Black and White film with tones more silver than grey.

[keithwms]

The main differences between the trad'l and modern films is the appearance of grain, and how that plays with the micro contrast and the appearance of sharpness of tonal boundaries. You can, as most will agree, get whatever you want out of whatever film you have at hand..but that will require some experimentation and quite a few mistakes... What do we call them now? Teachable moments.

Have a look at other people's negs and such - you can't really do that online- and things will become clear. So much of b&w film photography is knowing where your knee and toe are. Once you understand that, you're done... Go out and you can make whatever you want.

 

[clayne]

Himself, you can get virtually any tonality you want using virtually any film/developer combination, from TMX to Tri-X to APX, D76 to PMK to Rodinal. You just need to work on it.

Generally agreed, but honestly it cannot be ignored that some films, particularly since we're talking panchromatic (mostly) black and white here, respond differently to different portions of the color spectrum.

Some films *do* have better mid-tone separation than others while other films may excel at highlights, shadows, etc. - some of it being the overall signal response curve of the film and other parts being the actual spectral response of the film.

Analog mediums.

 

[himself]

Keith,

I realise that and would never dispute it, but my original point was not that it can't be done with today's film, but that it isn't done as much (as far as I've seen) and why that may be.

Michael,

Again, I realise that modern film can be used in different ways and that I would never dispute.

I was originally more interested in whether an "average" - for want of a better word - print from that time would be inherently different from today's equivalent... like say film X from ye olden times and film Y from now were developed to their equivalent standard, would X have a different look (greys, whites, blacks) to a modern one and why that may be.... the "be" being anything from emulsion (and it's reaction) on the film to the skill of the guy doing the print or just plain preference change.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Look into the shoeboxes of a dozen family's and you will see prints that go back 100 years.... you will not see too many silvery glow prints.. I believe this is accomplished with good process printing technique and lighting.

Keith,

I realise that and would never dispute it, but my original point was not that it can't be done with today's film, but that it isn't done as much (as far as I've seen) and why that may be.

Michael,

Again, I realise that modern film can be used in different ways and that I would never dispute.

I was originally more interested in whether an "average" - for want of a better word - print from that time would be inherently different from today's equivalent... like say film X from ye olden times and film Y from now were developed to their equivalent standard, would X have a different look (greys, whites, blacks) to a modern one and why that may be.... the "be" being anything from emulsion (and it's reaction) on the film to the skill of the guy doing the print or just plain preference change.

 

[himself]

Look into the shoeboxes of a dozen family's and you will see prints that go back 100 years.... you will not see too many silvery glow prints.. I believe this is accomplished with good process printing technique and lighting.

so a case of us only seeing the best of the day then?

 

[markbarendt]

I think it's safe to say that fashion is probably a big driver here followed closely by "because I can". I say that because creating the old look/style is still possible but people seem to want to keep up with the Joneses.

Another example of this change of fashion is from soft-focus/pictorial/shorter scale/formal-posed work toward f64-every twig in sharp focus/HDR-17-stop wide/"photo-journalistic" work.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Yes I would have to agree with this, I have seen some pretty crappy old prints and some good ones... same goes for current trends in photography and the print being made.

Though I have never seen more Master Printers than currently, seems anyone who has the bucks to buy a 44 inch epson and figure it out is a Master Printer.

so a case of us only seeing the best of the day then?

 

[JBrunner]

I said it before and I'll say it again. The film has little to do with it, beyond that one emulsion might need a moderately different approach than another. Understanding the film and shooting, developing and printing it in accordance with one's intention is how you arrive at any result. There is no magic bullet. Photography is a collaboration of materials and actions. Here, for example, is FP5 done in PMK, printed on Varycon. The "look" is from expansion (I used a combination of developing and reciprocity failure in this case) and careful control during printing. Split printing helps me better control the contrast I was looking for (personally) but it can be achieved just as well by regular methods, as there are NO magic bullets save one, the photographer. For the record, the light was flat, sky overcast, subject shot under a balcony.

More silver my a..

