Black and White film with tones more silver than grey.

mdarnton · Jan 20, 2012

Lots of reasonable answers, but still no satisfaction from the OP. OK, I think I see what's needed here. This is the internet, after all. Lets see how this plays out. Informed explanations and corrections of what I'm about to say are NOT, I repeat, NOT welcome.

The reason those old pix look silver is because the image is made out of real metallic silver. The real thing! If you take some film out of your camera you will see that the film doesn't look the same. Fresh printing paper, too, out of the box. The reason is that they don't have real solid silver on them--they have silver nitrate, or something similar. It's made out of silver, but it's not REAL, solid silver. Those old photos--when you look at them, you're looking at REAL silver. Not some chemical compound, but silver itself. Sometimes they're made of platinum, instead, but the same rule applies: it's real, metallic platinum, which looks a lot like silver, not like the film in your camera.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 20, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
Are you serious?

X 2

mdarnton · Jan 20, 2012

I'm giving the OP an answer he can accept. Since he doesn't seem to get the quite reasonable and accurate ones that have been offered previously, I'm trying the "sounds good" approach, rather than the "is good" approach. Certainly you gentlemen aren't suggesting that there is NOT silver in those prints!

dwross · Jan 20, 2012

mdarnton said:
I'm giving the OP an answer he can accept. Since he doesn't seem to get the quite reasonable and accurate ones that have been offered previously, I'm trying the "sounds good" approach, rather than the "is good" approach. Certainly you gentlemen aren't suggesting that there is NOT silver in those prints!

I disagree. I think this is one of the best threads I've read here for a long while (including those I've tried to start.) himself is doing a great job and all of the answers have been a piece of the picture. (Hard to avoid the pun.) Back in the day volumes were written on the topic. It was complex enough when the emulsions and common lenses were what they were. Today, with different materials and workflow (unless you can go d.i.y.) there's a lot to discuss. Some of it is guess-work, but that's OK. It's not a one-size-fits-all topic.

Although you were being tongue-in-cheek, you did hit on a grain of truth (see...too easy). There was a lot of silver (as silver halide) in the old emulsions. It was laid on thick because not all of the grains were active. The light bounced around inside the film and resulted in a lot of the glow.

2 cents,
d

himself · Jan 20, 2012

mdarnton said:
Lots of reasonable answers, but still no satisfaction from the OP

What satisfaction do you demand sir? or am I to assume that you mean "satisfaction for me?

mdarnton said:
I'm giving the OP an answer he can accept. Since he doesn't seem to get the quite reasonable and accurate ones that have been offered previously, I'm trying the "sounds good" approach, rather than the "is good" approach. Certainly you gentlemen aren't suggesting that there is NOT silver in those prints!

I'm sorry I didn't realise I was supposed to announce that I had the answer I was looking for, that's my bad I suppose - being as we are on a discussion board...

I'll assume your answer was tongue in cheek and not that your actually so insulting... wait, or is this because you would prefer I say that I'm looking for a certain shade of grey rather than "silver", there's nothing like a good pedant is there?

sil·ver -

adj.
1. Made of or containing silver: a silver bowl; silver ore.
2. Resembling silver, especially in having a lustrous shine; silvery.
3. Of a lustrous medium gray: silver hair.
4. Having a soft, clear, resonant sound.
5. Eloquent; persuasive: a silver voice.
6. Favoring the adoption of silver as a standard of currency: the silver plank of the 1896 Democratic platform.
7. Of or constituting a 25th anniversary.

numbers two and three and if you're still confused, I've bolded them too

himself · Jan 20, 2012

dwross said:
The light bounced around inside the film and resulted in a lot of the glow.

can that actually be true?

Bob Carnie · Jan 20, 2012

Haven't read all the posts so maybe I am repeating what others may have said.

I have noticed larger format films being able to produce prints that have a silvery glow. Lots of this has to do with larger film therefore tighter grain when magnified, as well with proper exposure and development , which in turns creates a longer tonal range in the negative.
With this in place the printer can in fact concentrate on areas of the tonal scale within a image and create local contrast boosts which has an overall effect of making the print glow.

If you set maximum blacks and starting from there make sure that you are not compressing tonal range as you build the image, one can pull out much more separation which then allows the viewer to see deeper into an image. When you are setting your highlights its not only a matter of placing tone there, but as well increasing the contrast by making the deep tones within the highlights deeper.
Split Printing has its advantages in this case and by keeping your mind on all areas of the print and trying to create separation in local areas you can achieve a print that has a silvery glow. not to mention toning which can greatly influence this visual effect.

I think with todays materials it is very possible to create glowing prints... I believe this is what you are seeing very simply a visual manipulation.

himself said:
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 arent they essentially the same? if not at the very least manufactured by the same companies - 8 ½ was shot on Kodak film) and looking at pictures of stars from the silent movie era.

Is there a difference in the way modern film is made? Has the desire for a truer tonality meant that greys are more realistic than they were, or were the old plate techniques just inherently different because of said technique?

So anyway, while Im a huge fan of modern black and white films, I do really miss that silver tone... maybe its because the world is grey enough as it is or an inherited nostalgia, either way, I was hoping to find some modern film that has the same characteristics as these older films.

I never shot any real super professional film or fine art film, mostly just the regular commercial type, so maybe the answer is there.

Does anyone know of a modern film that has a silver tone?

The answer may lie in the development process or possibly even the makeup techniques of the time rather than the film, so if anyone knows now is the time to speak up.

Thanks
Dafydd

himself · Jan 20, 2012

Bob Carnie said:
Haven't read all the posts so maybe I am repeating what others may have said.

I have noticed larger format films being able to produce prints that have a silvery glow. Lots of this has to do with larger film therefore tighter grain when magnified, as well with proper exposure and development , which in turns creates a longer tonal range in the negative.
With this in place the printer can in fact concentrate on areas of the tonal scale within a image and create local contrast boosts which has an overall effect of making the print glow.

If you set maximum blacks and starting from there make sure that you are not compressing tonal range as you build the image, one can pull out much more separation which then allows the viewer to see deeper into an image. When you are setting your highlights its not only a matter of placing tone there, but as well increasing the contrast by making the deep tones within the highlights deeper.
Split Printing has its advantages in this case and by keeping your mind on all areas of the print and trying to create separation in local areas you can achieve a print that has a silvery glow. not to mention toning which can greatly influence this visual effect.

I think with todays materials it is very possible to create glowing prints... I believe this is what you are seeing very simply a visual manipulation.

thanks that's a great answer and expanding on what has been said rather than repeating

keithwms · Jan 20, 2012

Himself, does (there was a url link here which no longer exists) have the glow you seek? And/or (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ?

Both were done with traditional-grain Ilford fp/hp films on a large-ish format, developed pretty much normally.

himself · Jan 20, 2012

I can't view them I'm afraid

keithwms · Jan 20, 2012

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/?action=view&current=rrt001.jpg

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/?action=view&current=moonflower5x7.jpg

himself · Jan 20, 2012

the second more than the first.

the greys on the first one are almost there, but seem slightly "flatter" like I'd imagine on normal modern film. Would the second be explained by the lighting and the thinner nature of petals?

Bob Carnie · Jan 20, 2012

What Keith represents in the Flower Image is what I try to achieve in printing.
I think he has provided a very lovely example of silver glow.

keithwms · Jan 20, 2012

himself said:
the second more than the first.

the greys on the first one are almost there, but seem slightly "flatter" like I'd imagine on normal modern film. Would the second be explained by the lighting and the thinner nature of petals?

Primarily it's lighting, the first one was done in open shade, deliberately aiming for moodiness. The second was done with shallow tungsten lights, actually quite contrasty shallow light to emphasize surface texture. A little bit of broad light, but mostly side light. The film was also pushed out of necessity, but I find that this also boosts grain and micro contrast, lending to surface texture in some cases. Both were on 5x7 fp/hp film.

And thank you Bob, that is very kind of you!

DREW WILEY · Jan 20, 2012

Back to my conversation with Hurrell's lab assistant and similar old-timers. They'd often shoot with
11x14 film to get as much surface area to fool with as possible. It wasn't just the nature of the large
format films and portrait-style lenses (which was important), but they'd also use that big toothy
retouching surface of the film to smear around various retouching pencils and selectively scatter
the light for a particular complexion glow or subtle diffusion. Creocin dye was also frequently used,
which can be very subtly built up to automatically dodge/burn. These are both lost arts which can
easily be reconstructed for those willing to practice, and can be employed with a lot more ease and subtlety than the current Fauxtoshop tricks. If you don't want to mess with the film itself you can
register a piece of frosted mylar and smear stuff on that or apply the dye - a nice way to experiment
with or without options.

himself · Jan 20, 2012

keithwms said:
The second was done with shallow tungsten lights, actually quite contrasty shallow light to emphasize surface texture. A little bit of broad light, but mostly side light. The film was also pushed out of necessity, but I find that this also boosts grain and micro contrast, lending to surface texture in some cases. Both were on 5x7 fp/hp film.

so it could be any of those things
but you know, I'm not disagreeing...

And Bob is right, but I can't help feeling that flower petals will reflect/absorb light differently to skin anyway, non?

Bob Carnie · Jan 20, 2012

Lillian Bassin's work is a great example of Creocin Dye use in a very artistic manner.

DREW WILEY said:
Back to my conversation with Hurrell's lab assistant and similar old-timers. They'd often shoot with
11x14 film to get as much surface area to fool with as possible. It wasn't just the nature of the large
format films and portrait-style lenses (which was important), but they'd also use that big toothy
retouching surface of the film to smear around various retouching pencils and selectively scatter
the light for a particular complexion glow or subtle diffusion. Creocin dye was also frequently used,
which can be very subtly built up to automatically dodge/burn. These are both lost arts which can
easily be reconstructed for those willing to practice, and can be employed with a lot more ease and subtlety than the current Fauxtoshop tricks. If you don't want to mess with the film itself you can
register a piece of frosted mylar and smear stuff on that or apply the dye - a nice way to experiment
with or without options.

himself · Jan 20, 2012

Bob Carnie said:
Lillian Bassin's [...] Creocin Dye use in a very artistic manner.

yes, very nice

keithwms · Jan 20, 2012

himself said:
I can't help feeling that flower petals will reflect/absorb light differently to skin anyway, non?

There is some natural iridescence, yes. But you can make skin look the same if you wish. I've seen figures that look like pieces of metal. It's not something I aim for but it's doable.

And I have another moonflower shot in which the petals evoke sand or skin (so I have been told many times), I can't access the link now on my blackberry, but it's on my site somewhere. Totally different effect... same subject.

Photography is visual alchemy; if you know your technicals and have a clear vision, you can have your subject say whatever you need to say. This has been very clearly demonstrated by Edward Weston and many others.

DREW WILEY · Jan 20, 2012

Regarding the flower specifically, aside from the effective lighting, what I would have personally done
to get this effect is to take something like TMax 400 and actually underexpose it about a stop for
intense empty blacks in the low zoned, but most important, overdevelop it to greatly expand the midtones and upper highlights. I mention this particular film because it has a relatively steep section
at the bottom of the curve and works better than something with a long toe. Old school Super-XX
would have done it too. Other films will work, but the nice thing about large format is that you can
choose your films based on tonality and worry less about grain. The exact type of pan sensitivity
can also be a factor in things like this, and old-school films do (or did) differ from what is commonly
used today. But there are really any number of ways to pull this off, depending on one's favorite
bag of tricks. I prefer lower lighting ratios (softer light), then seriously expanded midtone dev.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Photography is visual alchemy; if you know your technicals and have a clear vision, you can have your subject say whatever you need to say.

Profound.

himself · Jan 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Photography is visual alchemy; if you know your technicals and have a clear vision, you can have your subject say whatever you need to say

I guess that says it all really

himself · Jan 20, 2012

DREW WILEY said:
Regarding the flower specifically, aside from the effective lighting, what I would have personally done
to get this effect is to take something like TMax 400 and actually underexpose it about a stop for
intense empty blacks in the low zoned, but most important, overdevelop it to greatly expand the midtones and upper highlights. I mention this particular film because it has a relatively steep section
at the bottom of the curve and works better than something with a long toe. Old school Super-XX
would have done it too. Other films will work, but the nice thing about large format is that you can
choose your films based on tonality and worry less about grain. The exact type of pan sensitivity
can also be a factor in things like this, and old-school films do (or did) differ from what is commonly
used today. But there are really any number of ways to pull this off, depending on one's favorite
bag of tricks. I prefer lower lighting ratios (softer light), then seriously expanded midtone dev.

I realise that to be true - being able to achieve it with modern film - the processes of which have been explained to me, but my original query was more along the lines of whether this was a more normal characteristic of older films compared to newer films.

a fact I've found to probably not be the case

cliveh · Jan 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Photography is visual alchemy

Photography is visual alchemy that is a Shakespearean statement. Write it down and dont forget it.

dwross · Jan 20, 2012

himself said:
can that actually be true?

Yup, 'fraid so.

Here's a couple of bits of info (best I can do flying past my computer right now )

http://www.thelightfarm.com/cgi-bin/htmlgen.py?content=04Dec2011
http://www.thelightfarm.com/cgi-bin/htmlgen.py?content=28Apr2011

I hope it could go without saying that I believe the 'look' I think you want can be achieved with modern materials. (Though, I just saw your last post and if you are saying that the old materials weren't an influence on the images you started the thread with, that probably would be incorrect.)

Black and White film with tones more silver than grey.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency