How to achieve metallic tone.

Hello, my film of choice is Acros 100 and 400 and my developer is hc110. I like the combo and it is my standard with Rodinal as a second dev. I do not have access to dark room, my process is hybrid.

I wanted to know what film and developer give that metallic look/tone I'm looking for. Examples would be great.

Thanks

The metallic tone you are looking for is probably not part of the negative end of processing--- Usually when I talk to someone looking at the metallic tone on a print it is part of the printing process. You may want to define or give a better idea what you are looking for.

Does (there was a url link here which no longer exists) look suitably metallic to you?

Jeff, you might be right. However, I scan negatives to print or post on web. I guess I can look into PS actions.

Keith, for some reason I can not look at the link attached.

Thanks

Alright here's an alternative link. You can't see the other one unless you're an apug subscriber (which is well worth it, by the way)...

http://keithwilliamsphoto.net/closertohome/index.html

Navigate to image 11, the 5x7 open moonflower. Several have told me that it give a metallic impression. If that's what you want then I can tell you how I got it.

Keith it looks nice. I would love to hear about your method. I'm starting a new project with classic cars that I would like to capture with metallic look.

@keithwms Those are beautiful images. I too am interested in your materials and process.


Steve

I think the proper way to achieve a metallic look on a digital ink print is to grind up your digital camera into a very fine metallic powder, and while the ink is still wet, sprinkle it onto the print. ---that would work...LOL

Okay, quick summary: ilford hp5+ or fp4+, i.e. traditional grain film... not a tmax or delta film. Developer ID-11 (D76) 1+1, all of that is simple and standard. The "trick": push at least one stop, and don't overdo the exposure. If I remember correctly, the moonflower shot was with a one stop push. The neg is a wee bit on the thin side. You want pretty healthy contrast, that is something we associate with the look of metal. The push helps with overall contrast as well as edge contrast, that is my theory.

I can tell you that Per Volquartz did a similar thing with his peppers, I was discussing the "metallic" look with him some time ago and he also mentioned push processing at that time.

Paper... that's easy, most would tell you to use glossy stuff, I simply prefer matte. I think gloss looks more like plastic or porcelain to me than metal. Many metal surfaces have some very fine texture and slightly diffuse reflectance.

P.S. thanks for the comments, sorry my little site is in perpetual revision.

Thank you I'll try that and report back.

Also, doing a litlle resarch, from what I've read Neofin Blue and XTOL give that pseudo metallic look with Acros.

:rolleyes:

Okay Michael R, let me get this straight. Most of the time when people say they want "look X" on apug, 10-20 people throw all manner of film/dev combos at them before we ever really know what the hell the O.P. wants. Hence I provided my own example, asked if my example was what was desired, and after I got the response asking how I did it, I then explained it and furnished my own rationale. So... why the attitude? Because I offended the gods of tmax? (Which I also use too, by the way, just not for this particular look; the adjacent shot in that gallery, also of a moonflower, was on 5x7 tmax... duped from a t64 slide )

sheesh!

~~~

Anyway...

Regarding fp4+/hp5+, for some images I strongly prefer their edge contrast and the role of the grain in the image. Acros in xtol is also a well known, fabulous combination (as is neopan 400 in xtol). I like it as well for many things, and there are plenty of others who do too. With acros there is a very fine grain that also gives that little extra bit of edge bite that I often like. Not clumpy grain, it is tight, fine grain... but it is enough grain to pop the edges.

I don't know about neofin, I haven't tried it. Report back to us if you do!

Some people think metallic=smooth and grianless, like foil. Fine, tmax or delta 100/400 then.

Best policy would be to try all these things, just bear in mind what I said about pushing as a way to affect the contrast and the role of the grain.

P.S. If you really want foily metal then there is also halochrome But you lose most of the tonality, and you mostly get contiguous blocks of solid metal, kind of like a Klimt painting.

P.P.S. About the example I showed, one more key thing comes to mind: shallow cross lighting. I remember that there was a 'broad' softbox from the front and then another to the side; the side one was very shallow to the surface and was used to pick out the ridges.

Jeff Searust said:

I think the proper way to achieve a metallic look on a digital ink print is to grind up your digital camera into a very fine metallic powder, and while the ink is still wet, sprinkle it onto the print. ---that would work...LOL

Click to expand...

hahahahah, I'm in stitches here with a busted gut on that one Jeff. I think I may have to add that to my list of favorite quotes!

keithwms said:

Does (there was a url link here which no longer exists) look suitably metallic to you?

Click to expand...

I don't think film or developer choice had any reason whatsoever to do with why this looks metallic. It looks like the lighting and subject provided that aspect.

clayne said:

I don't think film or developer choice had any reason whatsoever to do with why this looks metallic. It looks like the lighting and subject provided that aspect.

Click to expand...

And that ain't no lie. As far as XTOL delivering metallic tones with ACROS, that's just plain bad information. ACROS and XTOL is a nice combination that gives perfectly normal looking, very fine grain negatives with a full range of tones. Very easy to print.

keithwms said:

P.P.S. About the example I showed, one more key thing comes to mind: shallow cross lighting. I remember that there was a 'broad' softbox from the front and then another to the side; the side one was very shallow to the surface and was used to pick out the ridges.

Click to expand...

I am going to give kudos on this answer. --- correct lighting, glossy paper and proper development.

I have always liked Halo Chrome too, but never have reached the quality with it that Tim Rudman shows in the Toning Book. -- I agree on the large patches of silver.

Thanks. Let there be peace in this thread

There is no magic combination, we should all be able to agree on that.

Another thing we should all agree on is that what people mean by 'metallic' varies greatly. We had a thread just like this about 6 months ago and suggestions were all over the place, with some insisting on output to glossy paper and others suggesting very different approaches. You simply have to experiment and find, through your own experience, what works for you.

Composition and lighting are, of course, always the main thing in all photography.

Nearly as I can tell, no one has mentioned this option (although I am reading in a hurry--apologies if anyone mentioned it already):

Barry Thornton, in a late chapter of his Edge of Darkness, mentions drag bleaching; I have tried it with several papers, and (with Fotokemika Varycon FB, at least) it's possible to get a very subtle split tone effect that, to my eye, looks distinctly metallic. No wonder, really; silver, iron, selenium....

Now that you mention it, An, I was just thinking that mild solarization can make some things look kinda metallic.

Anyway can you please post an example of your drag bleaching?

Sounds like post-toner bleaching.

in all seriousness, I didn't mention this earlier because I felt it was too subjective, but I shared this idea with a number of professionals, one of which being a lab owner and so far, everyone agrees with me, so I feel safe in sharing:

If you want a metallic look, with or without printing (but mostly with printing), your two best, two main ingredients are, proper lighting for the subject and, the proper film. That proper film would be nothing other than Adox CHS Art 25. Adox practically declares it as metallic, the way they describe it alone should be a huge clue. But you have to put it to proof, and that's where Adox CHS Art 25 does well. You don't need perfect lighting to achieve metallic look. All you need is a nice long minimally gradient tone to anything, smooth surface and somewhere in the mid tones of the gray scale, it will appear metallic.

Maybe it's time to give it a try!

[added later: It helps with Adox CHS films, to develop exclusively with Adox Adolux ATM49 developer. Rodinal for example pretty much alters Adox in such a way that it makes it like a common every day film except with the ability to represent more gray scale than the average film. My gut feeling is the best metallic tone will be from Adolux ATM49 developer.]

I don't think ADOX CHS is what's required - basically any film that is sensitometrically inclined to have a bias towards mid-tones will work well.

Improperly washing fixer also provides a nice metallic tone

But seriously--I was going to say that I've achieved nice results with both PanF+ and Efke KB25--but it is all about lighting, honestly. Those two films seem to boost mid tones nicely