Trying to achieve this certain look

[anne_deerness]

<p>Hello all,<br>

I am trying to achieve an specific look with B&W film. I have some experience with analogue photography but I stopped doing it a few years ago and am now getting back on track. My knowledge on illumination and photography and developing techniques is limited but I'd very much like to expand this.<br>

Here some images showing the kind of look I want to achieve:<br>

<a href="http://imgur.com/a/ZfiIa">http://imgur.com/a/ZfiIa</a></p>

<p>To me it looks like there is a strong contrast between shadows and highlights, however the darks and highlights aren't deep either; the photo retains a lot of grey. <br>

With what kind of film/lens/developing process or even camera would be able to achieve this? I currently own an Olympus OM-2 and have in the past tried different films such as Ilford PAN F, Delta, Kodak Tri-X, etc... but as far as I remember they look nothing like the pictures I attached. My photos tend to have a soft and gradual change between darks and highlights and have these very dull grey areas.<br>

These photos come from various children's books form the 60's in case anyone is interested.<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

<p> </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>It's cheap halftone printing. In halftone, you can't let whites go all the way white, because there's posterization at the place where the halftone screen goes away. Nor can you go all the way black, because it will block up, and the ink will puddle causing production problems.<br>

So basically the tonal scale of the print is limited, doesn't go all the way to white, doesn't go all the way to black.<br>

In Photoshop, you'd just use curves and slide the output white and black points away from white and black.<br>

In wet darkroom printing, use low contrast paper (or variable-contrast paper with low contrast filter), and expose so that whites are light gray, and blacks are dark gray.</p>

 

[allancobb]

Something that also might work in addition to low contrast paper in printing as John suggests is using expired film, say 40 year-old Plus-X for example; expose at EI50 and develop normally. The high base fog and degraded image structure will inhibit overall contrast and limit shadows and highlights while increasing grain. Plus-X (originally rated at 125) is just an example, I'm sure many other B&W films would behave similarly.

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I feel compelled to point out here that "the emperor has no clothes."<br /><br />Anne, the look you are excited about isn't a look. It is not something anyone ever intended to achieve. The photos did not look anything like what you're seeing. Instead, it's just an example of poor-quality book printing.<br /><br />In these examples, the original photographic prints that the photographer supplied to the publisher would almost certainly have been sharp, contrasty, snappy B&W prints. If they had been reproduced though a high-end, expensive printing process, they would have looked sharp, contrasty and snappy in the finished book. Instead, they were cheaply printed, and you get the washed out, low contrast results you see here.<br /><br />John is correct that the halftone process -- which is how printers reproduce photographs in books/magazines/newspapers -- has its limits. Cheap work results in poor quality reproduction while expensive work results in good quality. The quality can never be quite as good, however, as an original photographic print.<br /><br />My father spent 40 years in the printing business doing high quality work where the goal was to make finished books look as close as possible to the original photos, so I've heard about halftones and the printing process since I was a baby. Myself, I worked for newspapers for 15 years, and I've also seen cheap reproduction where you could barely recognize the picture.<br /><br />Trying to copy this "look" without understanding what it actually is would be like seeing photos that were grainy, scratched, out of focus, poorly composed, bad exposure, etc., and thinking it was a "look" and trying to copy it.<br /><br />Granted, I've seen stuff in art galleries with all the flaws above that would be thrown in the trash as rejects by most photographers. But if you charge enough money for it there are people out there who will assume that it's art. If that's what you're shooting for, go for it. </p>

[anne_deerness1]

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses.</p>

<p>The reason I'm trying to achieve this look is purely because I find it nostalgic and quite pretty. I really am not looking to put my results in a gallery or the like. I feel these pictures have a certain beauty to them.</p>

<p>I found many of these pictures in old children's books, I'm guessing that's where most of the nostalgia comes from.</p>

<p>I have analised the photos again based on what you guys have said and I do believe a lot of the look comes from the printing process. However I feel there is still a certain factor to these photos that has little to do with it.</p>

<p>To me it feels like it has more to do with lighting; many of them have very particular shadows that I dont see very often on regular b&w photos.</p>

<p>I found one extra example, it may as well be "cheap printing" but as I look at it I find it the quality of it relies on the lighting:<br>

http://imgur.com/G6v57jb</p>

<p>I'd very much appreciate any further input!</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>The photos you linked has very different types of illumination: soft window type, harsh direct sunlight, simple light bulb, the latest one with a pro studio look. etc. There is no specific illumination type looking for any specific effect.</p>

<p>As mentioned above; don`t know if just cheap printing or someone who has processed the images to look like cheap printing. It reminds me my beginner prints, made with old film and a cheap camera, and trying to avoid too much paper expense.</p>

<p>Just print your negatives on a softer contrast grade paper. That`s all. The use of a high speed film with their wider latitude will help.</p>

<p>Funny, as soon as film times get away, the film "admiration" and "myths" increase... something perfectly understandable and respectable, of course. The other day I was at a printing&framing store, packed with digitally processed inkjet prints with that failed Polaroid look... trimmed to the same almost squared size, with the bottom border, with that false colors, even some looked like on updated film, with dried solution! Decades ago, I used to throw away many of this "real" ones; now they are sold as artsy, creative prints. I just admit that they were nice, although I bet mostly for nostalgic reasons. Photography is certainly an enjoyable activity.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Anne,</p>

<p>I suggest you try downrating the film by as much as 2 stops and reduce development time accordingly. This will achieve the low contrast you are looking for. I would also suggest you look at the work of Josef Sudek. </p>