 

[markbarendt]

I said it before and I'll say it again. The film has little to do with it, beyond that one emulsion might need a moderately different approach than another. Understanding the film and shooting, developing and printing it in accordance with one's intention is how you arrive at any result. There is no magic bullet. Photography is a collaboration of materials and actions. Here, for example, is FP5 done in PMK, printed on Varycon.

View attachment 44920

That's a great shot, where do I find some of that FP5?

 

[batwister]

Thanks for opening this topic, I've often wondered myself and know exactly what you're getting at, OP. As a few mentioned earlier on, it seems to me that this is inherent with all reproductions of older, more silvery negatives, plates and prints where midtones are dominant. It seems obvious then, in my humble opinion, that the 'silvery' or 'metallic' quality of midtones in reproductions of older prints is simply the effect of the light source from scanners and other reproduction methods causing reflections of the silver content, in tonalities that we already perceive as having a silver 'colour'. I don't think the 'silvery quality' can be attributed to the skill of a printer, but simply his preference for stong midtones and high mids when printing materials had more silver content. Again, I'm no expert! But it really does seem that simple to me. Maybe I'm just simple...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Like any of the attachments?

 

[markbarendt]

Batwister,

You may want to think about this a bit more.

For example in a normal silver based photopaper prints; the most reflective thing is the "white" paper, the least reflective thing is the "black" silver.

The more silver you have in any given area of the final print the less reflection you get. Same with the negative, more silver less light.

Add on edit:

The examples that Thomas just posted are great examples of this concept.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For example in a normal silver based photopaper prints; the most reflective thing is the "white" paper, the least reflective thing is the "black" silver.

The more silver you have in any given area of the final print the less reflection you get. Same with the negative, more silver less light.

I agree with what you said about the print. Completely.

But a negative is hardly viewed as something reflective. It is viewed as something you shine light through, a transparency.

 

[markbarendt]

I agree with what you said about the print. Completely.

But a negative is hardly viewed as something reflective. It is viewed as something you shine light through, a transparency.

Your description is much better than mine.

The thought I wanted to get across was simply that with photographic silver we make black, not chrome.

 

[batwister]

For example in a normal silver based photopaper prints; the most reflective thing is the "white" paper, the least reflective thing is the "black" silver.

This I knew. Perhaps what I should have said is; the Weston prints for instance, were more pure in silver content, being of that era. The skin tonality in his prints we perceive as having a silver 'colour' and a more natural silver colour because of the purity of silver content. The reflectance of the paper from the reproduction light source then gives the tonalities that silver 'quality' - silver being reflective.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Why would silver be less pure today?
That sounds largely unsubstantiated to me? Can you actually show with some sort of scientific evidence that silver used to be more pure than it is today?

 

[markbarendt]

This I knew. Perhaps what I should have said is; the Weston prints for instance, were more pure in silver content, being of that era. The skin tonality in his prints we perceive as having a silver 'colour' and a more natural silver colour because of the purity of silver content. The reflectance of the paper from the reproduction light source then gives the tonalities that silver 'quality' - silver being reflective.

Silver in photographic prints isn't reflective like a polished bar of pure silver or a silvered mirror would be, it's black.

The brightness we see in a print comes from the paper's ability to reflect light, not from the silver.

If you have a loupe or magnifying glass take a look at a print that has any "reflection" or silvery look in it, water, chrome bumper, mirror, whatever. When magnified enough all you'll see is a white surface with dark (silver) blotches.

The silvery look is just a visual effect based on the interplay of black and white. Our mind gets tricked.

 

[batwister]

Silver in photographic prints isn't reflective like a polished bar of pure silver or a silvered mirror would be, it's black.

In that response I was suggesting that the paper base white and the reflectance thereof, in addition to the the colour of the silver, results in this silver quality the OP alludes to. Maybe I shouldn't have suggested a 'purity of silver', but the quality of the emulsion back in Weston's day not getting in the way of the silver and its natural colour - which of course appears black in darker tones and grey/silver in mids as the paper is revealed. Perhaps this is the reason older prints have a colour we better recognise as being silvery. That in addition to the reflected light of the paper in reproductions might result in older prints having a quality we perceive as being silvery - shiny, sparkly... whatever you want to call it. Apologies for being provocative.

