What film? How to achieve rich grey tones?

[jeffreyg]

Pick a film then run a simple test with an 18% gray card. Fill the frames with only the card in a constant light. Take a meter reading off the card then make a series of exposures ie. 2.5 over, 2 over --- half stops until you get to the original meter reading then the same with under at half stops. Be sure to label each exposure. Develop or have your lab develop the film and make individual prints of each frame. The one that most closely matches the gray card is the iso for your equipment with that film and developer combo. There is another simple test to determine a standard printing time. since you are not printing your own film, I'm not sure if your lab will run that test. Once you have "standardized" your equipment and materials you can make adjustments to get the results you seek. Also I'm not sure that HBC always processed and printed his own images.

 

[Harry Lime]

Also I'm not sure that HBC always processed and printed his own images.

I've read in several places that HCB avoided printing and developing like the plague. Before the war Capa's younger brother Cornell printed HCB and Capa's negs in the bathroom of a Paris apartment. He used to wash the prints in the tub.

Later a famous Paris based lab did HCB's prints. I'm pretty certain that they were not all made by Magnum.

Eugene Smith on the other hand handled all aspects of his work and not only because he was constantly broke.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I've been looking at HCB's pics.. been wondering what film he used.. anyway, ive been using Fujifilm Neopan 400 as my main film.. but, i find it too "modern" if thats the correct term.. im looking for a film that is readily available and at the same time, has that "HCB" look and feel to it.. something that has old emulsions that will give me rich grey tones rather than contrasty black and whites... hope you guys could help out..
One more thing. I send my films to a local lab. Since i dont have the gear, technical know how of processing my own black and whites. can a C-41 black and white film be as good as the traditional process black and white films?

Whilst admitting I know little of HCB and especially of his darkroom techniques I can comment about your request. If you aren't processing your own film you have but a small chance of matching the 'look' of 50 years ago.
When I 'discovered' Adox films and Beutler developers in the late 50's (in my early 20's) the results were far different to present day 'tastes'. I now see contrasty images as norm and accept that as the way things are.
You will have to go down the road of souping your own with high dilution developers and stand development and experimenting with the older available films like Efke 25 and 50 (the old Adox KB14/KB17).
Scanning may be your only choice after that - the eye can discern merely a miserable 16 grey tones (according to my radiographer and radiologist friends) whereas a 16 bit scan can see 256. Hence the wonders of PS etc that are available to us nowadays. PS etc can push curves and tone ranges at the click of a mouse and save you heaps in lab fees to get what you want, or until you can predict the final result of the chosen film/developer combination you finally settle on and then let your lab then handle that, under instruction.
You really are going to have to get at least a changing bag and a tank to get the 'old fashioned' look. And I agree, it is different and I still strive for it.
As a modest suggestion try HC-110 at dilution H or Rodinal at 1:100 or greater, for both! Yes, really. The glycol pyrocat developers keep well over months/years, too and give similar results at high dilution. This is for the occasional user, which I assume you are.
Good luck with your quest. There are still plenty of us out here who do things the way you seek but it's a matter of digging the 'net to locate exact details of the way other people do it - which won't necessarily be the way you end up doing it of course. Like opinions - they are 10c per bale.
Murray

 

[sgoetzin]

Just to make things clear. Henry Cartier Bresson used the old TRI-X emulsion which he shot at 200 ASA. Film development and printing was done by Pierre Gassmann (in Paris, still exists today as PICTO laboratoire). HCB was not interested in printing, neither in film developping. What he really was interested in was "geometry" , "composition".

I think it is good tho have photograhers as an inspiration source, but at one point one has to find his own style. Get one film, one developper and stick to it until you know how the comination of both behaves in any possible situation. I did it with HP5 and ID11. I also used just one SLR (Canon AE-1) + one lens (50 mm) for more than 5 years.

Serge

 

[mabman]

In several of HCB's interviews I've seen on YouTube he was also heavily against cropping an image - eg, what you originally saw is what you get, however, as he didn't do his own printing at least 1 of his most famous images was cropped slightly ("Behind the Gare St. Lazare").

I think as others have said it was less about the equipment/film type and more about capturing the moment - right place, right time, and knowing what was "interesting" to see in a scene.

I can't find the original quote right now, but apparently he also recommended using an accessory Leica VIDOM finder on his Leica M, which let you view the scene upside down if desired as a compositional aid (I think this is a technique in painting/drawing as well - HCB was a painter before he was a photographer).

 

[Ken N]

Scanning may be your only choice after that - the eye can discern merely a miserable 16 grey tones (according to my radiographer and radiologist friends) whereas a 16 bit scan can see 256.

I've heard this before, but it doesn't square up. If might be true that the eye is able to discern 16 tones at a time, but the moment you move your eye to another part of the image, you get another 16 tones to look at. In otherwords, the eye/brain has an auto-gain function.

Another factor is that the eye/brain processes and presents these "16 tones" as continous tones whereas a digital file with stair-step the tones.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

OK, so 6 pages down the line nobody suggested that any PROPERLY developed and printed film would give rich grey tones?

something that has old emulsions that will give me rich grey tones rather than contrasty black and whites...
(...)
one more thing.. i send my films to a local lab..

Contrasty negatives = overdeveloped negatives made by someone who doesn't know what you're looking for. Many labs overdevelop to make sure that there's something on the usually underexposed negatives.

Come on, this is the biggest population of Zonies on the Intertubes, and nobody screamed "soot and chalk" yet?

 

[wogster]

OK, so 6 pages down the line nobody suggested that any PROPERLY developed and printed film would give rich grey tones?

Perhaps you need to define rich grey tones, do you mean that if there is a density change of .01% that you want to be able to discern that or you want a few tones well defined. Low contrast, high contrast, etc.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

It seemed obvious to me that "rich grey tones" as opposite to "contrasty black and white" simply means the lack of midtones, i.e. underexposed (box speed) and overexposed (manufacturer's time) film.

 

[removed account4]

I can't find the original quote right now, but apparently he also recommended using an accessory Leica VIDOM finder on his Leica M, which let you view the scene upside down if desired as a compositional aid (I think this is a technique in painting/drawing as well - HCB was a painter before he was a photographer).

thank you mabman!
i had a painting teacher who
used to have us paint things
upside down it really helped
free our minds from what we
were painting.

we do see things upside down ...
before our brain does that whole
flip it right-side-up thing.

john

 

[removed account4]

mhv

i don't think properly developed film
will give the same " look n' feel" as
a film and developer + technique that might used 50 or 60 years ago. ...

i know what you are saying but i am sorry, properly developed modern film developed in
modern developer ( or even harveys 777 from bluegrass packaging )
looks totally different than film that was processed in 1940 ...

films have been "upgraded" over the past 50/60 years ...

denmark.yuzon maybe the thing to do is find out what chemistry your lab uses,
and work with them to figure out what film + chemistry combination will give you
the results you desire ...

john

ps. i still think european films will be the first step ......

 

[clayne]

Just look at APX vs HP-5 vs Tri-X vs Tmax.

Pretty obvious to my eyes which emulsions focus on tonality vs balanced contrast vs linearity.

 

[wogster]

It seemed obvious to me that "rich grey tones" as opposite to "contrasty black and white" simply means the lack of midtones, i.e. underexposed (box speed) and overexposed (manufacturer's time) film.

So essentially he wants low contrast. That should be doable, but may require a lot of experimentation, and the result will always be slightly different from someone else's work done 50 years ago.

As I said though, early in this thread, one needs to view an archival print that passed through the hands of the original photographer. Tracking one of those down could be easy, or it could be very difficult. Even at that, your comparing a print and there are a lot of factors that would need to be determined.

There is the film, the exposure, the developer, development time, agitation, enlarging technology, paper, developer, processing technique, safe lights. Note that nearly every material has changed. 50 years ago, nobody cared about environmental issues, there was some quite toxic stuff used, that modern regulations have rendered unusable. Films have a wider latitude and a wider contrast range.

 

[BetterSense]

Just look at APX vs HP-5 vs Tri-X vs Tmax.

Pretty obvious to my eyes which emulsions focus on tonality vs balanced contrast vs linearity.

Out of curiosity, which of those films would you say obviously focus on which of those attributes?

 

[clayne]

Out of curiosity, which of those films would you say obviously focus on which of those attributes?

