How can i get a film to look like this?

S

scottyb70

Well-known
Local time
4:32 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
218
Here is a website and I really llke how this photographer converts his digital images to b&w. I am trying to figure out how I can do this with real b&w film. I have been experimenting with fuji 100 arcos, hp, rollei retro 100, rollei atp 1.1, tmax 400. I have yet to use the rollei retro 100, adox 100 art and efke kb 25. Most of my b&w films are medium format and I use the old vintage folders.

The developers I have been using are tmax and hc-110 with the kodak stop bath. I do have a sample of the Rollei ATp DC with Agefix that I haven't used on a film yet.

My rollei atp was sent out to be developed into positive slides and I can't wait to get them back.

I noticed when I scan these films with my epson 4990 I usually get the basic light gray look. I am pretty sure my negatives are coming out correctly. I am using the standard 1:63-64 dilution rate for the hc-110.

I really like the dark contrast look with fine grain and sharp details.

Here is a link to the website.

http://www.lonelywolf.pl/index.php?page=home
 
Heavy filtration, red and orange. Generous exposure will almost certainly help. A tripod, for maximum sharpness.

Ortho is not red sensitive, and renders skies light, not dark, unless filtered.

Cheers,

R.
 
well... it seems like the look you want is more off a sharp modern lens look. I think that' going to be hard to replicate with a vintage folder type camera. I bet if you gave the mamiya 7 and its lenes a try you'd get closer to the look you're going for. I also happen to really like the pentax 67 (cheaper than a mamiya 7 too) And hey.. if what you're trying to replicate is a look from someone who shoots digital.... why not go pick up a cheap dslr.
 
Huh. So he uses a Canon 5D and then manipulates the images to get this look. Whadya know...

You wouldn't have been pulling our leg now would you Scotty?
 
Film never looks like that no matter what you do unless you follow the steps below.

You can make a HDR from scans of two or more frames with varying exposure on each. Then scan preserving the shadows on the "overexposed frames" and preserving the highlight on the underexposed ones. You will need to take the scanner out of any automatic exposure control.

The procedure is the same exactly as if you made a series of bracketed exposures with a digi cam. You will get to exactly the same place.
 
I'm not crazy about HDR stuff, but 'to each his own.' I have a combo that gives me something like what you are talking about (I think): Ilford SFX, red filter, EI 40, HC110h ( can't remember the time but you can PM me and I'll look it up). Here are two of mine:

3344600468_876fd0f730.jpg


3344598458_f71b66bb5a.jpg
 
It's not really about your negatives- it's about the prints (or the look on the screen if you're sharing images digitally). Yes, you can filter your lenses and tweak the contrast of your negatives- but why? If you start with good, normal (or even slightly flat!) negatives, you can do every manipulation possible in either the wet darkroom or PS and achieve just about any look you could want.

Split filtration printing on variable contrast paper is an easy way to mimic HDR on wet prints. Build just enough density in the highlights with the low contrast filter, and add as much punch as you want with medium and high contrast filters to whatever areas or tones of the image you want. (There are many good threads in the archives here and on a few other sites about split filtration printing if you want more info.)

Want digital sharing from film? Start with the same good negatives, get good scans, and process in PS for the look you're after- just like starting from RAW files.

If you shoot and process to get good clean negatives with the longest tonal range possible, you can translate those negatives into any kind of positive image you like, with as much or as little contrast and range of density and detail as you like. That's one of the beautiful things about film and shooting negatives- you still then have to translate that negative somehow into a positive. This affords you another layer of control in how you manipulate the image into a positive. This is where I feel I really get to put my stamp on an image and make it my own. It's what this craft is all about.
 
Shoot bracketed exposures with film. Scan them in as RAW files in Silverfast AI. Align them in photoshop so that they are exactly the same alignment. Import them into Photomatix, or some other HDR software. Tonemap the images and export as a 16bit tiff. Curves/levels in photoshop and you're done.

That's a hell of a lot of work. You may as well just shoot digital and add some grain in photoshop.
 
scottyb70 said:
I really like the dark contrast look with fine grain and sharp details.
Click to expand...

Those are digital's forte.

Film b&w photographs are not going to compare with digital without going to medium-format or larger, but as the sum of all parts, they are nicer to my eyes especially darkroom/wet prints.
 
take the pics at sunrise, and then photoshop them to within an inch of their lives.



yes i know its a bit rough in places but i only spent 5 min on it, and yes i think it looks awful too
 
Those prints Maciej Duczynski's site look more like traditional masking and local contrast adjustment - rather than automatic HDR tone mapping.
 
It's not only feasible with HDR tone mapping.

You can start out with a single film frame, clone layers and channels and develop them separately, then erasing certain parts of the layers to allow a previous layer to re-appear.

Final tweak is to decide on the opacity for each layer, so you can control rather acurately what the presence in the final shot of that layer will be.

HDR simply is the way to go for folks that want to wow the non-educated beholder. It's quick and easy.

Starting out from a single shot and developing into layers with their own contrast, brightness, color tone and opacity is like wet printing, where you had to hold back or push, know your paper and developer, etc.

It is possible to start out with a good negative and digitally develop it to baryt printing quality. But it takes a heck of a lot of time. I don't care, I like figuring it out.
 
The Rollei infrared film gives some very bold contrast. Grain is extremely fine, and skies (when using the proper filter) are very dark.

Then you don't need software to achieve what you want.

A shot with this film. Should have removed my custom-made lens shade, as it vignetted in the corners. My fault.

Contax IIa, f/2.8 35mm Biogon.

Flag_poles_800.jpg
 
Try a red filter with Acros or Tmax (esposed as 50) and use a tripod.
Then while developing use a long development time coupled with low agitation using HC110-dilH or Rodinal 1+100 for super long tonal range
Print in darkroom with masking

scottyb70 said:
Here is a website and I really llke how this photographer converts his digital images to b&w. I am trying to figure out how I can do this with real b&w film. I have been experimenting with fuji 100 arcos, hp, rollei retro 100, rollei atp 1.1, tmax 400. I have yet to use the rollei retro 100, adox 100 art and efke kb 25. Most of my b&w films are medium format and I use the old vintage folders.

The developers I have been using are tmax and hc-110 with the kodak stop bath. I do have a sample of the Rollei ATp DC with Agefix that I haven't used on a film yet.

My rollei atp was sent out to be developed into positive slides and I can't wait to get them back.

I noticed when I scan these films with my epson 4990 I usually get the basic light gray look. I am pretty sure my negatives are coming out correctly. I am using the standard 1:63-64 dilution rate for the hc-110.

I really like the dark contrast look with fine grain and sharp details.

Here is a link to the website.

http://www.lonelywolf.pl/index.php?page=home
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom