What film? How to achieve rich grey tones?

BetterSense · Jun 7, 2009

And then you need to leave the prints sit around for 70 years.

denmark.yuzon · Jun 8, 2009

ahahaha.. very good suggestion! now, wheres that time machine? lol..

Harry Lime · Jun 8, 2009

clayne said:
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?"

Rich gray tones was HCB's mantra, when he had his prints made and one of the main reasons why he stuck with the collapsible Summicron for almost 50 years...

Harry Lime · Jun 8, 2009

Ian Grant said:
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.
Ian

I agree. My two main 50's are a Nikkor-H.C 2/50mm (F-mount) and the Leica Summicron 2/50 DR. Both are single coated and produce wonderful, rich black and white images that I can't get from my more modern glass... The old pre-ASPH 50 Summilux falls somewhere in the middle.

There really is something special about the way a Tessar draws. Very creamy and three dimensional. Good stuff. The Xenar on my Rolleicord III is a good example/

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jun 9, 2009

jnanian said:
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 ...

I definitely hear you on that one, John (even though I never tried 777 or anything of the same ilk), but what I meant is more that I have the feeling that the OP is badly processing his film, then comparing it with vintage prints that definitely have a lower contrast, better midtones, etc.

So I'm pointing him to the first step towards that direction, i.e. : controlling exposure and development so that at least he gets decent midtones. After that, the next step is to evaluate whether that is enough, and if not then the OP may well go deeper into vintage madness by using older lenses, films, developers, papers, and so forth.

My hunch was simply that properly developed modern film, even in modern developer, using modern lenses, would be a step in the right direction that could satisfy at least some of the needs of the OP.

mawz · Jun 10, 2009

Harry Lime said:
I agree. My two main 50's are a Nikkor-H.C 2/50mm (F-mount) and the Leica Summicron 2/50 DR. Both are single coated and produce wonderful, rich black and white images that I can't get from my more modern glass... The old pre-ASPH 50 Summilux falls somewhere in the middle.

There really is something special about the way a Tessar draws. Very creamy and three dimensional. Good stuff. The Xenar on my Rolleicord III is a good example/

The Nikkor H.C in F mount is fully multi-coated, which is what the C in the lens name indicates Really a superb lens, arguably Nikon's best 50mm.

wogster · Jun 10, 2009

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:
I definitely hear you on that one, John (even though I never tried 777 or anything of the same ilk), but what I meant is more that I have the feeling that the OP is badly processing his film, then comparing it with vintage prints that definitely have a lower contrast, better midtones, etc.

So I'm pointing him to the first step towards that direction, i.e. : controlling exposure and development so that at least he gets decent midtones. After that, the next step is to evaluate whether that is enough, and if not then the OP may well go deeper into vintage madness by using older lenses, films, developers, papers, and so forth.

My hunch was simply that properly developed modern film, even in modern developer, using modern lenses, would be a step in the right direction that could satisfy at least some of the needs of the OP.

One other thing, we sometimes forget in threads as they age, are the important details. For example the OP uses a lab, rather then home processing. Who knows what developer the lab uses, and know knows what process the lab uses.

Many labs these days run prints off from a colour printing machine like a Lightjet, or a Frontier, some of these machines may have a B&W option, some don't, that process tends to add contrast, to compensate for the cheap cameras that Joe the Plumber thinks is high quality (he paid a whole $49,95 for it). If you compare that to a good quality hand made print, then of course it's going to look like overly contrasty crap.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jun 11, 2009

Yep, I had pointed out the lab aspect earlier on!

wogster · Jun 11, 2009

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:
Yep, I had pointed out the lab aspect earlier on!

Just reminding everyone, yourself included that the OP was using a lab.

Harry Lime · Jun 11, 2009

mawz said:
The Nikkor H.C in F mount is fully multi-coated, which is what the C in the lens name indicates Really a superb lens, arguably Nikon's best 50mm.

You are correct. It's multicoated, but it still has the bloom. Very nice lens for b/w work. Highly underrated by many.

Mark Antony · Jun 11, 2009

Harry it's my favourite Nikon lens too. I have both the H (with blue single coating) and HC with brownish-red coating both are exellent.
Here is one with the older 50mm F2 H

Wonderful lens I think its a Zeiss copy (but can't be sure)

What film? How to achieve rich grey tones?

BetterSense

denmark.yuzon

Harry Lime

Harry Lime

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

mawz

wogster

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

wogster

Harry Lime

Mark Antony

What film? How to achieve rich grey tones?

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency