Old Pics- What Film Was Likely Used?

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,779
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
I was looking at a webpage on Desi Arnaz, and a few of the B&W pics really struck me. It looks like all those ones were shot on 4x5 cameras, due to tones and lack of grain, plus sharpness. But I can't be certain. The tones in the earlier two were just beautiful. The lighting was so well done. What film(s) do you think they used for these? Panchromatic or Ortho? What film exactly? The dating seems to be around the 50s Im guessing.
 

Attachments

  • desi-arnaz-lucille-ball-pool.jpg
    723.4 KB · Views: 174
  • desi-arnaz-portrait.jpg
    377.8 KB · Views: 175
  • desi-arnaz-too-many-girls-1.jpg
    539.7 KB · Views: 170
  • desi-arnaz-too-many-girls-2.jpg
    501.1 KB · Views: 170

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,410
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
No idea, but based on those gorgeous, creamy tones I'm going with Kodak Super-XX.
 

CMoore

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
6,220
Location
USA CA
Format
35mm
Not sure if the film mattered.
MGM, Paramount, Warner's, Etc etc, had the best retouching people that ever walked the face of the Earth.
 
OP
OP

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,779
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
So it was an 8x10 camera, which really would be overkill for printing. But Im sure grain would reduced to nothing with such a camera. I have a 4x5 camera with some Efke 25. The standard lens on that camera is an Ektar 127mm. Granted I'd never be able to recreate the lighting techniques, but maybe some of the qualities from those 50s pictures would carry over. I just love the glow and tones of the skin tones in these pictures. So many shades on their faces, and the lighting just brings it out more. I was only able to get something like this with Efke 25 and once Tri-X from 2005. Would I benefit from trying an Ortho film like Rollei Ortho 25 or maybe Ilfords Ortho 80? I still have a couple sheets left in 4x5 of Super XX, though its aged exposure would compromise the image.

Here is a pic of my mom taken from around the same time period as the others.
 

Attachments

  • Mom-small.jpg
    130.5 KB · Views: 123
Last edited:

voceumana

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
896
Location
USA (Utah)
Format
Multi Format
Movie studios of the time excelled at lighting and getting the development right. Thus you get such excellent results. The particular film is not the key.
 

dmr

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
868
Format
35mm

I agree they were done with view cameras of some kind. My guess is panchromatic film, and probably something like Super XX. IIRC, Verichrome Pan did not come out until 1955 or so, and was more of a consumer roll film than a studio sheet film. Those examples above look like they were done with hot studio lights.
 

guangong

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
3,589
Format
Medium Format
CMoore said:
Not sure if the film mattered.
MGM, Paramount, Warner's, Etc etc, had the best retouching people that ever walked the face of the Earth.
Click to expand...
Ditto! Plus lighting, makeup, etc. Nt to mention often only photographing the subject from their good side.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,596
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
The 8"x10" film was perfect for making production contact prints - these were used for promotion and were distributed fairly widely.
If you obtained one of the original negatives, most likely they would show heavy evidence of on-negative retouching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…