Black and White film with tones more silver than grey.

[MattKing]

Be careful about comparing images from movies to prints. Movies are made to be projected, and therefore are inherently more likely to appear "silvery". Prints have to rely on the reflectance of paper.

This was shot using modern film, and developed in a modern developer. Any "silver" comes from the lighting, and (in this case) the scan + post-processing (although the contact print looks similar):

 

[Trasselblad]

I think we should get a like, or "hear hear" button (and to be different perhaps a thumbs down) on APUG. Having (re)started my (new) darkroom only recently (last summer) and slowly (re)discovering all the parameters and techniques and having a great time, whenever Thomas writes there is knowledge to be had. I was slowly coming to the same conclusions as above. Now its confirmed. Thanks!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

And the lenses of the day, please don't forget about this. The contrast of those lenses is such that you gain about a stop in film speed from the extra shadow detail. It makes a huge difference.

Good point Thomas. Only took me about 20 years of photography before I started to realize that the sharpest and most contrasty does not necessarily equal "the best".

 

[Ian Grant]

Try Adox/EFKE films particularly the Kb/R/Pl 25 they have an older look in terms of spectral respone while ironically being the first of the modern thin emulsions.

However you need to remember that the films and emulsions have changed over the years, pre WWII emulsions were developed to much higher gammas (contrast & and denisty) and the papers of the time matched them. This helped with the uncoated lenses but increase grain and lowered sharpness compared to the way we work today.

As Thomas says though craft can get you similar results, it's how you balance the film's speed and contrast to find your optimum dev times and EI's.

Ian

 

[himself]

To me something like this is "silvery":

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/5254976516

I used a cheap Chinese film for that and a simple but good P&S camera.

Looking at your examples I'd say it's good light that gave nice long and smooth mid-tone greys. Most of those old movie shots the lighting was excellent and the shots most often using LF cameras.

that looks positively metallic

but would they be using glass plates, and would the chemistry be a little different then?

 

[himself]

For example this I would say have a "silverly" look
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images.../1/12/1326389946708/Rudolph-Valentino-005.jpg

yes it does, but he also looks like he's wearing a lot of make up, so could it be that they made him up before the shot for that effect?

 

[himself]

Be careful about comparing images from movies to prints. Movies are made to be projected, and therefore are inherently more likely to appear "silvery". Prints have to rely on the reflectance of paper.

but don't you think some films have the slight difference too?

 

[himself]

Try Adox/EFKE films particularly the Kb/R/Pl 25 they have an older look in terms of spectral respone while ironically being the first of the modern thin emulsions.

However you need to remember that the films and emulsions have changed over the years, pre WWII emulsions were developed to much higher gammas (contrast & and denisty) and the papers of the time matched them. This helped with the uncoated lenses but increase grain and lowered sharpness compared to the way we work today.

As Thomas says though craft can get you similar results, it's how you balance the film's speed and contrast to find your optimum dev times and EI's.

Ian

I've used the Efke R100 127 quite often, but have never really got look from it, but then my craft is way below what it would seem to take.
but it's interesting that you say that the pre WWII were made in a different way, so could that difference actually be the difference?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've used the Efke R100 127 quite often, but have never really got look from it, but then my craft is way below what it would seem to take.
but it's interesting that you say that the pre WWII were made in a different way, so could that difference actually be the difference?

You are attributing too much of the 'effect' you are looking for to the film.

The film is an important step in the process, but HOW you use the film, and subsequently print it, will play a much larger effect on the results than will the film itself, on a very large magnitude.

 

[dwross]

...
but it's interesting that you say that the pre WWII were made in a different way, so could that difference actually be the difference?

Yes.

And, of course, that in no way implies that skill isn't involved with any successful realization of vision.

 

[himself]

You are attributing too much of the 'effect' you are looking for to the film.

nah, I believed you when you said it. I'm just hoping that if I keep asking someone will give me the answer I want

 

[himself]

that in no way implies that skill isn't involved with any successful realization of vision.

I don't think anyone would dare claim that

 

[pgomena]

What I see in many of the pictures, especially the studio portraits, is a mix of specular and diffused lights. The specular lights pick up detail and add highlights to skin and clothing. Modern lighting, especially softbox lighting, tends to flatten highlights in clothing and skin. Photograph someone using a semi-specular umbrella or silvery umbrella, and the textures become emphasized. I used to work in a studio where the clothing on models was pretty chintzy and the newsprint reproduction unspectacular. We used to use a big, silver-and-white umbrella to light the apparel on models to give the transparencies a little extra snap. Fill light likewise was from big white umbrellas, again for a bit contrastier fill light than a big softbox would give.

