classic film develpor combos

[Paul Howell]

A friend of a friend kind of email wanted my input on classic 35mm film and developer combos. She taking some sort of adult summer school class at a Community College in California as her class project she want to replicate the look of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. She wants to come as close as the 70s look as possible. I don't think there was one look, photojournalism had a different look than say fashion or landscape. Not even sure what a 70s look is like, as I recall by the 70s film had improved grain and tone from the 50s and 60s which was often dark, high contrast and grainy, much of that look was gone by the 70s. But thinking of modern emulsions how about:

Pan F in Microphen. Landscapes, tripod, fine grain, good resolution,
Foma 100 in D76 Mid range look, sort of like Plus X
Foma 400 in D76 or Trix in HC110

Of course IIford HP5 and PF4 come to mind, but how close are they to what they looked in the 70s?

 

[mgb74]

"replicate the look of the 70s, 80s, and 90s" - that makes me feel soooo old. When I think of replicating the look of classic film, I think of the 40s and 50s. From what I've read, much of the "look" came from higher silver content. And "normal", not tabular grain. Though T-max was introduced in the 80s so within her time period.

That said, I'm thinking Tri-X and D-76.

 

[John Galt]

Interesting question and project . . . looking forward to the responses from the analog film brainiacs that reside here. Back in the 70s I was a 35mm hobby photographer. I almost exclusively used Tri X with Microdol X stock solution. I loved it. Now that I am back into analog (MF) since retiring . . . I am using Microdol X as my go-to developer . . . . good luck finding it . . . I was lucky enough to (over the last year) accumulate 20+ cans and packets of it . . . .

 

[Truzi]

I've a coworker who enjoys a certain look from color photos - often from expired film or non-standard development. It took me a while to realize he wanted them to look like old faded photos, where the color has also gone off. He even acknowledges that is not how the photos looked when new. I've an album of family photos from that time, and the ones processed correctly still look "normal" while others have "that 70s look." Your friend's friend may be dealing more with an impression than anything else.

The thing that sticks out in my mind for 70s photos was 126 film - squarish photos. Fixed-focus cameras for most snapshots, and the old peel-apart B&W Polaroids.
For color and black and white I think the contrast was a bit lower (more natural?) than today - there has been a trend for saturated colors and high contrast since then, so that may have something to do with it. I can't comment on developers, but I think Ilford Pan F and Kodak Tri-X may work well for her.

However, I suspect the look she wants is more likely found in the print, not the negative.

Does the community college have a theatre department? She could raid the wardrobe for bell-bottoms and platform shoes. That should help with a 70s look.

 

[Paul Howell]

Interesting question and project . . . looking forward to the responses from the analog film brainiacs that reside here. Back in the 70s I was a 35mm hobby photographer. I almost exclusively used Tri X with Microdol X stock solution. I loved it. Now that I am back into analog (MF) since retiring . . . I am using Microdol X as my go-to developer . . . . good luck finding it . . . I was lucky enough to (over the last year) accumulate 20+ cans and packets of it . . . .

Try Freestyle Legacypro Mic-X same as Kodak Microdol X, I have a 1 gallon packet, just have gotten around to mixing and shooting a ring around with Ultafine Exream 400.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've a coworker who enjoys a certain look from color photos - often from expired film or non-standard development. It took me a while to realize he wanted them to look like old faded photos, where the color has also gone off. He even acknowledges that is not how the photos looked when new. I've an album of family photos from that time, and the ones processed correctly still look "normal" while others have "that 70s look." Your friend's friend may be dealing more with an impression than anything else.

The thing that sticks out in my mind for 70s photos was 126 film - squarish photos. Fixed-focus cameras for most snapshots, and the old peel-apart B&W Polaroids.
For color and black and white I think the contrast was a bit lower (more natural?) than today - there has been a trend for saturated colors and high contrast since then, so that may have something to do with it. I can't comment on developers, but I think Ilford Pan F and Kodak Tri-X may work well for her.

However, I suspect the look she wants is more likely found in the print, not the negative.

Does the community college have a theatre department? She could raid the wardrobe for bell-bottoms and platform shoes. That should help with a 70s look.

I have no idea, I haven't asked what camera and lens she shoots with. I don't know if there is not much difference between shooting with say Minolta MC vs Minolta A mount AF, well there would be with zooms.

 

[Truzi]

I have no idea, I haven't asked what camera and lens she shoots with. I don't know if there is not much difference between shooting with say Minolta MC vs Minolta A mount AF, well there would be with zooms.

What I mean is you have to find out or infer what she means by "look." It took me months to figure out what it was my coworker truly wanted, but I never thought to ask him directly. For your friend, I'd definitely suggest a non-tabular grain, as others have suggested.

Perhaps ask if she's thinking publications or art, or if she wants it to look like family photos. Maybe she could give you links to online photos as examples.
Instamatics were responsible for a large chunk of family snapshots from that era, and the Instamatic will look different from an SLR. I still suspect the answer does not lie in the negative itself, so she may be able to use any film & developer, and work with composition, limit her aperture, or control print contrast for the look she wants.

 

[tomkatf]

35mm Tri-X and Rodinal...

 

[MattKing]

All I can say is that the films I work with now are so much better than the films I used in the 1970s.
In my case, that means Kodak.
Even my tiny remaining stash of the last version of Plus-X is better than the Plus-X of the 1970s.
And the E100G Ektachrome in the freezer is definitely better than the 120 Ektachrome of the 1970s.
There is also definite improvement when comparing 1970s Vericolour with modern Portra, although the Vericolour was pretty good.
Personally, I would work with Tri-X in black and white and develop it for more contrast and grain then my current approach.

 

[Arklatexian]

"replicate the look of the 70s, 80s, and 90s" - that makes me feel soooo old. When I think of replicating the look of classic film, I think of the 40s and 50s. From what I've read, much of the "look" came from higher silver content. And "normal", not tabular grain. Though T-max was introduced in the 80s so within her time period.

That said, I'm thinking Tri-X and D-76.

Wouldn't it be smarter for a person wanting to replicate the look of the ancient 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, have her/his models wear clothes from each of those decades rather than thinking that there is a difference in film and developer for each of those periods. I sincerely doubt that Tri-X kept frozen since 1970 shot alongside fresh Tri-X and both developed together in D-76 (also very much in use at that time) would show much if any difference. I personally think this business of a difference in the look in pictures from the post World War 2 period till today belongs with other Photo Fables. However if you substitute another film and developer, not made in "the Stone Age", then you are cheating, and I am really convinced that even then you would need a microscope to really see a difference......Regards!

 

[Slixtiesix]

PanF in Microphen is not a good idea since this is a speed-increasing developer which will build up more contrast and grain. I would say that almost any traditional emulsion in D76 or Perceptol will do for the look your friend is seeking.

 

[Agulliver]

How is the "look" to be replicated? Are we just talking about the film and developer combo?

I'd say that there's every reason to use developers which were common then and now....you cannot go wrong with D76 or ID-11 (essentially the same thing) with a traditional cubic grain film. I started out in the late 70s with Kodacolor colour negative 80ASA and Ilford HP5 400ASA for B&W. When I started developing B&W film in the 80s it was usually Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP5 with ID-11 or D76. A lot of people also used Plus-X (no longer available) and Ilford FP4. Those are all classic combinations.

If you want more grain, you could try Fomapan 400. Avoid the T-grain films such as Kodak T-max, Ilford Delta and Fomapan 200 (the latter is a hybrid of cubic and tabular grain).

 

[removed account4]

anything and everything in sprint film developer

 

[David Allen]

There was no particular ‘look’ in the 1970 (other than the high contrast / grainy images that people in camera clubs and salons in the UK were doing in imitation of the kind of work being sent in to competitions from Eastern Europe).

Basically, it was a choice between 125 ASA if you didn’t like grain and 400 ASA if you didn’t mind grain. Most labs in London used either replenished D76 or replenished ID11 for bulk processing in deep tanks (with the 'special' option of Microphen for films that had been significantly pushed).

So, the best choice would be either FP4 or HP5 or Tri-X in one of the developers above (just avoid the T-Max / Delta emulsions because they were brought to market in their current formulations at the beginning of the 1990s).

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Ian Grant]

There was no particular ‘look’ in the 1970 (other than the high contrast / grainy images that people in camera clubs and salons in the UK were doing in imitation of the kind of work being sent in to competitions from Eastern Europe).

Don't forget the same high contrast / grainy look that was a hall amrk of the photo journalism in the Sunday supplements in the UK

Basically, it was a choice between 125 ASA if you didn’t like grain and 400 ASA if you didn’t mind grain. Most labs in London used either replenished D76 or replenished ID11 for bulk processing in deep tanks (with the 'special' option of Microphen for films that had been significantly pushed).

So, the best choice would be either FP4 or HP5 or Tri-X in one of the developers above (just avoid the T-Max / Delta emulsions because they were brought to market in their current formulations at the beginning of the 1990s).

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

I'd agree with FP4. HP5 and Tri-X probably in ID-11/D76.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

It terms of JP and News having the high contrast look, the old half tone process for reproducing prints and sending prints by wire high contrast worked better than low contrast.

Just recalled that here in the States Photowarehouse sell repackaged Kodak Double X, I guess ends of movie stock, which would be close to 70s Plus X developed in D76. For high speed, Foma or Ultrafine 400 developed in HC 110 or D76 1:1 so as not to reduce the gain. Low speed back to Pan F, D76 or Rodinal?

 

[Saganich]

It would be fun to compare the same image in TriX / D76 and T-Max / TMax...

 

[BradS]

Kodak Tri-X in D-76(1+1).

 

[Ian Grant]

Paul, I should have said earlier Fp4 Plus and Hp5 Plus are quite similar to the 1970's versions. I cut my teeth on ex-Government Fp3 & Hp3 and the newer FP4 &Hp4 were a big improvement, Hp5 was a bigger improvement much better than Hp4.
Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

Would have thought that over the decades Ilford would have tinkered with the emulsions. So I will recommend PanF, FP4 and HP5 develop in ID11 (D76). Hard to get a hold of in the US, comes and goes, Salvich grade 2 and 3, develop in Dektol, wonder the schools darkroom has a red safelight.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Most of the 'look' is contributed by such things as clothing style. makeup, lighting and not by particular film. Think of the movies where various looks are created. They don't do this by using a particular film. You're not going to find can of film marked 'produces that 20's look' or this film produces that 80's look."

 

[Martin Rickards]

Film developing in the 70s was either FP4 or HP5 developed in Promicrol.It was so far and away the best that there wasn't any need to experiment.

 

[tedr1]

A friend of a friend kind of email wanted my input on classic 35mm film and developer combos. She taking some sort of adult summer school class at a Community College in California as her class project she want to replicate the look of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. She wants to come as close as the 70s look as possible. I don't think there was one look, photojournalism had a different look than say fashion or landscape. Not even sure what a 70s look is like, as I recall by the 70s film had improved grain and tone from the 50s and 60s which was often dark, high contrast and grainy, much of that look was gone by the 70s. But thinking of modern emulsions how about:

Pan F in Microphen. Landscapes, tripod, fine grain, good resolution,
Foma 100 in D76 Mid range look, sort of like Plus X
Foma 400 in D76 or Trix in HC110

Of course IIford HP5 and PF4 come to mind, but how close are they to what they looked in the 70s?

I'm from the UK originally and for me Ilford products were standard fare, FP4 and HP5 in ID11.

There is a lot to learn in photography, camera craft, dark-room work, creative image choices, image display choices, etc. I recall being a beginner and wanting to learn more. I was fortunate I found in my town a college that taught a series of formal courses, theory, history, aesthetics and practical projects. I learned a huge amount from a tutor who presented a lot of information in a straight-forward way.

Is this community college summer course is intended to be some sort of introduction to black and white photography? The project described is not beginner material. It requires analysis of technical issues and style issues at a level of sophistication that might be present at the end of a formal photography course but not at the beginning. The proposal seems to risk entering a minefield of confusion between stylistic and technical issues that a beginner cannot be expected to resolve, and failure and disappointment are inevitable. I think your best advice to your friend is to pull out and find a different course, one that is not lost in tortuous decadent self-regarding nonsense but treats photography as a straightforward set of skills that can be studied and mastered logically.

 

[Wallendo]

If she can send a link to representative photographs, we can be of much more help as it seems that we don't really agree about what the "70's look" actually represents.

When I think of a "70's look", I assume more of a snapshot format than photojournalism, advertising or artistic images. The 70's were the latest that I remember B&W film being readily available for snapshot use in my area. To achieve that look, which to me represents classic grain and lower contrast, I would use Foma 100 with D-76 1+1 or Rodinal, possibly reducing development time a little to reduce contrast.

 

[GRHazelton]

My "go to" combination was Plus X shot at about ASA 300 developed Beutler. Lovely results, at least to my eyes.