Right film for this look?

thomas_m · Apr 3, 2005

I've got a certain 'look' in my head but I haven't quite been able to get it on film. I've been able to get close, then finish the job in Photoshop but I'd really like to get there in the original negative, or closer anyway.

The best I can describe what I'm thinking is the sort of dark, dreamy look in a lot of Sudek's Rothmayer Garden photo's and some from his garden atelier. Here's an example that I Googled up, just under "1926" & "1938":

Dead Link Removed

Something like the above linked photo but maybe with just a touch more sharpness.

Someone who's opinion I greatly respect, suggested Foma 100 as the closest modern film to the what would have been used by Sudek. Unfortunately, no one has any in stock that I could find. So I'll definitely try Foma later but I want to keep shooting now...

My normal fast film is Neopan 400 with periodic flings with Tri-X. I haven't settled on a slower film but I do know that ACROS doesn't work for me, to clinical looking if that makes sense. FP4 looks pretty damn good but it's still not The One. I develop everything is various dilutions of XTOL and shoot 6x6 medium format.

Any other suggestions in a 100(ish) ISO film for the above look?

TIA,

Thomas

127 · Apr 3, 2005

Ekfe 100 a nice old style film. It may be the same as Foma. It's also rebranded as Maco UP100, and more recently as Adox.

I'd say most of the look is coming from the lens - single element and uncoated giving lots of flaring and softness round the edge. I'd pick up a period folder, and give that a spin...

Ian

Ole · Apr 3, 2005

I would use EFKE PL25 (or ADOX...), and any uncoated lens. Note that Sudek made only contact prints after 1940, so 6x6 is not going to get the same look.

I get close with PL25 in my old 9x12cm folders, though...

David A. Goldfarb · Apr 3, 2005

Efke and Foma are two different manufacturers, and their films are very different.

I agree with the suggestions of FomaPan 100 or Efke 25, probably developed in something like D-76. Not Efke 100, though, which has a very different look. Foma Creativ 200 (T200) might also work if you shoot it at 100 and reduce development time a bit.

Ole · Apr 3, 2005

I went and had a quick look in the book - "Josef Sudek - the Poet of Prague".

I didn't find much technical information, but it is very obvious that most of his pre-WWII work was on orthochromatic film. Also later work shows reduced red sensitivity, so I stand by my suggestion of EFKE 25. I would use sheet film myself, and develop in a non-solvent developer like Neofin/Beutler or dilute Rodinal.

Edit: I have a spare Rodenstock 9x12cm Plate camera with a dirty Eurynar with a small crack in the edge of the front element. It gives pictures surprisingly similar to some of Sudek's softer ones! Soft and dreamy, yet razor sharp details...

photobackpacker · Apr 3, 2005

I agree the film was likely Ortho but in the picture you sent us to, I suspect it was also waterbath development necessitated by the high contrast in the subject. The light falling on the chair may even have been specular highlights and he would likely have had to use the greatest amount of contraction available to keep that element printable.

I believe the look you seek is the enveloping light look combined with strong directionality to the light. This is achievable with modern film - and my recommendation is Tmax100.

John Sexton has pioneered a compensated development process using Tmax100 and Tmax RS developer that is absolutely magic. It gives you the ability to render detail in the lightsource when you are in one of those situations where you are forced to include it in the scene. While he uses it primarily on sheet film, he has now adapted it to 120 roll film as well.

If you can find a copy of his book, Listen to the Trees, he used this technique in plates 18, 29, 40 and 49. You have probably seen plate 49 - it is the picture of the charred tree trunk and small needle-bare pine tree still smoldering with strong lenticular lighting detailed in the smoke. It has a very dreamy look to it that is in part, subject matter, and in part - process and printing.

If you are interested, PM me. I have the details on the process and I will be happy to share it.

smieglitz · Apr 3, 2005

I'd agree that the look is coming in part from the older materials and equipment but Josef Sudek had a masterful vision and that is the predominant factor. His awareness of light is phenomenal and that is what I would suggest is the factor to work on rather than seeking some magic bullet in materials.

Having said that, I would say try Ilford Ortho Plus film pictorially or use a #44 cyan wratten gel filter with pan films to mimic the response of the older ortho films. The best way to achieve the smoothness in these images is probably to use a bigger film rather than a specific one. You don't mention which format you are shooting (although I assume 120 from your profile) but the move upward in film size will increase quality. And, going to 4x5 or larger and picking up a classic lens or two will probably add a lot of flexibility in the looks you can achieve.

Joe

Ornello · Apr 3, 2005

Try Agfapan 400.

George Collier · Apr 3, 2005

The other option, aside from seeking out historical equipment and various emulsions, is to be be aware of the lighting (as smieglitz suggested) and be sure that you record as much as possible of the information of the scene on the neg, then work hard on printing options, like mixed VC filters, etc. As many have heard, Ansel Adams often said that the neg was the score, the print the performance.
Just my HumbOp.

thomas_m · Apr 3, 2005

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. It's been very helpful and is much appreciated.

Thomas

pgomena · Apr 4, 2005

If Sudek was using glass plates at the time, the flare from his uncoated lens would be augmented by lack of antihalation backing on the plates. I have scanned many glass plates at the Oregon Historical Society, and any images with bright skies or highlight areas in them "flare" into shadow and darker tones of the images in greater amounts than would be caused by uncoated lenses alone. That the plates were orthochromatic as well further compounds the "problem" (or effect!) since skies record as such light tones.

Ole · Apr 4, 2005

Antihalation-backing of plates was common from about 1910 - before that you might have had to paint it on yourself. But the greater thickness of glass plates as compared to film would enhance any halation, causing it to spread farther from the source.

I'll have to play some more with my cracked lens!

fhovie · Apr 4, 2005

There is a lot more lens influence than anything else here I think - of course getting contrast right will be important. Likely you would want to use something other than a Tessar type lens - maybe something with 3 elements instead of 4. My Ikonta with a Novar gives me a look like this - especially with backlighting.

titrisol · Apr 4, 2005

EFKE 25 or AGFApan APX100

But the look comes from lighting, uncoated lens and other niceties, not just film.

MaSr · Apr 4, 2005

Use different developer (Acutol and especially Tmax developer will give to the films havier tonality with more contrast in the lights) or use Kodak 320 TXP.

rusty71 · Apr 4, 2005

I don't think you're going to quite get this look in 35mm. Invest in a used Crown Graphic or other 4x5 press camera. A simple lens will do, the 135mm Raptar is a Tessar design and was common on these cameras. Shooting a pan/orthocrhomatic sheet film like Efke 25 or 50 will help too. Use a long compensating developer, something like Rodinal 1:100.

Most of all, pick your subject and your light carefully. Have fun.

Right film for this look?

thomas_m

127

Ole

Moderator

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Ole

Moderator

photobackpacker

Advertiser

smieglitz

Ornello

George Collier

thomas_m

pgomena

Ole

Moderator

fhovie

titrisol

MaSr

rusty71

Right film for this look?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency