Black and White film with tones more silver than grey.

[MDR]

Lighting and the objects natural luminosity (silk, etc..)play a big part looking at those pix a lot of them are pretty high contrast without silver look. But some of the beauty shots clearly have it. Agfapan was renown for giving a silvery look btw. Micheal R is probably right in saying that the effect can be reproduced with pretty much every current B/W film.

Dominik

 

[himself]

thanks for all the replies, I'll take a look at some of the suggestions.

Sorry about that line. It's just that I wish there was as much discussion on APUG about printing as there is about which film to use!!

No worries I was only joking, but you're right and the problem tho' is that as much as I'd like to talk about about printing techniques - I just don't have the set up or materials to really go in to it too deeply, so "what film" has way more bearing on my images than printing at the moment...

 

[markbarendt]

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.

Thanks Nicholas

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

Actually Efke 25 and 50 are panchromatic it's just that they have a reduced red sensitivity compared to other films, this is why their ISO rating which is also reflected in the name 25/50/100 is given for artificial light, their daylight speed is about a stop higher.

Ian

 

[himself]

Actually Efke 25 and 50 are panchromatic it's just that they have a reduced red sensitivity compared to other films, this is why their ISO rating which is also reflected in the name 25/50/100 is given for artificial light, their daylight speed is about a stop higher.

Ian

that's good to know

 

[LorenzoM]

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

I think there's also some bleach in action here... Probably that's what you meant with "retouching".

Lorenzo

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Lighting and the objects natural luminosity (silk, etc..)play a big part...

Lighting is utterly important, yes. It's an aspect of the discussion that I missed pointing out. Without the same type of lighting that was used in the shots that are linked to, there's no way the same 'look' can be achieved post exposure. No way.
That is a deeply fundamental aspect.

 

[Aristophanes]

The photo of Rudolph Valentino from here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/f...stars-in-pictures#/?picture=384361769&index=3

He is wearing makeup, both a base and eyeliner, as are almost all of the subjects in this essay. Oil-based makeup has a slight sheen by design. His hair is also slicked with product. The eyeliner is to provide contrast and improve expression.

I don't know about the "silvery tone", but there is more reflection from oil-based makeup for sure.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I think there's also some bleach in action here.

Could be.

A dash of P. Bromide added to the developer can also help keeping highlights clear.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Portrait and celebrity photographers of days of yore had all kinds of tricks up their sleeves. You should look at some of Hurrel's work. Classic portrait lenses, large format film (sometimes specially
retouched), lighting skill, special developers at times. I talked to an older gentleman a few months
ago who did a lot of Hurrell's darkroom work many years ago. There are also all kinds of tricks which
can be done with modern films and printing papers to achieve a certain "silvery" look. One way is
to expand the midtones a highlights with "plus" development, reign in the extremes with pyro or
masking, then "snatch" develop on a high silver content paper. When I have done this sort of thing
I preferred to use a traditional dagor lens on an 8x10. Long-toe films like Delta 100 or the discontinued Plus-X help too, though I don't generally like how they handle the shadows.

 

[himself]

Portrait and celebrity photographers of days of yore had all kinds of tricks up their sleeves. You should look at some of Hurrel's work. Classic portrait lenses, large format film (sometimes specially
retouched), lighting skill, special developers at times. I talked to an older gentleman a few months
ago who did a lot of Hurrell's darkroom work many years ago. There are also all kinds of tricks which
can be done with modern films and printing papers to achieve a certain "silvery" look. One way is
to expand the midtones a highlights with "plus" development, reign in the extremes with pyro or
masking, then "snatch" develop on a high silver content paper. When I have done this sort of thing
I preferred to use a traditional dagor lens on an 8x10. Long-toe films like Delta 100 or the discontinued Plus-X help too, though I don't generally like how they handle the shadows.

that's great info thanks

 

[cliveh]

Are we missing something here, as the original post quotes:- I was recently wondering why older black and white films tend to have a more silver tone than grey, this was mostly due to watching 8 ½ (cine film I know, but aren’t they essentially the same?

Watching cine film has a slightly more sparkly effect as you are viewing repeated positives at speed they pass through the gate of the projector and are reflected off the screen surface (itself sometimes treated to give higher luminance at narrow angles). I don’t think this is comparable to viewing a print, or am I missing the original point?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes and no. I sometimes look at the older movies just to admire the lighting skills (versus all the
zippy but sloppy digitizing prevalent today). They made a lot of use of tungsten hot lights like
Arri fresnels. I also prefer this kind of old-school lighting for still portraits. It can be used either direct and harsh (like Karsh, excuse the rhyme!), or in conjunction with diffusers. Seems to have
an effect a little different than the typical flash softbox work one sees today. I particularly like just
a hint of diffusion with a thin silk or polyester diffusion panel, then depend upon film and print development techniques to home in on the exact look I want.

 

[cliveh]

Yes and no. I sometimes look at the older movies just to admire the lighting skills (versus all the
zippy but sloppy digitizing prevalent today). They made a lot of use of tungsten hot lights like
Arri fresnels. I also prefer this kind of old-school lighting for still portraits. It can be used either direct and harsh (like Karsh, excuse the rhyme!), or in conjunction with diffusers. Seems to have
an effect a little different than the typical flash softbox work one sees today. I particularly like just
a hint of diffusion with a thin silk or polyester diffusion panel, then depend upon film and print development techniques to home in on the exact look I want.

Yes, I do agree, those old fresnel lights, although incredibly heavey and difficult to move around allowed you to focus a light source. A much more punchy dramatic way of lighting, as you mention Karsh or perhaps Steichen.

 

[himself]

Watching cine film has a slightly more sparkly effect as you are viewing repeated positives at speed they pass through the gate of the projector and are reflected off the screen surface (itself sometimes treated to give higher luminance at narrow angles). I don’t think this is comparable to viewing a print, or am I missing the original point?

but would this still be true when watching it on DVD, digital file or even a cheap black and white tv?

 

[MattKing]

but would this still be true when watching it on DVD, digital file or even a cheap black and white tv?

Yes, to a certain extent.

Television screens emit light, rather than just reflecting it, so they are more similar to a highly reflective projection screen than the paper backing of a print.

 

[keithwms]

What about projecting the image onto a sparkly cine screen and re-photographing it? If that slightly diffused, sparkly look is really what you want...

 

[himself]

Yes, to a certain extent.

Television screens emit light, rather than just reflecting it, so they are more similar to a highly reflective projection screen than the paper backing of a print.

ok, but I'm not sure it's an issue of shiny-ness, but more the quality of the greys (being more silver - yes I know silver is a grey, but imagine I was asking about blues rather than greys - than the flat lifeless grey I see more on modern images and films). I'm beginning to think it's more of a lighting issue more than anything else.

What about projecting the image onto a sparkly cine screen and re-photographing it? If that slightly diffused, sparkly look is really what you want...

but it isn't the sparkly-ness I'd like to recreate, nor really the glamour... it's more the tone than anything else.

 

[himself]

I mentioned it earlier but just a reminder, not to overlook the slightly diffuse quality of these glam shots, which often gives the tonal separations a bit of a "glow". I think this has a lot to do with what you're seeing in these old pictures.

right, thanks

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's interesting to summarize this post:

Lighting techniques with a mix of diffuse and spotlight.
Diffusion in printing.
Older portrait lenses.
Different film development with higher density and photo papers designed for it.
Darkroom skill.
Retouching.
Make-up.

To me this just highlights that it takes masters of the craft to accomplish portraiture of that type and class.

Moral of story: keep on working hard in the darkroom, with lighting, and with finding an appropriate lens to capture the silver quality.

 

[himself]

It's interesting to summarize this post:

Lighting techniques with a mix of diffuse and spotlight.
Diffusion in printing.
Older portrait lenses.
Different film development with higher density and photo papers designed for it.
Darkroom skill.
Retouching.
Make-up.

To me this just highlights that it takes masters of the craft to accomplish portraiture of that type and class.

Moral of story: keep on working hard in the darkroom, with lighting, and with finding an appropriate lens to capture the silver quality.

yeah, no - I mean that's a pretty good summary... but would those techniques (more lighting and pre-shot stuff) be transferable out of the studio?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

yeah, no - I mean that's a pretty good summary... but would those techniques (more lighting and pre-shot stuff) be transferable out of the studio?

Whether in the studio or in the field - lighting is still paramount. Always will be. Think about it.

You might use a day of overcast skies to make portraits while using a portable point source light balanced against the available light to achieve similar conditions.

Get out there and experiment!

 

[himself]

Get out there and experiment!

'tis all I do.

and I was thinking more of non portraiture... I'm not sure you could light up a field/tree/whatever the same way or I suppose on the run

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm not sure you could light up a field/tree/whatever the same way or I suppose on the run

Probably not. But you were referring to portraits, which is a type of photography where you can control lighting.
In nature your ability to do this is limited for obvious reasons, and moreover we're comparing apples to oranges.

You will be stuck using available light, and you are without one of the fundamental controls, which makes what you asked about possible.

My advice would be to photograph in different types of light, maybe find a favorite spot, mark some tripod holes, and come back to it in different lighting conditions.

 

[clayne]

APX 100.