Best black and white 35mm film for that soft, vintage look?

Freakscene said:
5222 from 2021 produces identical curves to samples from 1959 if developed to the same CI (I have test samples from numerous batches). The coating line has probably been changed a few times.

That films are changing to make them ‘lower silver’ is a myth and demonstrates a lack of understanding about film research and development.

Marty
Click to expand...

Ignoring the marginally rude tone of your response, I would ask: What are your qualifications?

I will give mine: 40 years as a filmmaker and 25 in motion picture archiving and preservation.

Thinking that Kodak doesn't continually try to reduce manufacturing cost (of which silver is a big one) displays a rather naive view of basic business acumen in a capitalist system.

But, Kodak can be commended for achieving effectively equal results (from a measurement perspective) while the manufacturing process has changed many times over the last 60 years. But graphs and curves don't tell the full story of how a film will behave when employed toward aesthetic means. Otherwise there would never be the question: "How can I make a picture look like it was taken X number of years ago?"

If you had personally handled as much motion picture film as I have, you would be at a loss to explain the profound differences that are clearly visible between 1959 and today given your beliefs.

Shooting Double XX today is not some sort of magical trip back to 1959 simply because the brand name hasn't changed.
 
I dislike the subject look, so I avoid Tri x at all costs. To enhance soft look use divided D23 or Leica Developer ( similar if not same) or water bath. I used to use divided 23 with Plus X
which I think was the the best film ever made. Gave me great shadows and printable highlights.

Just put divided D23 in Duck duck go.

Look at the images on Leica divided D23 developer
 
Godfrey said:
Actually, most B&W film from the 1920s through early 1960s, even if panchromatic, were far more blue-UV sensitive than modern panchromatic emulsions. That's why a UV or light Yellow filter were considered essential to good B&W photography. The UV scatter would lay a veiling fog on unfiltered captures. Perhaps that's some of the "glow" that is being considered part of the old-film aesthetic...?

Sometime in the later 1960s, more even spectral characteristics towards a truly neutral panchromatic sensitivity became the norm, but most photographers were still shooting with a light yellow filter virtually all the time. This had the effect of increasing capture contrast and exaggerating grain to a degree. This is one of the things that contributes to the late-'60s "Tri-X in D76 look" that is/was a very popular aesthetic.

But back to my "HP5 @ ISO 100" project. I just finished scanning the negatives and am evaluating the results. The effect of two stops overexposure coupled with extended development at a slightly higher temperature than nom using a highly dilution solution of HC-110 has reduced contrast across the board, softened edge effects while still retaining nice detail, and created a much soft, largish grain structure in the emulsion. It's really nice, actually: I'm going to shoot more of this!

I'll work up a couple of examples a little later. :D

G
Click to expand...
This is something I would like to try myself.
Can you possibly give more details on the “highly diluted HC110, extended development time and slightly higher temperature?
Thank you.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Just get some D76 and a hardening fixer. Use water for stop bath. Make sure your developer, water stop, and fixer are all within a degree of each other. You could use HC110 as well. Before you try getting a specific look in your images through film + developing choice, you should get familiar and proficient with the process itself. Setting a specific look as a goal may be setting yourself up for disappointment in your first dozen rolls before you get everything with the process really down.
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

OP, if you don't have much experience developing your own film, you should take Phil's advice here. Pick either HP5 or Delta and either D76 or HC110. Get good at one film and one developer before exploring special effects. You can use your uncoated vintage lens for this.
 
Common mistake of these days. Old lens - checked. Somewhat "old looking" film - checked.
What is completely forgotten is what those look seekers are not looking at the film. They are looking at the darkroom prints.

Want it retro, get old darkroom single grade #1, #2 FB paper and print on it. Old FB SG DR paper from seventies is still printable. AGFA and Ilfobrome are 100% guaranteed if they were not light leaked.

I have shown prints on this paper to regular viewers, they asked me "which year is this?"
 
Kodak Plus X. Used it for decades. But alas seems to be out out of stock everywhere.

If you overexpose any film 1 stop and cut development 15% it works wonders. Also print on diffusion enlarger
 
nintendo64lad, have you been able to move forward on this? I'd love to hear about your progress because this undertaking sounds really cool.
 
Polypan f 50 (bleeding highlights)
Example not my photo
 

Attachments

  • photo111600.jpg
    photo111600.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 1
Ronald M said:
Kodak Plus X. Used it for decades. But alas seems to be out out of stock everywhere.

If you overexpose any film 1 stop and cut development 15% it works wonders. Also print on diffusion enlarger
Click to expand...

I also love Plus-X, but Kodak discontinued it in 2011. I bought a couple of bricks then and still have some rolls in my fridge. Beautiful mid-tones. I exposed it at 320 and developed in Diafine, and was very pleased w/ the results. Since Kodak discontinued Plus-X, I’ve been on a quest to find a replacement that gives rich dark grays and mid-tones that I associate with Plus-X. Whether this look is truly 1930s or not, I think of it as “vintage.” The closest I’ve come, at least to my eyes, is Foma 200 and Eastman XX (including the version marketed by Cinestill). I’ve posted some photos with Foma 200 upthread. These two were taken on Eastman XX, with a Leitz Summaron 35mm f3.5 lens:

BA100D24-DFBD-4C97-B146-55E6EB0F1523.jpeg D0CC77E6-4E13-46CA-9F55-EA8B0F155CB0.jpeg
 
I’m pleased that Eastman XX appears more widely available, particularly the version marketed as Cinestill XX, and I’m planning to use it more. Recently, I’ve experimented with developing XX in D96 Monobath. I don’t know that the results are 1930-ish, but the results seem promising.

56DA8214-396A-4F64-82AD-9891D3FAA0C2.jpeg 7A49D815-F502-48D3-8744-24ABE8A78132.jpeg
 
gelatin silver print (elmar 50mm f3.5 uncoated) leica 1a (1928)

Tmax400 in Perceptol 1+3.

Erik.

51826494727_7fe3cd24da_b.jpg
 
Adox Silvermax (also sold as Scala) had a remarkable "vintage" look, with a very high silver content and extremely long scale, but it was discontinued a year ago (I believe it was Agfa's last run of the film, marketed by Adox). If you can find some, grab it! I've looked, without success.
 
I really like Ilford FP4 for low contrast, soft tones. Further enhanced by gentle development, and careful processing. Older single coated lenses can help with the softer look as well.
 
Bingley said:
I’m pleased that Eastman XX appears more widely available, particularly the version marketed as Cinestill XX, and I’m planning to use it more. Recently, I’ve experimented with developing XX in D96 Monobath. I don’t know that the results are 1930-ish, but the results seem promising.

Click to expand...

Wow, those have beautiful tonality. The first one was shot in harsh sun, a worst-case scenario for tonality and yet it retained good detail in the brightly lit and shadowed areas. Nice!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom