Old Pics- What Film Was Likely Used?

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.

Most studio glamor shots were 8x10.

Verichrome Pan or similar?

Here's a discussion: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/best-film-for-b-w-hollywood-glamor.464493/

No idea, but based on those gorgeous, creamy tones I'm going with Kodak Super-XX.

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.

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.

Are you comparing film scans to prints?

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.

braxus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

A nice read : "Hollywood Portraits" by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos http://soul-foto.ru/photo_books/Roger Hicks, Christopher Nisperos. Hollywood Portraits. Classic shots and how to take them. 2000.pdf

macfred said:

A nice read : "Hollywood Portraits" by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos http://soul-foto.ru/photo_books/Roger Hicks, Christopher Nisperos. Hollywood Portraits. Classic shots and how to take them. 2000.pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks. They pretty much confirm view cameras, Super-XX, and hot lights.

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.

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.