Sorry, I've edited a few times to better clarify what I'm saying.

 

[keithwms]

The really important thing about micron-scale AgX in a print (or film) is that the grains can be oriented very differently, so that you have a numbered of different tones available from a particle with the same structure and surface chemistry. And on top of that, there is of course a distribution of grain sizes etc. The statistics in thus in favor of smooth gradations. And so you can end up with something that is very continuous in tone. Format size is thus related to tonality in a surprising way- it's not simply more resolution.

Anyway, there is a misconception that a silver print has a sheen because of the silver in it. It's not that simple. If you use halochrome (or similar) toner, you'll quickly see the difference between and ordinary silver print and one based on metallic silver. To my eye, the fully halochromed print looks rather 2D, as if silver paint were applied to the paper. The ordinary print looks rather more 3D and textured. Interesting things are possible with partial toning.

 

[markbarendt]

No apology needed, no offense was taken by me. I hope that I have not provided any either.

The materials have changed a bit over the years but the basic visual theory of silver based B&W printing remains. Even in Weston's day photographic silver showed on paper as blotches of various densities of black (shades of gray), I don't believe it was ever specifically the color silver.

 

[batwister]

It would be interesting and constructive perhaps if the OP provided examples of images he thinks have silver tones and images that do not.
Nearly always for me, it's skin and occasionally rocks, which of course have more textural information than a polished bar of silver. It is an odd phenomenon.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Add on edit:

The examples that Thomas just posted are great examples of this concept.

Thanks, Mark.

I put those pictures there in order to be able to show that they are all made with different films; some not so modern, and others hypermodern. They are with different cameras, lenses, developers, papers, and toners.

The forest shot is Ilford Delta 400 in Rodinal 1+25. Printed on Fomabrom Variant 112, toned in Moersch MT3 Vario and selenium. Hasselblad and 150mm Sonnar lens.

The water shot is Kodak TMax 100 in Xtol replenished. Printed on the same Fomabrom Variant 112 paper using the same toners. It's a pinhole shot.

The derelicht door is using 35mm Foma 400 in Edwal 12. Printed on the same Fomabrom Variant 112 paper using the same toners. Canon EOS 35mm.

The female back is photographed using Fuji Neopan 1600 in Ilfotec DD-X. Printed on Ilford Warmtone in Ethol LPD, toned in the same toners as above. Pentax KX 35mm usinga Vivtar Series 1 zoom at f/2.8.

I wanted to just show that with different films I can get a similar quality. Had I printed them all in the same printing session I could have probably been able to make them more alike.

 

[markbarendt]

It would be interesting and constructive perhaps if the OP provided examples of images he thinks have silver tones and images that do not.
Nearly always for me, it's skin and occasionally rocks, which of course have more textural information than a polished bar of silver. It is an odd phenomenon.

He did

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

And

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

 

[Chuck_P]

..........there are NO magic bullets save one, the photographer. For the record, the light was flat, sky overcast, subject shot under a balcony.

More silver my a..

+1

 

[himself]

Like any of the attachments?

somewhere between the second and forth shot would be the closest to what I mean.

And can I just stress again, and this is directed to everyone - My original OP wasn't about whether it's possible to get the look with modern film, but that it seems more rare these days compared to less rare in the past, so with that in mind I was more interested in any difference between the films that may account for this. But as has been mentioned, it may only seem less rare because of; only the good examples remaining or just a fashion or technique preference.

Of course without knowing exactly how the old prints were made, we will probably never know.

But surely you can't say that the films were different then and then dismiss this difference as having no effect because it's possible to do it with modern film (a fact I would imagine to be true and never in dispute because the films are simply better, more responsive and manipulatable), for example - we can drop a modern engine in a model T, but that doesn't mean that there's no difference between modern cars and model Ts...

How to do it with modern film doesn't really concern me, because I figured it would be possible anyway - with the knowledge and skill to do so.

And finally, when I say silvery I mean the colour silver not the metallic gleam of polished silver, in case anyone was getting confused.