Film for 50s look?

Darkroom317 · Jun 27, 2010

I planning a 50s themed photo shoot and need a B&W film that would give that look. I have a lot of Plus-X Pan. Would this work well or would Tri-X work better? The camera will be a Rolleicord Va.

Ektagraphic · Jun 27, 2010

I think Plus-X would be the best choice. I have negs from the 50s on plus-x that look similar to my results on plus-x today.

Darkroom317 · Jun 27, 2010

Ok, thanks.

Also, I will be using Kodachrome for the color shots. Canon A-1, maybe my Argus 21

Ektagraphic · Jun 27, 2010

Kodachrome and Plus-X are definatly great choices. You could do Tri-X too. I find Plus-X to be softer...Kodachrome is more like color tri-x though in my opinion.

Darkroom317 · Jun 27, 2010

What other films were in common use at the time?

Also, would Rodinal be a good developer?

Ektagraphic · Jun 27, 2010

Personally, I would use Plus-X in D-76.....But at the time the other common films are now discontinued...I bet there were some Ilford possibly but I don't know for sure.

fschifano · Jun 28, 2010

Plus-X and Tri-X are good choices. FP4+ and HP5+ might also be quite similar to their predecessor films. If you could find some Verichrome Pan, that would be just about perfect, but you're not likely to find any at a reasonable price. Any that you might find is seriously outdated, but that won't matter much if the film was stored cold. I still have a few rolls of VP 120 left that have been cold stored, and it's fine.

But more than the film, you might find that modern lenses are the determining factor more than anything else. That classic '50s look is often the result of poor or non existent anti-reflective coatings. Even the least expensive modern lenses come equipped with excellent anti-reflective coatings compared to what was available at the time. Modern zoom lens designs would be virtually impossible to make without them.

That said, I have seen photographs made in the 50's and earlier that are indistinguishable in tonal rendition from photographs made with modern lenses and materials. The lenses used to make most of these images were likely high quality, but of simpler optical designs, keeping internal flare to a minimum.Of course, careful control of the light also plays a big part, and that is something I rarely see mentioned in these fora. It's not about the gear or the materials. It's about technique. That's the magic bullet.

Wade D · Jun 28, 2010

Adox CHS Fine Art films are made using an emulsion formula from the 50's. I haven't tried them yet but read about them at Freestyle's website.

ntenny · Jun 28, 2010

Ektagraphic said:
Personally, I would use Plus-X in D-76.....But at the time the other common films are now discontinued...I bet there were some Ilford possibly but I don't know for sure.

Efke/Adox 25 is supposed to be the same emulsion as Adox KB14, which I believe was around then, though I don't know how common it was. It's a nice film regardless, and the lower red response ("orthopanchromatic") can give a somewhat "vintage" look.

-NT

brucemuir · Jun 28, 2010

I'll echo Frank and say you could probably get closer to the look you're going for with lighting style than materials.

Rick A · Jun 28, 2010

Why not go the whole route, get a box camera or folder from that era and shoot Efke/Adox 25, then process in D-76 and print on the cheapest single weight paper you can find. Make sure you dont use a light meter and expose using the sunny 16 rule. That will insure you end up with photos that resemble 99% of what photos from that era look like. If however, you would like to display fine art B&W's that resemble a particular photographer of the day, study that persons work and methods, and using modern materials and equiptment, you can achieve your goal.

Ian Grant · Jun 28, 2010

ntenny said:
Efke/Adox 25 is supposed to be the same emulsion as Adox KB14, which I believe was around then, though I don't know how common it was. It's a nice film regardless, and the lower red response ("orthopanchromatic") can give a somewhat "vintage" look.

-NT

The Adox emulsions although dating from the 50's have quite a different look to other films of that era, they were streets ahead and the first of the modern thin layer emulsions. Adox films were certainly on sale in the UK from their introduction in 1952.

Fortepan 200 if you can find some is the closest to an old style emulsion as it's essentially just an improved Kodak Super XX, which Kodak made at it's Hungarian plant just before the outbreak of WWII.

Ian

df cardwell · Jun 28, 2010

Materials today are no different, in terms of a potential "LOOK" than the '50s. There is the same variety of films and developer today.

You can emulate ANY picture made in the 1950s by the same method of 50 years ago with a proper technique.

On old lenses: the flare of an old lens simply gave less contrast in the deep shadows than we have today.
Give a stop more exposure, solved.

I enjoy playing the game of making e a picture that looks like it was made in a different era.
The important thing to remember is that there is no such thing as "a 50s look",
and no film or developer of camera can give it to you. The GOOD news is that there is nothing esoteric that you need to do.

Sometimes, what we think of as a '50s look is all to do with how we see the pictures:
in '50s magazines !

Can you give us an example of your inspiration ?

