Film Stocks with a Classic Vintage Look (like Agfa/Adox)?

donetskiy · 2025-06-29T11:52:14-0400

Most of the cameras I’m handling are 35mm or 120 — curious: what’s your favorite modern film stock that gives a vintage look similar to early Agfa or Adox films?

pentaxuser · 2025-06-29T12:09:04-0400

I'd have thought that on the "continuous improvement" path that film makers have seemed to have followed there would be none that resemble much older or "vintage" film

I suppose in the Ilford line-up the current Pan F may not have changed much if any since it was launched many years ago and based on it being stilled called Pan F my assumption is that it may be the same or close to the same Pan F when it was launched

I suppose the recent launch of ortho films might hark back to what you describe as the vintage look but this is an assumption on my part as I don't know much about what you regard as the vintage look

So can you describe what you regard as vintage or maybe all you are looking for is our opinion on what each of us regard as modern film with vintage looks

While I am pretty vintage my photography did not start in that era

pentaxuser

donetskiy · 2025-06-29T12:34:31-0400

Thank you!

pentaxuser said:
I'd have thought that on the "continuous improvement" path that film makers have seemed to have followed there would be none that resemble much older or "vintage" film

I suppose in the Ilford line-up the current Pan F may not have changed much if any since it was launched many years ago and based on it being stilled called Pan F my assumption is that it may be the same or close to the same Pan F when it was launched

I suppose the recent launch of ortho films might hark back to what you describe as the vintage look but this is an assumption on my part as I don't know much about what you regard as the vintage look

So can you describe what you regard as vintage or maybe all you are looking for is our opinion on what each of us regard as modern film with vintage looks

While I am pretty vintage my photography did not start in that era

pentaxuser

retina_restoration · 2025-06-29T12:40:34-0400

That's easy - Adox CHS 100 II

Paul Howell · 2025-06-29T12:45:03-0400

Foma action pan 400. I also think Trix 320 is a fairly old emulsion, when Kodak last updated Trix 400 not sure if they updated 320. Then Delta or Tmax 3200 shot at 1600 or 3200 will have grain.

Ian Grant · 2025-06-29T13:05:04-0400

The "Look" is largely down to your interpretation in printing or post scanning, apart from Spectral response.

If by Adox you mean the old rebadged EFKE films then the Kb.R/Pl 25 was an amazing film, LF quality from 35mm negatives.

I've not been shooting Agfa and Adox/EFKE films very long, only 40 or 50 years, but I would not call them "Vintage look".

Ian

abruzzi · 2025-06-29T13:47:34-0400

for an old look, you might try an orthochromatic film (not red sensitive) like Foma Ortho 400, Ilford Ortho, or Ferrania Ortho (if you can find any.) It will be especially noricable on faces, especially people with freckled skin.

JPD · 2025-06-29T13:53:51-0400

I have tried many different films and been surprised that even modern films can look "timeless" depending on the subject, my own mood, lighting, and probably many more small things. Films can have somewhat different spectral response, but lighting and weather will also affect how they look.

GregY · 2025-06-29T13:58:38-0400

The look depends on the printing as well.
Using Foma 131 results in a vintage look

MattKing · 2025-06-29T14:42:06-0400

If you compose and light a photo in a vintage manner, the results from most modern films will look vintage.
More important, make the sort of printing/post processing choices that were made in vintage times.
People tended to use more exposure with older films than what is recommended now, so for the same format, there was more grain and marginally more shadow detail, at the expense of highlight rendition.
So exposure can factor in as well.
As some of the more modern films are much finer grained, and even the more traditional style films are a bit finer grained, if you want to emulate vintage levels of grain with more modern films you may need to consider adjusting exposure and development to add some.

AZD · 2025-06-29T15:10:00-0400

GregY said:
The look depends on the printing as well.
Using Foma 131 results in a vintage look

Yep. I recently purchased a box and have made a few test prints of the same negative on 131 and some other papers. It definitely looks “vintage”, or whatever we mean when we say that, compared to, say, MGRC glossy, which is about as modern as silver gelatin paper gets.

Short version: the final print or presentation will have a lot to do with how the image “feels”.

As for films though, most are pretty modern in specifications and manufacturing. I have a small stash of Efke 25, it really was something unique. CHS 100 II has some shared lineage with Efke, but more grain for certain. I think FP4 can look about as vintage as anything current. Very responsive to processing, rather forgiving in exposure.

As Matt just mentioned, exposure and processing play a role. I have many of my grandfather’s negatives going back to the early 1950s, maybe even a few older ones. They were exposed well and are developed to a higher contrast than would be typical today. I know they are mostly Kodak and suspect the earliest are Verichrome (ortho, not pan) based on typed notes and age of known subjects. Most print quite easily given the high contrast. Do they look vintage? I guess so, 75 years later.

Chuck1 · 2025-06-29T15:13:18-0400

retina_restoration said:
That's easy - Adox CHS 100 II

Developed in fx39?

retina_restoration · 2025-06-29T15:40:01-0400

Chuck1 said:
Developed in fx39?

Doesn’t much matter what developer you choose - the film has a unique look and tonality “baked in”.

pentaxuser · 2025-06-29T16:26:04-0400

retina_restoration said:
Doesn’t much matter what developer you choose - the film has a unique look and tonality “baked in”.

Does that mean that in a line of prints you can tell those from CHS 100 II negatives compared to those made from other developers - it is literally that unique ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · 2025-06-29T16:29:39-0400

FP4 in my Mamiya-Six.

Dan Daniel · 2025-06-29T17:03:36-0400

I wonder if much of what is considered vintage film look is down to the lens more than the film?

blee1996 · 2025-06-29T17:10:09-0400

I think film is still playing a larger part than lenses. For vintage look but fresh stock, I like Fomapan 100/400, Double-X, PanF 50.

On the other hand, I have plenty of long expired Plus-X and Verichrome Pan that will give the authentic old school look.

Paul Howell · 2025-06-29T17:55:57-0400

Thinking about it, as noted by blee1996, Eastman Double XX movie film. I think the emulsion goes back a ways, maybe to the 70s. Has some grain, resolution is similar to PluX 125 at 100LPMM when used at still film. D76 1:1, DDX, or Rodinal to bring out the grain.

Kodachromeguy · 2025-06-30T01:10:53-0400

A friend sent me some 35mm Fuji Presto 400 (Neopan 400). It has a different look, possibly "vintage?" It is grainy but punchy. I am liking it more and more.

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2025/06/nice-surprise-tacoma-with-fuji-presto.html

FriedLouisStudio · 2025-06-30T07:08:56-0400

I'm seconding Kodak Double-X/Eastman 5222 - this emulsion hasn't been changed since its introduction in 1959. It's got a legit old-school look.

It looks MUCH more like the Plus-X and Tri-X I used to shoot in the 60s/70s than today's Tri-X, at least in good old D-76. (Don't get me wrong, today's TX is great, I shoot plenty... but it's different, it has finer grain and different gradation, at least in D-76.)

This shot: Double-X in D-76 1:1, Nikkormat FTn with 45mm/f2.8 GN lens, just estimated exposure.

pentaxuser · 2025-06-30T07:34:40-0400

I suppose it depends on what anyone classifies as vintage, really What is it about a print on modern darkroom paper on say Doube X that distinguishes it from say a more modern film such as say HP5+ Tri X or any of the Delta or Tmax film and are the distinguishing features obvious for most of Joe Public to be able to say that it reminds them of the vintage era as compared to prints from "modern" films?

Most of my taste is in my mouth as the saying goes but even I can usually tell a genuine vintage print i.e. vintage in the sense of a print from the late 19th or early 20th century but only because it has a real distinguishing feature(s) such as Albumen or Salt prints may have but that relies on being able to duplicate old alternative processes and ideally with the clear attributes( some might say drawbacks) of those processes

Thanks

pentaxuser

bedrof · 2025-06-30T09:47:17-0400

retina_restoration said:
That's easy - Adox CHS 100 II

What is so unique about this film? I've already seen it mentioned as having a vintage feel.
Just developed my first 35mm roll of it in HC-110E and it looks a bit thin, though camera and meter are fine.

runswithsizzers · 2025-06-30T10:22:53-0400

The online dictionaries are rather vague, but I would summarize their definitions of "vintage" as simply, "old."

So the question is, when we look at a photo, what are the visual clues that lead us to believe we are looking at an old photo? Technical attributes, like spectral response, grain, exposure, shadow detail and printing paper have been mentioned. To those, I might add vignetting. These all can contribute to the viewer's opinion about the age of the photograph, but I think there are other factors that have greater influence.

Some 100-year old photographs have faded, lost contrast, and are tinted some shade of yellow or brown. They may also have crinkles, spots and stains. Does "the vintage look" include deterioration due to age?

I think subject matter and lighting/exposure contribute a lot more to our feeling for the age of a photo than do the technical properties of a negative/print.

Which of these photos looks more vintage?

Both photos were taken on Ilford Delta 400 in 2023.

For anyone who has watched black and white movies from the 1940s and 1950s, I think there is a strong association in our minds between the look of those films and that time period. And I think a huge part of the look of those movies was due to very careful lighting. If you want the film noir look, then I think film noir style lighting will get you there a lot more reliably than using period film stock.

retina_restoration · 2025-06-30T10:48:29-0400

bedrof said:
What is so unique about this film? I've already seen it mentioned as having a vintage feel.
Just developed my first 35mm roll of it in HC-110E and it looks a bit thin, though camera and meter are fine.

It’s functional ASA/speed, in my experience, is around 40 ASA. Give it plenty of exposure. Bracket and test.

It has “old school” grain; coarse for a 100 speed film. It is “orthopanchromatic” and you can see some evidence of it in its tonal scale. It responds slowly to minimal exposure and so it often appears that shadows drop off precipitously to detail-less blacks, which is often regarded as a “vintage” look.
In spite of the fairly conspicuous grain CHS 100 II has, it has excellent acutance, due to its excellent value separation through the middle-to-high values.
These characteristics as a whole give it a look I consider to be “vintage film looks”. But that’s just my take on it - YMMV.

Truzi · 2025-06-30T14:36:21-0400

runswithsizzers said:
The online dictionaries are rather vague, but I would summarize their definitions of "vintage" as simply, "old."

So the question is, when we look at a photo, what are the visual clues that lead us to believe we are looking at an old photo? Technical attributes, like spectral response, grain, exposure, shadow detail and printing paper have been mentioned. To those, I might add vignetting. These all can contribute to the viewer's opinion about the age of the photograph, but I think there are other factors that have greater influence.

Some 100-year old photographs have faded, lost contrast, and are tinted some shade of yellow or brown. They may also have crinkles, spots and stains. Does "the vintage look" include deterioration due to age?

I think subject matter and lighting/exposure contribute a lot more to our feeling for the age of a photo than do the technical properties of a negative/print.

Which of these photos looks more vintage?

Both photos were taken on Ilford Delta 400 in 2023.

For anyone who has watched black and white movies from the 1940s and 1950s, I think there is a strong association in our minds between the look of those films and that time period. And I think a huge part of the look of those movies was due to very careful lighting. If you want the film noir look, then I think film noir style lighting will get you there a lot more reliably than using period film stock.

There is something about the photographs that tell me the older vehicle was taken with "modern" film.
Oddly, I find the one with the newer vehicle to look more "vintage," and I'm trying to figure out why. Perhaps it's the framing, being more like what my family's photo albums look like from older fixed-focus cameras, etc.

One thing that may be unrelated - I had a coworker on a quest for color film that had that "vintage" look. When asked why, he said he wanted photos that looked like his parents' old photos. I pointed out that the "look" of those was at least partly due to the photos aging badly (which he acknowledged). I'm not sure how this would translate to B&W, but processing and printing techniques have already been mentioned above. Perhaps a little artificial aging could help - as if you were doing a longevity test.

So sometimes the vintage look

Film Stocks with a Classic Vintage Look (like Agfa/Adox)?

donetskiy

pentaxuser

donetskiy

retina_restoration

Paul Howell

Ian Grant

abruzzi

JPD

GregY

MattKing

Moderator

AZD

Chuck1

retina_restoration

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Dan Daniel

blee1996

Paul Howell

Kodachromeguy

FriedLouisStudio

pentaxuser

bedrof

runswithsizzers

retina_restoration

Truzi

Film Stocks with a Classic Vintage Look (like Agfa/Adox)?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency