Modern Film with an Old Look?

[analog65]

Hi, looking for input from the group here. I am looking for a film and developer combination that will produce an old look that may approach the look of the images from some of the greats like Stieglitz, Strand, etc... Effectively the Camera Work type of look. I have old glass from the late 1800's and early 1900's, so that part is solved.

Your thoughts?

Thanks

 

[Xmas]

Foma 400 cheap and available but.
Wet plates like Sally Mann for better approximation.

 

[analog65]

hi, thanks for the reply. I was thinking foma 400 may be an option. i will try some in a couple different developers and various ISO ratings to see what I can create. wet plate isn't an option for this project.

 

[Helinophoto]

I think you may be looking at Orthographic films, films that are less sensitive to red.
Panchromatic film came much later I think.

Maybe Rollei Ortho 25.....?

Foma 100, Ilford FP4 and HP5 are also considered to me more "old" in their rendering.

 

[alanrockwood]

I think you may be looking at Orthographic films, films that are less sensitive to red.

Or, what about shooting panchromatic film with a filter to approximate ortho film?

 

[analog65]

Thanks for the suggestions... I think the Rollei ortho 25 is a super fine grain and very sharp film, which is the opposite of what I am looking for. I heard two votes for foma now, so maybe that seems to be the start of a trend. By the way, I have done quite a lot of 4x5 and 8x10 LF ortho and love the look, but I am not able to enlarge it. At least for me, it is too dense. They look great contact printed via a bright incandescent lamp, but just too thick to enlarge.

I think you may be looking at Orthographic films, films that are less sensitive to red.
Panchromatic film came much later I think.

Maybe Rollei Ortho 25.....?

Foma 100, Ilford FP4 and HP5 are also considered to me more "old" in their rendering.

 

[analog65]

what filter would be an option to accomplish this?

Or, what about shooting panchromatic film with a filter to approximate ortho film?

 

[Cybertrash]

Adox CHS 100 ii is supposedly sensitised in such a way that it will render an "old school" look, but it's still panchromatic. If you want to emulate orthochromatic film with modern panchromatic film you'd want to use a blue filter in front of the lens.

 

[darkosaric]

Foma 400 in Rodinal 1+50. Not sure about subjects you like - but if you want "old look" then maybe avoid cars and new buildings, look for people with classical timeless style... your lens choice is good already .

 

[analog65]

Thanks. Does anyone here know if there are any differences between the Foma 400 120 film and the Arista EDU Ultra 400? I have heard they are identical, but would like to verify. The Foma box is $1.20 more than the Arista. Several people have suggested Foma, so I will definitely have to try and will also use a blue filter for that older ortho look too.

Foma 400 in Rodinal 1+50. Not sure about subjects you like - but if you want "old look" then maybe avoid cars and new buildings, look for people with classical timeless style... your lens choice is good already .

 

[Roger Cole]

Foma and Arista EDU Ultra are the same film. Same development times, same curl, same delicate-when-wet emulsion, same green dye washed out in my pre-wash.

I wouldn't argue that the 400 doesn't in some ways have an "old look" but it's not in the spectral response. It actually has somewhat extended red sensitivity. The blue filter trick will work of course.

 

[darkosaric]

Here are some examples of Fomapan 400 in Rodinal 1+50:

Yellow filter:
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

No filter:
Dead Link Removed

Orange filter (I think, not 100% sure):
Dead Link Removed

 

[gone]

A lot may depend on which lens you use (and it sounds like you're OK on that one) and which developer you soup the film in. I recently tried Microdol-X w/ Tri-X, and on a few of the shots where I had given it just one stop more exposure the image got very old school. It wasn't like when I used TD-16, a D76 variant, because w/ that developer a one stop difference didn't make a big difference at all. W/ the Microdol-X, not only did the image get much darker, it looked very different. So what I'm suggesting is that you have a lot of control in the developing stage irregardless of which film you use. Your choice of paper and printing technique is going to play a huge part as well.

Those are some good examples that darkosaric posted above. A red filter will be of help possibly too, just to darken things up and get the blacks really saturated.

 

[analog65]

Thank you for sharing these!! Really beautiful work and this is exactly the type of look that I am aiming for. I will order some Foma/Arista Ultra 400 today in 120 rolls. I already own the classic yellow/green/orange/red filters so that is easy, but I will also try and find a blue filter to see its effects too. I have been using the Arista Ultra 100 in 8x10 sheet film and developing in Pyro HD with very good results this year. My initial plan is to develop the 120 film in pyro hd as well, but I will also give the rodinal 1+50 a try to explore that look. Anything special on your agitation method or development process? The one benefit of pyro hd, in addition to the actual tonal effects, is that it hardens the emulsion of the film, which sounds like it make be a very good thing for the roll film.

Here are some examples of Fomapan 400 in Rodinal 1+50:

Yellow filter:
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

No filter:
Dead Link Removed

Orange filter (I think, not 100% sure):
Dead Link Removed

 

[darkosaric]

Anything special on your agitation method or development process?

I agitate little more aggressively than others that I saw (in live and on videos) - doing this to get grain little bigger than usual, and always some minutes longer than recommended (I hate thin negatives).
Paper - FB Foma or Ilford or whatever I have, in Ilford PQ developer.

 

[analog65]

you are correct about the choice of developer, as well as the development method and choice of paper. I will be testing all of this to find the balance of a consistent workflow with the aesthetic that I am aiming for. Thanks for the tip on Microdol, I will give it a try along with the pyro hd, and rodinal. For paper, my plan is to try a paper with a white base to play off the high contrast look. I will try some Adox MC 112 for sure, but open to suggestions too.

A lot may depend on which lens you use (and it sounds like you're OK on that one) and which developer you soup the film in. I recently tried Microdol-X w/ Tri-X, and on a few of the shots where I had given it just one stop more exposure the image got very old school. It wasn't like when I used TD-16, a D76 variant, because w/ that developer a one stop difference didn't make a big difference at all. W/ the Microdol-X, not only did the image get much darker, it looked very different. So what I'm suggesting is that you have a lot of control in the developing stage irregardless of which film you use. Your choice of paper and printing technique is going to play a huge part as well.

Those are some good examples that darkosaric posted above. A red filter will be of help possibly too, just to darken things up and get the blacks really saturated.

 

[analog65]

Thanks for the info. I am planning to dev by hand in steel tanks and also in my jobo for convenience and also more agitation. And I agree about thin negatives...

I agitate little more aggressively than others that I saw (in live and on videos) - doing this to get grain little bigger than usual, and always some minutes longer than recommended (I hate thin negatives).
Paper - FB Foma or Ilford or whatever I have, in Ilford PQ developer.

 

[Alan Johnson]

For paper, my plan is to try a paper with a white base to play off the high contrast look. I will try some Adox MC 112 for sure, but open to suggestions too.

Prints I have seen from the 1930s were generally on off-white paper.I don't think they had optical brighteners and the contrast was generally low and the prints made with noticeable blocked up black areas. I'm not sure when bright white papers first became available, but certainly some prints from this time were of the type I described.Nearest type of paper I used was the old Forte Polywarmtone, IDK what is the nearest still available,

 

[flavio81]

analog65,

Foma 100 and 400 is a beautiful film BUT if you want a early 1900s look, consider that the film emulsions in those times were mostly blue-sensitive only. Foma 100 and 400 are just the opposite -- very red sensitive.

A better bet might be a normal panchro film with a blue filter. Note that blue filters do ugly things to people's skins...

 

[Jim Noel]

Hi, looking for input from the group here. I am looking for a film and developer combination that will produce an old look that may approach the look of the images from some of the greats like Stieglitz, Strand, etc... Effectively the Camera Work type of look. I have old glass from the late 1800's and early 1900's, so that part is solved.

Your thoughts?

Thanks

Since Orthochromatic film was the norm during this period, the first step is switch to one. That is one explanation for the upsurge in the use of x-ray film in the camera. Many try to emulate this type of emulsion with odd developers, filters, etc, they are still only approximations.

 

[Jim Noel]

Prints I have seen from the 1930s were generally on off-white paper.I don't think they had optical brighteners and the contrast was generally low and the prints made with noticeable blocked up black areas. I'm not sure when bright white papers first became available, but certainly some prints from this time were of the type I described.Nearest type of paper I used was the old Forte Polywarmtone, IDK what is the nearest still available,

You are correct that there were no optical brighteners in the paper. There were dozens of paper manufacturers producing hundreds of emulsions. Some of these produced whiter based paper than others, and some like Dassonville were able to produce deeper blacks with their emulsions.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you are referring to images as they actually appeared in Camera Work, almost all were hand-wiped aquatint gravures, which fundamentally affects the 'look' of the image much more so than minor differences of choice in film & developer. I recall that a great deal of Stieglitz's own work was in 4x5, much of it contact printed. Shoot on Ilford Ortho+ and you'll get a good, normal contrast negative that you can print like any other 4x5 film.

 

[NB23]

Not foma 400. Too sensitive to red to be anything "old look" or remotely good looking. Foma 400 is simply a cheap film. A cheap film that people are trying to find reasons to like it. That's my personal opinion on that film.

Foma 100. Foma 200. Delta 3200. These are my choices for "old look". Foma 100 never misses. Great film.

 

[moltogordo]

This Foma 400 sure does cause different reactions in different folks, doesn't it???

I like it . . . it produces it's own "look" and is responsive to different developers. Quite versatile, really. It's now my second film when I want a different look or feel to HP5.

Here is Foma 400 in Rodinal, 1:50, 12 minutes, Half-Frame negatives from an Olympus Pen FT (print scans)

And here is a scanned print from a full-frame negative (Pentax MX) in Xtol - quite a different look: (this print was also brown toned, but look not at that, but the grain structure and tonal graduation differences to those above.)

I'm looking forward to developing my first roll of Foma 200, which is in a Nikon FM from my collection right now. But I will certainly be using Foma 400 any time I want small neg impact. Love it!


Bright light and contrasty subject matter, Xtol. Flat lighting and less contrasty subject matter, Rodinal. There might be other "looks" but I tend to use certain films for certain looks based on my own experience. This is what I've come up with for Foma 400, and it works for me.

 

[flavio81]

This Foma 400 sure does cause different reactions in different folks, doesn't it???

Yes, but the opinion above comes from NB23, the same guy who posted here the following famous, groundbreaking remarks regarding Ilford Pan F:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

So his opinions are a bit different than mainstream-APUG opinions. Of course, if somebody thinks that Ilford Pan F is "a shitty film" which sometimes is "expired film with a fresh date stamped on", then if the same person calls Foma 400 just a "cheap" film, you can consider that a high, big time compliment to the quality of Fomapan 400

Think of it:

"Fomapan 400: The film held as 'Superior to Pan F' by the top online analog photography forum. From Bohemia to the world, with love. Available in 120, 35mm, and sheet film sizes."

or

"Fomapan 400: A film that is just 'cheap', and never 'shitty' "