.

photoncatcher · Jun 28, 2010

Another vote for PXP, and D-76. I would also suggest a period camera if you can. Personally, I have found that the lenses have more to do with the "look" than the film does. I have a beautiful Zeiss Ikon folder that I use to get a more "vintage", or "romantic look". The lack of the lens coating really makes a big difference.

Ian Grant · Jun 28, 2010

Thinking of a previous thread asking what Robert Doisneau used, it included Tri-X in his case, back in the 50's it was a thicker emulsion slightly grainier than many of us would remember.

But in the 50's few would enlarge as much as today and if you look at contemporary prints of that era they were often less than 10x8's, and there's a jewel like quality about them.

I have an original Doisneau prints and as Don says it's not far off what many of us could shoot today, almost all lenses were coated by then and the 30's look of Brassai, early Kertesz etc and uncoated lenses had been left behind. I shoot regularly with an early 50's CZJ Tessar and the coating's excellent, no period feel, no visible difference to my MC lenses.

Be-Bop en cave, Saint-Germain-des-Près 1951 - photo by Robert Doisneau

Probably the best modern film would be Delta 3200 printed small on warm toned paper, thtat'll be the closest in terms of grain/definition of the 50's fast films.

Ian

Darkroom317 · Jun 28, 2010

photoncatcher said:
Another vote for PXP, and D-76. I would also suggest a period camera if you can. Personally, I have found that the lenses have more to do with the "look" than the film does. I have a beautiful Zeiss Ikon folder that I use to get a more "vintage", or "romantic look". The lack of the lens coating really makes a big difference.

Thanks for all the replies

I will be using a 1957 Rolleicord Va

This shoot will not be until the fall, so I plan to study the lighting techniques. I thought that the materials maybe provide a good starting point.

Also, this will be shot outside with a period car for the most part, so lighting control may be an issue.

CGW · Jun 28, 2010

It's really more a matter of lighting and post-exposure processing. Film, processing, and paper matter, but lighting and exposure are key to getting the "look." "Hot" lights, scrims. diffusion panels work--take a look at Roger Hicks excellent book on old school "Hollywood" lighting. Something like the old Agfa APX 100 works well with this lighting,

JPD · Jun 28, 2010

Most of the negatives I have from my grandfather (who used a Yashica A) are Perutz and Adox R17 and R21 (todays Adox CHS 50 and 100 / Efke R50 and R100). They are very nice films, but take some time to learn. I would use Kodak Plus-X and D-76 1+1 - a classic combination and you already have the film.

bblhed · Jun 28, 2010

Well, it sounds like your lighting should be using exactly the same source as was available in the 1950's, that is good and bad, if you are going for the family photographer look then great all you need is the sun, if you are going for the pro look, you are going to need reflectors and people to hold them.

As for grain look, I would try using the sharpest film I could get and let the paper supply the grain. A negative can be printed many times on many different parers, and even scanned and digitally manipulated, but you only get to take the photo once. Your finished photo resolution is only as good as the lowest resolution member of the chain.

fschifano · Jun 28, 2010

Please explain to me how the paper is going to supply the grain. Being slower than film, the paper's inherent "grain" will be composed of smaller bits of silver than it is for film. You cannot see it with the naked eye, and it is not subjected to magnification.

JPD · Jun 28, 2010

fschifano said:
Please explain to me how the paper is going to supply the grain. Being slower than film, the paper's inherent "grain" will be composed of smaller bits of silver than it is for film. You cannot see it with the naked eye, and it is not subjected to magnification.

I think he meant using the finest grain film possible, so that the only grain you would (not) see is the paper grain.

TheFlyingCamera · Jun 28, 2010

Another film to consider is Fomapan - the film has a reduced red sensitivity and has an interesting grain structure that has a "vintage" feel.

nickrapak · Jun 28, 2010

I also recommend Plus-X, especially if it is the older PXP 125 as opposed to the newer 125PX. The older version is the exact same film as what was made in the '50s, with the same grain structure. The newer version is still an excellent film, with slightly finer grain, but developing in D76 1:1 makes it look like the old emulsion.

Darkroom317 · Jun 28, 2010

nickrapak said:
I also recommend Plus-X, especially if it is the older PXP 125 as opposed to the newer 125PX. The older version is the exact same film as what was made in the '50s, with the same grain structure. The newer version is still an excellent film, with slightly finer grain, but developing in D76 1:1 makes it look like the old emulsion.

The film I have is from 1996, frozen

bblhed · Jun 28, 2010

Perhaps I mis spoke, what I wanted to say was that you should shoot for the best negative you can because it is your master copy and then process your prints by whatever method you choose to produce the print you are looking for. Like I said you can reprint photos, but you may not be able to re-shoot the photo. It may be a bit harder to do that way, but you can produce a nice sharp modern looking print if you want. When you achieve the desired print quality you should keep the notes with the negative in case you want to make more copies.

Film for 50s look?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency