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

[runswithsizzers]

There is something about the photographs that tell me the older vehicle was taken with "modern" film.

Maybe it was the caption under the photos? ;-)

Oddly, I find the one with the newer vehicle to look more "vintage," and I'm trying to figure out why.

I think this whole "vintage look" concept is so subjective, it is probably impossible to discuss in any meaningful way.

Is the vintage look something which we SEE and can describe in terms of grain, shadow detail, sharpness, etc?

Or is there something about the way vintage photos make us FEEL?

You and your friend both conjure up certain feelings and memories when thinking about your parents old photos. I think there is likely some element of nostalgia intertwined with the definition of vintage. These feelings are based on our experiences, both private experiences unique to our family upbringing, and shared experiences which we absorb from culture, like movies, television, magazines, and advertising.

 

[MattKing]

I have a friend who makes great prints - both in "silver gelatin" and in a bunch of alternative photography media.
When he shares a print that is more of a record type of print, rather than something that is more of an exhibition type of print, I can tell immediately that he used to, as part of his employment, make high volumes of record type prints.
The negatives are lit and exposed in the way we used to do it back in the 1970s and 1980s, and they are printed like we used to print those sort of negatives back then.
The films we both use now differ a bit from those 1970s era films, but that is not where most of the differences in the record style prints come from.
My friend still makes his negatives the same way he did back then, whereas I'm using a bit less exposure and a bit less development now then I did back then - we joke about being able to tell each other's negatives without being told.

 

[Truzi]

Maybe it was the caption under the photos? ;-)

LOL, no, that's not it. If I could articulate it, I might be able to suggest something to make it look vintage. For all I know, it could be the lens and not the film. Or the tonal range. Who knows. The word "clean" comes to mind, but that's not right. Perhaps I'm thinking "smoothness," whatever that would mean in a print.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

An orthochromatic film might give a vintage look.
Choice of photo paper and presentation should also be considered.

 

[Oldwino]

A more “vintage“ look for me would be a longer tonal scale and lower contrast. Today’s ”modern” look is for higher contrast, blocked up blacks, and a generally more crunchy or vibrant look.

 

[cjbecker]

I have a friend who makes great prints - both in "silver gelatin" and in a bunch of alternative photography media.
When he shares a print that is more of a record type of print, rather than something that is more of an exhibition type of print, I can tell immediately that he used to, as part of his employment, make high volumes of record type prints.
The negatives are lit and exposed in the way we used to do it back in the 1970s and 1980s, and they are printed like we used to print those sort of negatives back then.
The films we both use now differ a bit from those 1970s era films, but that is not where most of the differences in the record style prints come from.
My friend still makes his negatives the same way he did back then, whereas I'm using a bit less exposure and a bit less development now then I did back then - we joke about being able to tell each other's negatives without being told.

Can you elaborate a little more on this? My photography is pretty much all record keeping. How was the lit and exposed different?

 

[MattKing]

Can you elaborate a little more on this? My photography is pretty much all record keeping. How was the lit and exposed different?

A lot of my friend's photos were the sort of photo that you would use to record the participants at a seminar - much of it lit by flash.
But even more of them were clinical photos of dental procedures
More direct lighting, and in many cases lighting and exposure that favored shadowed areas over less important highlights.
In my case, I was doing both some photo journalism and some wedding work (in colour).
Dramatic lighting sometimes had its place with the journalism, but more often than not you just wanted the clear detail, because otherwise too much would be lost when it made its way to newsprint.

 

[bedrof]

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.

Ah, thanks!
40 ASA explains my thin shadows - I exposed for EI 80. Interesting, what I will get on paper.

 

[foc]

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

+100

IMO, the vintage/old look will be achieved by replicating the lighting of that era.

 

[250swb]

While many are saying the vintage look is because of the film contrast perhaps it is the other way around, the vintage look we see in old magazines, advertising, and movies is the result of publishing and media? Dark or blocked in shadows were not what the publishing industry wanted because it was difficult enough to print shadow detail, so photographers made their photographs publication friendly. There are exceptions, but these cross into the artistic realm with photographers like Bill Brandt who was influenced by film-noire, less so than by the need to circulate images for newspapers and magazines, although they were often picked up by photo journalism oriented Picture Post and Harper's Bazaar. Nor would people who sent their photos to be developed and printed have wanted their pictures to come back high contrast, preferring the usual insipid look that suited family viewing.

So I think the 'vintage look' is very much about pragmatism and not an intrinsic look coming from the film and when photographers did go to expressive higher contrast and drama it was because they had leeway to do so, as in personal exhibition works etc.

 

[Dr. no]

curious: what’s your favorite modern film stock that gives a vintage look similar to early Agfa or Adox films?

To be academic in this discussion (since my day job is being academic ) -- we need to define the terms before we can have a meaningful conversation...
"vintage look" is clearly defined: "similar to early Agfa or Adox films".
"similar to early Agfa or Adox films" means films from the early 20th century, since before that they were glass plates (mostly) (forgive me for this generality, I'm not putting in the research time a the moment).
Is this what the OP meant? He hasn't spent much time on this thread. I have a feeling he means "after WWII" or maybe the 1930s, based on the idea that for many "vintage" means grandparents.

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.

To me the old vehicle looks like Tmax, the Bronco less so--my subjective eye sees those tones as too smooth, perhaps algorithmically adjusted. The tabular-grain films to me look digital, like they are adjusted to give equal values to each range of gray values (zones). The top photo has the same issue but more white, and a little black.
I was taught, in production work (newspaper and publishing, PR for display, so not just things destined for half-tones) to print so that there was always deep black and pure white in the frame, and if the middle tones didn't come out right the negative was poorly exposed. And we did learn to work with that, but this was probably how 99% of pre-automation pictures were printed--standard setup and you can make a hundred prints/hour. Different prints.

That's what makes a real, especially "vintage" print look like "film" to me. Real blacks, real whites, and the middle tones may all be there but more of some than others, depending on the scene. Digital looks gray all over. Poor exposure and low contrast film/conditions can have this problem.

This look is available with any vintage or modern black and white film (maybe takes a bit more work with C41 and tabular) and a darkroom print. If you are scanning it may take a little work adjusting custom sliders or whatnot, depending on your software defaults.

This is ignoring the other trend in digital B&W where there are almost no gray tones at all. Looks like line film to me. Not my metier, but as artists we can respect without liking.

Also, artists (whether they called themselves that), portraitists, and other special-use photographers/printers produced prints from film/plates in the full gamut of looks from the earliest emulsions. These comprise a large part of out communal vision of "vintage prints" as well. (When I see Stieglitz and some Weston I think they printed with too low contrast, but that's their taste v. mine). The other half (or more) of this vintage vision is family albums, publications and movies, printed to the standard range as above.

I think this whole "vintage look" concept is so subjective, it is probably impossible to discuss in any meaningful way.

Yeah, unless we can say what the "look" is to each of us. This is mine

 

[bernard_L]

The OP has not been seen for one week.

 

[GregY]

To be academic in this discussion (since my day job is being academic ) -- we need to define the terms before we can have a meaningful conversation...
"vintage look" is clearly defined: "similar to early Agfa or Adox films".
"similar to early Agfa or Adox films" means films from the early 20th century, since before that they were glass plates (mostly) (forgive me for this generality, I'm not putting in the research time a the moment).
Is this what the OP meant? He hasn't spent much time on this thread. I have a feeling he means "after WWII" or maybe the 1930s, based on the idea that for many "vintage" means grandparents.



To me the old vehicle looks like Tmax, the Bronco less so--my subjective eye sees those tones as too smooth, perhaps algorithmically adjusted. The tabular-grain films to me look digital, like they are adjusted to give equal values to each range of gray values (zones). The top photo has the same issue but more white, and a little black.
I was taught, in production work (newspaper and publishing, PR for display, so not just things destined for half-tones) to print so that there was always deep black and pure white in the frame, and if the middle tones didn't come out right the negative was poorly exposed. And we did learn to work with that, but this was probably how 99% of pre-automation pictures were printed--standard setup and you can make a hundred prints/hour. Different prints.

That's what makes a real, especially "vintage" print look like "film" to me. Real blacks, real whites, and the middle tones may all be there but more of some than others, depending on the scene. Digital looks gray all over. Poor exposure and low contrast film/conditions can have this problem.

This look is available with any vintage or modern black and white film (maybe takes a bit more work with C41 and tabular) and a darkroom print. If you are scanning it may take a little work adjusting custom sliders or whatnot, depending on your software defaults.

This is ignoring the other trend in digital B&W where there are almost no gray tones at all. Looks like line film to me. Not my metier, but as artists we can respect without liking.

Also, artists (whether they called themselves that), portraitists, and other special-use photographers/printers produced prints from film/plates in the full gamut of looks from the earliest emulsions. These comprise a large part of out communal vision of "vintage prints" as well. (When I see Stieglitz and some Weston I think they printed with too low contrast, but that's their taste v. mine). The other half (or more) of this vintage vision is family albums, publications and movies, printed to the standard range as above.


Yeah, unless we can say what the "look" is to each of us. This is mine

Dr, You do state some broad generalities that are your interpretation.... I am a devout dark room luddite, but I'll admit to having seen some very fine digital prints. Early digital prints were admittedly easy to spot, but today the processes are very capable of producing long scale prints in any range of contrast. I saw an exhibition at the New Mexico Museum of Art....photos by William Clift of Shiprock & Mont Saint Michel. All large format images...some prints were digitally printed and it was virtually impossible to tell them apart. On my wall I have a print of the Vajolet Towers which was a gift from an Italian photographer friend of mine....a digital print from a scanned Rolleiflex negative.....and it's not an HD high contrast aberration, but a very tasteful long scale print....as beautiful as any darkroom print in the room.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Dr, You do state some broad generalities that are your interpretation.... I am a devout dark room luddite, but I'll admit to having seen some very fine digital prints. Early digital prints were admittedly easy to spot, but today the processes are very capable of producing long scale prints in any range of contrast. I saw an exhibition at the New Mexico Museum of Art....photos by William Clift of Shiprock & Mont Saint Michel. All large format images...some prints were digitally printed and it was virtually impossible to tell them apart. On my wall I have a print of the Vajolet Towers which was a gift from an Italian photographer friend of mine....a digital print from a scanned Rolleiflex negative.....and it's not an HD high contrast aberration, but a very tasteful long scale print....as beautiful as any darkroom print in the room.

Whole i can agree that digital printing has come a long way and occasionally really impressed thinking it might be silver gelatin its just not.
I saw an exhibit of Larry Fink where it was all digital and it was very disappointing. Hes a very talented artist but those prints did him a disservice. The other question is about archival quality; and epson etc go to great lengths telling everyone 200 years we just wont know. Sipver gelatin has already proved itself.
The major galleries are busy selling digital regardless. .so i guess my point is moot

 

[Dr. no]

Generalities, yes!
Put some work (or expertise) into the mix, and generalities don't count. But the run-of-the-mill image (and not much is printed by either process these days) doesn't get this.
Look for "black and white" tags on IG, and after you discard the white pants/black sock type, you will see a lot of color images where the second picture is the same image, after pushing the "B&W" button. You will see what I mean. Definitely does not look "vintage".
You can see some fine film work there too--just look for #___film etc, as well as digital that looks like film.

I wasn't talking about the printing media, but the image density/range. I have noticed that I can no longer bat 100 telling silver from digital prints (but still pretty high) in the galleries and museums here.