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

[Godfrey]

Humphrey Spender went around a town called Bolton in the very late 1930s with a Leica and a Contax II, really high-end cameras. He used Agfa Isopan and a Kodak film and the photos in the archives look very soft. His original camera got stolen so the Contax II was a replacement. Looks so modern, yet the photos all look so soft.
...

What I see in those photos is more a matter of the lens used and the lab processing done to create the photos, not a base characteristic of the film.

Why do you think Ferrania is the best? Says it has almost no grain.

Because it produces beautiful negatives that seem to have tonal values, sharpness, and contrast in the same vein as old photos I have from my father and grandfather's time ... 1940s, 1950s. I've shot one roll of it with my 70 year old Kodak Retina IIIc and the results are absolutely beautiful to my eye, just as I know the original photos my mom made with her Retina IIIc in the 1950s look.

I've posted two of them. I think they're exceptional, and a good bit of it is the film because similar subject matter made on Ilford XP2 Super and HP5 and FP4 does not achieve the same depth and presence.

The Chair by the Church


Shadow Selfie on Fence

both: Kodak Retina IIIc + Xenon 50mm f/2
Ferrania P30 @ ISO 80​

The grain developed, as well as the contrast and sharpness, is a matter of both the processing and the printing/rendering work. It's an ISO 80 film, which should be sharp and low grain when processed optimally, but what developer you use at what dilution and temperature, and how you agitate the film, is key in this regard. If you want a softer, grainier result: underexpose, process in a more dilute developer solution at a higher temp for longer, etc. If you want the soft look of coma and flare, well, that comes from a low contrast lens without a coating. The softer, grainier look of the photos you presented seem also the result of rather casual exposure settings and processing...

There's a lot more to the look and feel of what you want than just what film you use. 🙂

G

--- Oh yes:
My latest experiment is a roll of HP5 exposed at EI 100 and processed in HC-110 Dilution H (1:61 from the concentrate) @72°F with continuous agitation for 8 minutes. Examining the negatives, the result is detailed, has a good bit of grain character, and has a softness and modest contrast that looks good to my eye. I'll know better when I scan them (tomorrow) and see what they look like inverted to a positive. It might indeed be something like the look you're reaching for.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Doesn't Adox have some films that are based on emulsions from the 1950s?
Adox CHS 100?

 

[retinax]

Were films really soft back then? I thought they had rather shorter scale than more modern films? So not in contrast terms, that I think would be due to lenses and the taste of the times in printing.

Anti-halation layers certainly weren't that good, that's something you can look for in films. Foma and Kentmere films aren't that great in this regard, and I think I recall one of the IR capable emulsions?

Also the films were slow. So a good part of any softness is due to camera shake and/or wide apertures.

 

[Horatio]

I think Foma 200 rated at 400 would meet your criteria. I’ll try to post a sample later.

 

[markjwyatt]

Here is another Fomapan 200- same series as previous. I think it has a 1930s look to it- mainly the tonality. Maybe it is related to the hyperpanchromatic type sensitivity of Foma films (also used M-Y filter)?


Rocky Beach and a Bird by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[Godfrey]

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. 😀

G

 

[Erik van Straten]

This is Kodak TMY 400 developed in Ilford Perceptol. Looks a bit grainy this time, maybe because the developer (undiluted) was a bit old and the LED-lightning was extremely soft.

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica III

Erik.

 

[markjwyatt]

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....?

...G

In the 30s there were three types of panchro film A (high blue sens., a carry-over from the the 20s and before), B (more like today's Panchro, maybe still lower blue sensitivity), and C (hyperpanchromatic, i.e., extended red sensitivity). I was referring to "C". It was not uncommon, and Foma film seems to fit that pattern.

 

[nintendo64lad]

lens: uncoated elmar from 1936
film: kodak double x, fomapan 200, ferrania p30

developer fixer and stopper kit: ?

What developer, fixer and stopper kit should I use that's easy and gives a retro look?

Anyone used DF96?

 

[Evergreen States]

The brand of stop bath and fixer don't contribute to the look. Stop bath just arrests development. Fixer washes the silver away and sets the image. All brands do the exact same thing and will have no effect on the retro look. Your next choices have to do with your optical printing or scanning/digital printing pipeline.

I've used distilled white vinegar as stop bath but a dedicated stop bath is actually cheaper. Some people don't even use stop bath and just skip to the fixer.

 

[nintendo64lad]

The brand of stop bath and fixer don't contribute to the look. Stop bath just arrests development. Fixer washes the silver away and sets the image. All brands do the exact same thing and will have no effect on the retro look. Your next choices have to do with your optical printing or scanning/digital printing pipeline.

I've used distilled white vinegar as stop bath but a dedicated stop bath is actually cheaper. Some people don't even use stop bath and just skip to the fixer.

What about the developer?

Here's another (big) photo from 1934 that looks soft.

 

[filmtwit]

Here's a very long and interesting thread of Kodak Double X

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52426

 

[Doug A]

Much of the difference between the look of 30's photographs and modern photographs is down to the lenses. The best of the older lens designs emphasized sharpness at the expense of contrast but the biggest difference was the lack of anti-reflective coating on the older lenses. Trying to mimic the appearance of the old photographs with modern multi-coated high contrast lenses involves so many other tradeoffs that the results are seldom very convincing.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

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

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Much of the difference between the look of 30's photographs and modern photographs is down to the lenses. The best of the older lens designs emphasized sharpness at the expense of contrast but the biggest difference was the lack of anti-reflective coating on the older lenses. Trying to mimic the appearance of the old photographs with modern multi-coated high contrast lenses involves so many other tradeoffs that the results are seldom very convincing.

A great point Doug. I don't think you could get old school results with modern ASPH lenses. There are so many older lenses available to work with, i'm sure a person could find any number of which would give the desired look. As well, what is the old school look you're after.... there are decades of photographs to chose from. I'm a huge fan of Tessars in MF, and of Dagors & Heliars in LF. Sharp, clinical, modern isn't everyone's answer.

 

[Godfrey]

A great point Doug. I don't think you could get old school results with modern ASPH lenses. There are so many older lenses available to work with, i'm sure a person could find any number of which would give the desired look. As well, what is the old school look you're after.... there are decades of photographs to chose from. I'm a huge fan of Tessars in MF, and of Dagors & Heliars in LF. Sharp, clinical, modern isn't everyone's answer.

I will have to pull out my 1939 Zeiss Sonnar 40mm f/2 (uncoated). It's in Berning Robot mount, but I have the adapters to fit it onto my Leica M4-2 or CL (digital), and it covers a square format on 35mm well. I'll compare same shots against the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9, essentially a late '80s/early '90s design.

G

 

[bluesun267]

Current Double-XX bears virtually no resemblance to previous iterations (and it came out in the 1950s, but that's splitting hairs). The current version doesn't even look the same as it did in the 1990s (I've shot a lot of it in 16mm). XX has been constantly 'improved' and changed over the years which is in keeping with the motion picture industry's believed needs (there's similarity in still films' improvements although there's usually bigger acknowledgement and marketing than in the motion picture world);

But the biggest difference between Kodak B/W films of today and yesteryear is to be found in Kodak's relentless internal pursuit of lower and lower silver content and hence lower material cost. Not necessarily a bad thing--(I really love Tmax 400). But this is I believe the biggest reason why it's so hard to make modern film look like older film.

Foma may be immune to this, since there's a lot of expense to the R&D of lowering silver content which Foma do not have to invest.

I'm with the others here in that using older lenses and experimenting with developers will be a much more fruitful (and satisfying) pursuit of your goal. One great 1930s lens that immediately comes to mind is the Rolleicord 1 or 2 with the 3 element Triotar.

 

[Freakscene]

I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the most 1930s-looking 35mm" but I realy like the look that Fomapan 200 delivers, and it is a film that I believe was being produced in the 1930s. How could you go wrong?

Foma 200 includes monosize technology that was invented and implemented in the 1980s. There are no films today made using the same technologies that were used in the 1930s. Eastman Kodak XX 5222 is the longest surviving film and has been identical since 1959.

Marty

 

[Freakscene]

Current Double-XX bears virtually no resemblance to previous iterations (and it came out in the 1950s, but that's splitting hairs). The current version doesn't even look the same as it did in the 1990s (I've shot a lot of it in 16mm). XX has been constantly 'improved' and changed over the years which is in keeping with the motion picture industry's believed needs (there's similarity in still films' improvements although there's usually bigger acknowledgement and marketing than in the motion picture world);

But the biggest difference between Kodak B/W films of today and yesteryear is to be found in Kodak's relentless internal pursuit of lower and lower silver content and hence lower material cost. Not necessarily a bad thing--(I really love Tmax 400). But this is I believe the biggest reason why it's so hard to make modern film look like older film.

Foma may be immune to this, since there's a lot of expense to the R&D of lowering silver content which Foma do not have to invest.

I'm with the others here in that using older lenses and experimenting with developers will be a much more fruitful (and satisfying) pursuit of your goal. One great 1930s lens that immediately comes to mind is the Rolleicord 1 or 2 with the 3 element Triotar.

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

 

[agentlossing]

Foma 200 includes monosize technology that was invented and implemented in the 1980s. There are no films today made using the same technologies that were used in the 1930s. Eastman Kodak XX 5222 is the longest surviving film and has been identical since 1959.

Marty

Foma 200 is billed as a more modern film, I believe it uses a mix of cubic and tabular grain patterns. So you end up with some grain, but also very sharp detail.

Others have suggested to the OP that lenses might have had a lot more to do with it than the film types. Older, slightly lower-contrast lenses, maybe with subtle light reflections through different parts of the lens which we aren't used to in modern lenses and which imparts a particular look.

You might get closer to the look you want with a very modern film type, actually. I'm thinking Ilford Delta, with its very smooth look and fine grain, can be processed so that the tones are captured very well through the range but a bit compressed into the middle, resulting in the lack of extreme contrast. I shot a tiny bit of Delta 400 and liked the look of it, possibly pulling it a little bit or just overexposing a little, might have a nice effect.