Have you used Ilford SFX200 for portraits

Does anyone have any experience using Ilford SFX200 for portraits?
I've shot a roll or two but maybe there's someone out there who shoots portraits on a regular basis who uses the film as their main choice.
How does it handle skin tones without any filter?
Do you need a filter to bring out the glow in the skin? How dark a filter do you go?
Are you printing or scanning?
Have you found it grainy?
Are there sharpness issues?
Are there focus point issues?
Let me know.
-Rob

I wonder if infections such as pimples would show up better if infrared sensitive skin.

Sirius Glass said:

I wonder if infections such as pimples would show up better if infrared sensitive skin.

Click to expand...

Not if you use it without a H72 filter. It wouldn't be my choice for portraits as its fairly grainy for a 200 speed film unless you are intending to use an IR filter which will certainly change the look but no one I'd want

However my view is literally worthless to you and should be ignored if you see things differently.

pentaxuser

Do dead tulips count?
120 film and either 6x4.5 or cropped 6x6 - it is an old negative.
No filter. Side-lit with light from an overcast sky coming through a window.
This is scanned from a darkroom print.

Sirius Glass said:

I wonder if infections such as pimples would show up better if infrared sensitive skin.

Click to expand...

pentaxuser said:

Not if you use it without a H72 filter. It wouldn't be my choice for portraits as its fairly grainy for a 200 speed film unless you are intending to use an IR filter which will certainly change the look but no one I'd want

Click to expand...

The other way round, it reduces red blemishes.

In general a red filter on a panchromatic film was advised to reduce such.
Using infrared film though was advised to produce a ghostly look at white skin, or to make black skin look lighter. Otherwise it was used in medical photography.

AgX said:

The other way round, it reduces red blemishes.

In general a red filter on a panchromatic film was advised to reduce such.
Using infrared film though was advised to produce a ghostly look at white skin, or to make black skin look lighter. Otherwise it was used in medical photography.

Click to expand...

I thought the opposite: green filters remove blemishes and red increases them. Hence my first comment about the choice of films.

Sirius Glass said:

I thought the opposite: green filters remove blemishes and red increases them. Hence my first comment about the choice of films.

Click to expand...

Do you deal with a lot of subjects with green blemishes?
Southern California is stranger than I thought!

MattKing said:

Do you deal with a lot of subjects with green blemishes?
Southern California is stranger than I thought!

Click to expand...

The blemishes are red. You are green with envy.

Sirius Glass said:

The blemishes are red.

Click to expand...

Which means that a green filter will darken them, and make them more prominent.

IR or red will give a light appearance to the skin depending on the strength of the filter.
It gives a wonderful fey, ghostlike effect.
Goths and similar types love it. It lightens lips and the red in the eyes.
On the other hand anything bluish will stand out. Dark under the eyes, veins and contusions will stand out. Especially with direct flash.
Eyes, brown too will get really dark. Which also contributes to the demonic effect.

Blue and UV sensitive film (essentially all) will make anything red or brown turn black or dark. Especially melanin spots right under the skin.
Black people look wonderful on it. But not all like the look. It makes white people look “old fashioned” and worn.

A purple filter (both red and blue) can be an interesting choice for portraiture. Essentially the opposite of a green filter.

Traditionally, orthochromatic films were used for portraits of men.