Recommend a non-infrared film that is low-acutance/clarity/micro-contrast like infrared?

[ame01999]

One of the things I like about infrared emulsions is the soft, painterly micro contrast combined with the apparent sharpness of prominent grain. But if I'm remembering correctly, if I'm shooting infrared film with a red filter, I tend to be at the border of, or below, the threshold for camera shake/subject motion (which, of course, can be embraced as an aesthetic).

Is the lack of halation layer the main reason for infrared emulsion's soft micro contrast? I saw an odd film on Freestyle, I forgot the brand, that is apparently an adapted X-ray film, lacking an emulsion layer, so perhaps that would be one I could investigate. . . Thanks.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Ilford SFX isn't a true infrared film. You could try it rated at around ISO/ASA 100 and process with Rodinal which should help to sharpen the grain a bit.
I'm sure others here will have better suggestions.

 

[MattKing]

To reduce acutance, consider adding diffusion to the optical path and the light source instead.
And of course for this result, flare is your friend.
A film with reduced anti-halation will also help - the Kentmere films come to mind.
The suggestion of SFX is good with respect to grain - here is a higher acutance result from SFX used without IR oriented filtration:

 

[xkaes]

I agree with Matt. There are lots of ways to add this effect to the film -- any film. The film you choose will determine the amount of grain you want, and the "optics" that you add to the lens will determine the diffusion.

There are diffusion filters, fog filters, and soft-focus lenses & filters. You can adjust soft-focus lenses by stopping down the aperture or adjusting aberrations. The filters come in different strengths. One diffusion-type filter you might want to check out are the Minolta Portrayer filters -- P & S models in different strengths. They are in a class by themselves. With high speed B&W film and a red filter or a higher contrast B&W paper/VC filter, you might get the effect you want.

Here's a sample of a SF lens -- NOT mine -- one opened up, the other stopped down:

For Sale - FS: 125mm Lens for the Creative Photographer

For Sale A Lens for the Creative Photographer~ 125mm f:2.3 Large Format Wollaston Meniscus Lens 125mm focal length is considered a “normal” lens for most 4x5” cameras. It’s also, a great “wide” lens on 5x7 cameras (Deardorff, Wisner, Chamonix, for example). + 72mm front thread ring + Five...

www.photrio.com

 

[ame01999]

Thank you, everyone, and Matt, those are lovely tones in your photograph. I hadn't thought of softening the image before it hits the lens/film. The only examples of "soft-focus" photography I have seen in books have been the use of Vaseline on a UV-filter or a nylon hose stretched over the lens, and the results were most definitely extreme.

I had been thinking of exploring an extremely fine-grain developer, whatever the speed lost, but I've only really used non-solvent developers in my work.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the compliment. That is actually a scan of a print!
From back in my relative youth and wedding photography days, I can assure you that you can obtain a really wide variety of effects by varying the amount of Vaseline and by having in hand a variety of hosiery.
Most important of all though - control the light!

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilford SFX isn't a true infrared film. You could try it rated at around ISO/ASA 100 and process with Rodinal which should help to sharpen the grain a bit.
I'm sure others here will have better suggestions.

My own limited experience of SFX without a fílter is that it is very graíny for a 200 film. If anything a 25 red appears to lessen the grain

This is a purely subjective impression and based on SFX film on 5x7 prints both with a red and without any filter

pentaxuser

 

[Augustus Caesar]

There really isn't any film like this today.

 

[jeffreyg]

Another suggestion if you like to experiment is to make a sharp negative. Get two six inch squares of 1/4 inch glass. Tape the edges to prevent cutting yourself and put a few drops of baby oil between them. Sharply focus for a print then hold the glass sandwich under the enlarger lens. Move it around until you see the result you want and make a test print to determine exposure and desired diffusion. It will eliminate grain and give really nice results especially for some portraits. A somewhat similar but different technique that was suggested by Matt but less messy than Vaseline and with the ability to modify by sliding the pieces of glass over each other. Years ago I had to “improve” some photos of a young woman that I had taken with Tri-x that showed every pore. The results were amazing. You still have a sharp negative just incase.

 

[xkaes]

An addition to this approach -- if you want a certain amount of sharpness -- is to expose X% of the total exposure without the glass & oil sandwich, and then 100%-X% WITH the sandwich.

 

[250swb]

One of the things I like about infrared emulsions is the soft, painterly micro contrast combined with the apparent sharpness of prominent grain. But if I'm remembering correctly, if I'm shooting infrared film with a red filter, I tend to be at the border of, or below, the threshold for camera shake/subject motion (which, of course, can be embraced as an aesthetic).

Is the lack of halation layer the main reason for infrared emulsion's soft micro contrast? I saw an odd film on Freestyle, I forgot the brand, that is apparently an adapted X-ray film, lacking an emulsion layer, so perhaps that would be one I could investigate. . . Thanks.

I use Adox HR-50 pretty much as my standard B&W film which is sensitive to infrared without being full-on. It responds well to a deep red or a 720nm IR filter but at the IR end isn't as subtle as a proper IR film. But 50 ISO may be too slow for you, I use a tripod, and unlike many copy films it's easy to develop but there are still changes you should make like very gentle agitation (Adox recommend a 'swish' once a minute) and shorten the fixing time considerably to stop bleaching.

 

[loccdor]

Not sure if this is the effect you're after, but this is a Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 lens with a front element that has hundreds of scratches. It has this glow on bright objects, even when you stop it down. I like it especially for portraits because of this rendering. The bonus is you usually pay less for such lenses. Ektachrome E100 shot.

There are also filters that have similar characteristics, I haven't tried them.

Caffenol development is known to reduce sharpness.

Some people double-expose with one of the frames unfocused to induce bloom.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

My own limited experience of SFX without a fílter is that it is very graíny for a 200 film. If anything a 25 red appears to lessen the grain

This is a purely subjective impression and based on SFX film on 5x7 prints both with a red and without any filter

pentaxuser

I agree, although the technical data sheet for Agfa film developers says to rate SFX at ISO 100 for Rodinal.
I am not aware of any films currently available that are produced without an antihalation layer.

 

[MattKing]

I am not aware of any films currently available that are produced without an antihalation layer.

The Cinestill films designed for ECN-2 colour processing have had the remjet removed, and therefore show a lot of halation.
But the OP was looking for black and white.

 

[xkaes]

I am not aware of any films currently available that are produced without an antihalation layer.

I don't know about its current production status, but I've read that Kentmere B&W films have a "limited" anti-halation layer -- whatever that means -- to save production costs.

Kentmere 400....what exactly is it?

Are they? I had a quick look and couldn't find any. Care to elaborate? Sorry, you had a quick look at what?

www.photrio.com

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I don't know about its current production status, but I've read that Kentmere B&W films have a "limited" anti-halation layer -- whatever that means -- to save production costs.

Kentmere 400....what exactly is it?

Are they? I had a quick look and couldn't find any. Care to elaborate? Sorry, you had a quick look at what?

www.photrio.com

In 35mm films, anti-halation is accomplished by using a grey-dyed film base. The base absorbs light in both directions. Panatomic-X was one film that had an anti-halation layer on the film base. It went from ASA 40 to ASA 32 when this was added (about 1966?).

 

[MattKing]

In 35mm films, anti-halation is accomplished by using a grey-dyed film base. The base absorbs light in both directions. Panatomic-X was one film that had an anti-halation layer on the film base. It went from ASA 40 to ASA 32 when this was added (about 1966?).

That describes the situation as it was LX years ago.
There are more options now.

 

[xkaes]

In 35mm films, anti-halation is accomplished by using a grey-dyed film base. The base absorbs light in both directions. Panatomic-X was one film that had an anti-halation layer on the film base. It went from ASA 40 to ASA 32 when this was added (about 1966?).

And FOMA has taken it away from some of its film.

 

[koraks]

And FOMA has taken it away from some of its film.

Whether they 'took it away', I don't know (was it any better previously?), but in general, Foma's 35mm films tend to show significant halation. More so than Kentmere/Rollei.

 

[MattKing]

And FOMA has taken it away from some of its film.

More likely they can't or won't spend the money to incorporate the improvements in anti-halation technologies that have happened in the last 60 years.
The old anti-technology was fine with the old emulsion and substrate technology, and the materials that were available back then.