll be able to turn down the power. That alone will be a great relief to you. Don't impose extreme restrictions

on yourself. You'll put up with more pain for the same return. And then, there will be the additional failures. Life and

commerce are hard enough as it is. Get a strobe, go low and slow on the film speed for clarity. Measure the light. Test

flash. It works.

 

Don't make yourself put up with the pain that I did during years when I had nothing to work with. Suffering happens, but it

is not necessary. Make your life easy for a change. There'll be other problems for you to work on. Good luck. J.

[profhlynnjones]

The latest TMax400, TMY-2 is probably the film for you. Get the lates data from Kodak, they have 12 pages of it on liine.

 

Lynn

[Dave Luttmann]

The new TMY-2 400 was recently reviewed by Sandy King in View Camera magazine. Through posted tests, he found that the results were identical to 32x40.....which would mean just less than 16x20 from medium format.

 

For an 8x10, TMY-2 400 will give great results.

[frank.schifano]

Cast another vote for TMY-2. I hadn't thought about it in my first response or I'd have mentioned it. Fantastic stuff, really. You won't go wrong with it.

[chris_waller]

I've done a little of this type of work for aspiring actors and dancers, and there is a strict formula for the type of shot. I would most strongly advise against 35mm for this type of work. Medium format is needed. I used FP4 devved in Perceptol at 1+1, shot on 6x7.

[lex_jenkins]

Chris, my own headshots (yup, I was an aspiring actor once - my shoulder appears in Oliver Stone's "Talk Radio", but don't blink or you'll miss it) were done on 35mm by a local studio. It's plenty good enough for an 8x10 headshot.

 

But you're right about it being pretty much formula work. A couple of monolights or something comparable, a hair light, neutral background, etc. While I see some trendy stuff occasionally, I suspect that most agents and casting directors prefer a more conventional look. Besides, an actor usually buys 100 or more prints at a time. Unless he or she is extremely busy passing out headshots, that novelty look might be passe within a year and the actor will be stuck with a batch of outdated prints.

 

Another problem with using only natural light is the difficulty in getting "catch lights" or highlights in the eyes. Without 'em, the eyes look dead and lifeless. At a minimum you'll need a reflector to illuminate the eyes.

[keith_tapscott]

If you really require a touch faster than ISO 400, then Neopan 1600 @ E.I.640 will be O.K provided that you don`t over enlarge it. Develop in undiluted D-76/ID-11 to Fuji`s instructions and adjust your paper enlarging easel to give neat borders allround for an image size of around 6x9 inches (full-frame 35mm). Ilford pearl surface paper or equivalent will help to make grain less noticeable. You will be surprised at how sharp and fine-grained the prints look.

[Mike Gammill]

For headshots the RB/RZ 67 and 250mm would work and is often cheap on the used market. I practically "gave" away an RB w/90 and 250mm a while back that we used to use in a studio. 250mm is too long if you need wider than the typical head & shoulder (unless you have a verrry large studio). I use Mamiya 645's for most of my work that needs to be enlarged. Also cheap used. But if you want to stick with what you have, I think the new TMY might be the way to go in 35mm. I haven't tried rating it at E.I. 800, but it should get you finer grain than Tri-X or HP5+ rated at E.I. 800. For my own use in 35mm I like Tri-X at E.I. 800 processed in HC110-B even though it is not the finest grain combination. If the light could be increased, I would use Delta 100 or Fuji Acros. If possible, try to run some tests first.