Film for skin tone

[A49]

Does that mean Tungsten lighting will be the wrong light to use with this film?

It is not wrong if you take it´s effects into consideration. I think Tungsten light could emphasize the effects of an Ortho film, but I´m sure that it would decrease it´s film speed noticeable because the film can only use the blue / green part of the Tungsten spectrum which is smaller there as with flash-light or daylight.

Andreas

 

[Ektagraphic]

Plus-X is a really great film to use with portraits. The skin tones are great.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A blue filter emphasizes impurities of the skin. I recommend a strong green filter.

I agree, a green filter is a better match for the effect of ortho film. I think a strong green filter would be too much. I would recommend a light green filter to start with. A blue filter would simulate an unsensitized emulsion which is not desired.

Of course for true ortho response one should use an anti-red (cyan filter). This passes light into the yellow portion of the spectrum.

 

[Nicole]

B&W Film, Filters & Skin Tones

If you want to work with b&w film & filters on skin tones: try a yellow filter

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you want to work with b&w film & filters on skin tones: try a yellow filter

I was thinking along those lines too, but didn't want to open my mouth, because I've never used filters when doing portraits. But yellow makes sense. Most skin blemishes are on the red side of the spectrum. A green filter would constitute the complimentary color of red, and would render such skin imperfections as dark. If the person you're photographing has fair skin, I would think that could cause trouble, unless you really enjoy to selectively bleach prints.
Yellow is closer to red and would, in my mind anyway, lighten those skin blemishes while leaving most of the other skin tones intact. It would, of course, alter how blue eyes look; it would darken them. I might try a yellow next time.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

For male portraiture you sometimes want to show character which entails showing skin detail thus the use of the green filter. In this case the yellow filter will not work although it might be good for female portraits. As I said check literature on taking portraits for the exact filtration.

 

[keithwms]

Yep, very broadly speaking, filtering blue (or UV) will make caucasian skin look more, uh, mature. At the other end of the spectrum, red/IR filtering can give truly porcelain skintone.

Just for amusement I will (re)show (there was a url link here which no longer exists). Just to show how extreme an effect filtering can have. And here's (there was a url link here which no longer exists). We photographers wield great powers eh? Instantly make somebody younger or older, with a simple filter...

 

[michaelbsc]

Yep, very broadly speaking, filtering blue (or UV) will make caucasian skin look more, uh, mature. At the other end of the spectrum, red/IR filtering can give truly porcelain skintone.

Just for amusement I will (re)show (there was a url link here which no longer exists). Just to show how extreme an effect filtering can have. And here's (there was a url link here which no longer exists). We photographers wield great powers eh? Instantly make somebody younger or older, with a simple filter...

Look like we should use deep red filters for portraits!

MB

 

[sperera]

I concur....T-Max 400 is the most outstanding film I have used and with the 2-stop gain from the 100 films you cant go wrong....attached some portraits I did of our local tourist treasure...the Gibraltar Rock Apes (forgive me for I have posted these before but in order to help im posting here)....important to note i was shooting against the sun and purposely metering for a very flat, low contrast look I am using as a 'theme' for the set....should have used fill flash for balancing light and all that but was done on purpose and I believe this shows the quality of this film....used with Xtol developer by the way.

In your humble opinion, of course?

TMax 400 is my favorite portrait film, because it's the one I know the best.
It's about as far from 'muddy' as I can get with a film, and I think you are misrepresenting Kodak TMax films with your statement. It's sharper than either FP4 or HP5, has finer grain, and better resolution.
To me, none of that really matters. I just love how the film looks. Five pictures attached. Four of them are TMax 400. Four 120 and one 35mm. Not easy to tell which is which; the prints are even more difficult. Treated differently for different lighting situations and desired results.

I always advocate to learn one or two films and learn to use them well. Explore all possibilities with it, and once you get to that stage, you will be much better equipped than switching films for certain effects, be it skin tones or anything else.

I don't know much about filters. I never use them.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's certainly true, Gerald. I wasn't thinking broadly enough, I think.
Filters are still baby thoughts in my mushy brain since I haven't used them much.
I guess it depends on how we want to show our subject matter.

For male portraiture you sometimes want to show character which entails showing skin detail thus the use of the green filter. In this case the yellow filter will not work although it might be good for female portraits. As I said check literature on taking portraits for the exact filtration.