APX: tonality
HP-5 and Tri-X: balanced
Tmax: linearity

 

[Harry Lime]

It also helps if you move up to a bigger format. In terms of tonality even 6x4.5 beats 135...

 

[jmal]

The one element that never get mentioned is the fact that, in addition to extinct materials, HCB was photographing a world that is very different from our modern world. The shapes of the architecture, the clothing, the signs...they all add up to a different feel. I know one can argue that in Europe and other older regions much of the same architecture still exists, but much of it has changed, too. I think that the closest you can get to HCB's look is to seek out places that still retain some of the character of the times. Portugal comes to mind.

I should also add that the intersting things in HCB's photos have almost nothing to do with tonality. If you have the chance to see an exhibit of his work, do so. There is great variety in the quality and tonality of the prints, but the brillant composition and eye for events is constant. That is what makes him great.

 

[clayne]

Why in god's name are we still discussing HCB by the way? What relevance does HCB have in regards to "achieving rich grey tones?"

 

[jmal]

Why in god's name are we still discussing HCB by the way? What relevance does HCB have in regards to "achieving rich grey tones?"

Two reasons: it was the basis for the OP's question and it's an internet photography forum, which means we can discuss anything we choose.

 

[Andy K]

Why in god's name are we still discussing HCB by the way? What relevance does HCB have in regards to "achieving rich grey tones?"

Because the OP asked:

I've been looking at HCB's pics.. been wondering what film he used.. anyway, ive been using Fujifilm Neopan 400 as my main film.. but, i find it too "modern" if thats the correct term.. im looking for a film that is readily available and at the same time, has that "HCB" look and feel to it.. something that has old emulsions that will give me rich grey tones rather than contrasty black and whites... hope you guys could help out..

one more thing.. i send my films to a local lab.. since i dont have the gears, technical know how of processing my own black and whites.. can a C-41 black and white film be as good as the traditional process black and white films?

 

[Mark Antony]

Another thing to consider is the lenses. Quite a lot of the images taken you looked at were taken on uncoated pre-war Leica lenses or possibly lenses like the post war Elmar with simple coatings. Those type of simple lenses with early or no coatings had a certain look that was down mainly to flare compressing tones making the shadows seem to have detail.
If you take an early lens design say an Elmar or Tessar and use Tri-x/HP5 or FP4/Adox 100 you'll get a similar look and feel.
I like the low light gritty look Brassaï obtained and can get that with HP5+ or even Delta 3200 using medium format.

The above is a 1950's Tessar HP5 in Rodinal
Seems to suggest earlier times to me...
Mark

 

[Ian Grant]

You need an uncoated lens as Mark says, they lack the micro-contrast of a well coated post war lens and of course later Multi Coated lenses, the internal flare gives a rounded full look tonally.

I've been using 3 LF Tessar's recently and the pre-War 135mm f4.5 gives the tonality the OP is after, but the early 50s 150mm is well coated and quite different as is a late production Single Coated 150mm f5.6 Xenar (Tessar type lens).

Ian

 

[denmark.yuzon]

thank you guys for all the responses.. i guess there are too many factors to consider for that low contrast look.. the lenses, exposure, developing, etc.. for now i dont have any developing tools and chemicals, so i would have to rely on some tweaking in photoshop to suit my taste..

also, ive ordered some of the films you suggested, like APX, etc.. and i will try these out and see for myself which of the films i do prefer.. thanks again!

 

[wogster]

thank you guys for all the responses.. i guess there are too many factors to consider for that low contrast look.. the lenses, exposure, developing, etc.. for now i dont have any developing tools and chemicals, so i would have to rely on some tweaking in photoshop to suit my taste..

also, ive ordered some of the films you suggested, like APX, etc.. and i will try these out and see for myself which of the films i do prefer.. thanks again!

To sum up all the points, to get s photographic look from 1940, you need a film from 1940, a developer from 1940, a paper from 1940, a paper developer from 1940, a camera from 1940 and a lens from 1940.

 

[mabman]

To sum up all the points, to get s photographic look from 1940, you need a film from 1940, a developer from 1940, a paper from 1940, a paper developer from 1940, a camera from 1940 and a lens from 1940.

And a photographer from 1940