Vintage chalk and charcoal look?

[Puma]

Hi,

I'm restoring a sixties era car and would like to photograph the process and have the images come out with a chalky, sooty, charcoal look. I have an old and a modern lens and Tri -X film that I believe is a step in the right direction. Below are some examples (lifted off google, apologies if I used your image) of the look I'd like to achieve.

1. What filter for the lens? Red? Orange? Yellow? Green, Other?

2. What developer and technique for the film? Rodinal?

What tri -x film speed will result in the grainy, contrasts, sooty look?

Thanks!

 

[John Wiegerink]

You might get Ansel rolling in his grave calling his picture chalk and soot, but I understand what you are after. I don't think the lens will make much difference, but film and developer certainly will. If it were me I'd go for Fama 400 in Rodinal and print a little higher contrast. Maybe D23 or something like that might work better.

 

[Rick A]

The classic photo of Georgia O'Keefe and Orville Cox was taken in 1937, a classic AA photo, reputed to have been shot with a 35mm camera. No TriX back then, most likely Super-XX, which was new that year, and panchromatic. Back then, most films were still orthochromatic, and would give that look you are seeking.

 

[MattKing]

I would look to the printing part of the process if I was trying for chalk and charcoal, but it won't hurt to have grainy, higher contrast negatives.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Try underexpose and push process as discussed here:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/high-contrast-with-tri-x-pan.112568/
If Rodinal is used higher contrast is obtained at 1:25 with frequent agitation.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Want grain? Use old-fashioned (i.e., not TMax or Delta) small, fast film and overdevelop. Heck, you can crop a small area of a 35mm neg and get tons of grain.

Want soot and chalk? Push, and push more than you should. That's really what pushing is all about: underexposing (i.e., losing the shadows to pure black = soot) and overdeveloping to get the highlights printable. If you want "beyond printable = blown = chalk white" then simply over-overdevelop.

Oh yeah, print on high-contrast paper too.

Play with these variables (underexposure, overdevelopment, film type/size/cropping, paper contrast) till you get the amount of each you want.

Best,

Doremus

 

[jim appleyard]

TX in Acufine at EI 6400 and then adjust for contrast (more or less) when printing.

 

[bsdunek]

Actually, IMHO, the look you're seeking is not 60's, that's too late. I think you want late 40' or 50's. Verichrome pan in D-76 would be typical for the period. Maybe some Agfa Retro 400 in Acufine would give the results you are looking for.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/81240011-Rollei-Agfa-Retro-400S-ISO-120-Size-(Single-Roll-Unboxed)
After that, as said above, it's all in the printing. Some old bromide paper, say Grade 4, would be a good start. Not having that, some Adorama RC VC with a 3 1/2 filter might be good.
In any case, post your results when available.

 

[Jim Noel]

Actually, IMHO, the look you're seeking is not 60's, that's too late. I think you want late 40' or 50's. Verichrome pan in D-76 would be typical for the period. Maybe some Agfa Retro 400 in Acufine would give the results you are looking for.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/81240011-Rollei-Agfa-Retro-400S-ISO-120-Size-(Single-Roll-Unboxed)
After that, as said above, it's all in the printing. Some old bromide paper, say Grade 4, would be a good start. Not having that, some Adorama RC VC with a 3 1/2 filter might be good.
In any case, post your results when available.

It was more likely Verichrome (ortho) not Verichrome Pan. This would account for the tonal range. I get this same scale with ILford Ortho and X-ray films developed normally.

 

[NedL]

TX in Acufine at EI 6400 and then adjust for contrast (more or less) when printing.

This is along the lines I was thinking, especially photos 2 and 4. TX in Diafine, at EI 1000 or 1200.
The look reminds me of 40s and early 50's photos...

 

[markbarendt]

Well, that saying seems to be losing it's meaning over time.

The saying as I understand it is talking about prints with no truly dark blacks or clean whites. It is meant to convey a muddy ugly grayscale.

Any film and developer can make negatives that can be printed the way you want, period.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The term "soot and chalk" refers to a print from a negative that has little in the way of midtones. It is usually applied to a situation that should be avoided. I have never seen the term applied to a print that just has muddy tonality. I have gotten it occasionally with experimental PQ developers where the P/Q ratio was not correct. You can also get it using microfilm.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't see any of those images as having a particularly old fashioned look, yes a fast fim like Tri-X or HP5 or even Delta 3200 is you really want grain the rest is in the lighting and then the printing.

A lot of what you're trying to match is poor reproduction in books..

Ian

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... A lot of what you're trying to match is poor reproduction in books...

 

[lantau]

Acros gives delicious blacks. I have only shot two rolls, but perhaps someone can comment on what happens when pushing it to 400. Will the mid tones disappear?

 

[Ian Grant]

Acros gives delicious blacks. I have only shot two rolls, but perhaps someone can comment on what happens when pushing it to 400. Will the mid tones disappear?

It's shadow details that disappear, if you want fewer mid-tones that's in the printing.

I've seen an original Ansell Adams print of the 3rd image of Georgia O'Keeff and Orville Cox, the tonality bears no resemblance to the attached poor quality version in this thread. Having said tha AA's printing wasn't always that good early on, some of us here in the UK saw a touring exhibition of his work from his daughter collection and many of the prints were nowhere near as good as later prints, I've seen a lot of his work.

The reality is the film and developer will have have less effect than the way the negative is interpreted at the printing stage, with a good negative you can print it anyway you want, a poor negative you struggle.

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

The reality is the film and developer will have have less effect than the way the negative is interpreted at the printing stage, with a good negative you can print it anyway you want, a poor negative you struggle.

Ian

Yep.

 

[Pat Erson]

A lot of what you're trying to match is poor reproduction in books..

Then the OP should get in touch with super-gifted German printer Steidl, ask him for tips then do the opposite... ;-)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

How to achieve that "old-fashioned look" has been discussed in detail on APUG. If there was a consensus the look depended on the lighting. Usually the examples given were taken without flash using two or more light sources. I would suggest either a book on lighting techniques or something equivalent on the web.

For the examples given by the OP they seem to be the product of higher than normal contrast. So the poster should do some experimenting extending development time for his negatives.