Angle of lighting in a lot of the images has a lot to do with it, too. Yes, the lenses, films, and papers were different, but so were the lighting tools. I see much more theatrical lighting approaches going on in a lot of those images.

Peter Gomena

 

[keithwms]

Let me suggest simply looking through the apug galleries and portfolios, and when you see what you're after, inquire how it was done. I think the inherent vagueness of the description is going to pull this discussion into too many different directions.

If it were I, based on what I saw in the link, I'd shoot fp4+ in medium or large format and develop it in slightly dilute d76.

 

[warden]

I have nothing to add to this thread, except to say a big thank you to the participants. Great info and sharing here.

 

[himself]

I find myself repeating the same thing in too many threads.

well, there's a pretty simple answer for that

Print tonality is a function of:

Exposure and development of the negative
Printing technique
The size of the film
Enlargement factor

so now I know that it isn't just the film and is in all likely hood a combination of all of the above mentioned - and can now begin to discover how to get it using all of the above...

 

[himself]

Let me suggest simply looking through the apug galleries and portfolios, and when you see what you're after, inquire how it was done.

tried that, but I don't have gallery privileges and can only see thumbs because of my non subscription (I assume).

 

[himself]

Peter,

thanks, that's an interesting idea

 

[David Brown]

People place too much importance on the type of film, not enough importance on exposure and development, and way too little importance on printing.

Hear, hear.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Try:

1. A brightly lit diffuse-shiny subject, such as the wet leaves posted earlier. If you start with something silvery then the job is half over. A picture of silverware works well...
2. High-key lighting or very diffuse lighting - the center of interest should consist of mostly highlight to mid-grey tones. Try natural light with a clear sky about 10 minutes after sunset.
3. A long-toe film such as Plus-X sheet film [which isn't made anymore [actually, I think all Plus-X has been discontinued]]. TXP 320 in D-76 or HC-110 is another choice. Be generous with exposure and parsimonious with development.
4. Selenium toning, warm-tone paper and dilutish paper developer.
5. Slight dodging in the broad highlight areas.

Often called the "Hurrell" look http://www.hurrellphotography.com/Hurrell/photos3.html. Note Hurrell depended on makeup and lots of retouching.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

There is a product called Halochrome that produces a silver effect. I havent used it, and there arent many examples of it online. a google image search for halochrome toner gives a example on the first hit.

 

[keithwms]

There was a long thread on the 'metallic look' that may be of relevance.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

In that thread as well, there seemed to be some confusion about what exactly the O.P. meant.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There is a product called Halochrome that produces a silver effect. I havent used it, and there arent many examples of it online. a google image search for halochrome toner gives a example on the first hit.

I have tried Halochrome, and while yielding interesting results, it doesn't produce pictures that look anything like those linked to by the original poster.

 

[darkosaric]

I've used the Efke R100 127 quite often, but have never really got look from it

While I was living in Croatia I used efke films quite often: efke 100 is panchromatic, but efke 25 and 50 are orthochromatic and they will give more "silvery" look that is asked here.
In my case closest to what OP wants (if I understand it correctly) - you can get to use efke 50, develop in rodinal 1+50 or 1+100, and print on Fotokemika emaks FB grade 2. Here is one example:

Dead Link Removed

edit: I think I used summicron 50 type III for this one, or Leica mini with summarit 40/2.5 - not 100% sure.

regards,

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I'm not sure I can describe it any further than - the greys look silver rather than grey.

these are the pictures I was looking at http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/f.../style-lessons-silent-movie-stars-in-pictures and I guess anyone that has seen 8 1/2 would understand what I mean.

By all account he used a high contrast film for some of the film, but that would have stronger blacks & whites and, therefore less "greys" to be even silver

Those photos of the silent movie stars were most likely made from large negatives which were contact printed.

If you have a 5x4 format camera, then something like Ilford Ortho-Plus developed in undiluted D-76 or ID-11 should provide similar results.

Try HP5 Plus or Tri-X Pro 320TXP if you would prefer a panchromatic film.