film for creamy look in 35mm

[gb hill]

Most of the photo's posted has too much contrast for that creamy look. John has it nailed. I've seen that look. Pan F has that look if the right developer is used. I'm going to use it with some Perceptol in the spring when the light gets better. Not sure that combo will give me that creamy look, but with other films using Perceptol I've liked.

 

[gb hill]

I just developed a roll of Pan F in Perceptol. Seems pretty creamy to me.

Steel Web by mijosc79, on Flickr

Steel Web 2 by mijosc79, on Flickr

Steel Web 3 by mijosc79, on Flickr

Stillwater Liftbridge by mijosc79, on Flickr

That's close! What did you rate your Pan F at?

 

[jordanstarr]

FP4 in HC-110 is the "creamiest" combo I've worked with, but you can get those results with various other combinations. Other factors you need to consider are developer, the dilution of it, lighting situation, the subject in question, etc. Flat light will give you the best tonal range and finding a subject that has a good tonal range helps. After the shoot, consider the developer you're using and the dilution. A stronger developer might blow out the contrast, creating a harsher look and certain developers will give better tonality than others based on your film, dilution, agitation methods.

 

[mijosc]

That's close! What did you rate your Pan F at?

Straight up 50.

 

[teddy]

I don't agree with some users recommending Acros 100 and Delta or TMax 100, these are high contrast films.

I recommend Adox 20, 50 or 100 or Fomapan films in Rodinal - stand developed 1/100 and for 60 mins. Also, HP5 400 in stand development will give you very interesting smooth grayscales. It's the grayscales, the resolution of the films and the sharp lenses that will give you that creamy look. Avoid high contrast films and normal agitation unless somehow you can pull the creamy "50's" large format look in 35mm. Preferably, go for the slow, hi res films. With Ilford Pan F 50, you need to tame the highlights - so this means stand development.

Some examples:

Leica Summicron 50/2 DR, Green Filter, f4
Fomapan 100, Adonal 1/100 Stand Development @ 60 mins, normal rfix and rinse

Leica Summaron 35/2.8, wide open
Fomapan 100, Adonal 1/100 Stand Development @ 60 mins, normal rfix and rinse

Leica Summaron 35/2.8, f11
Ilford HP5 400, Adonal 1/100 Stand Development @ 60 mins, normal rfix and rinse

Leica Summicron 50/2 DR, Green Filter, f4
Fomapan 100, Adonal 1/100 Stand Development @ 60 mins, normal rfix and rinse

Leica Lemar 135/4, wide open
Fomapan 100, Adonal 1/100 Stand Development @ 60 mins, normal rfix and rinse

Leica Summicron 50/2 DR, Green Filter, f4
Fomapan 100, Adonal 1/100 Stand Development @ 60 mins, normal rfix and rinse

 

[Doug]

Ilford Pan 50, yes, there's another one that can be creamy-smooth. Used it more recently in an M2 with Heliar 75mm f/2.5, shot at EI 50, developed in Diafine...

 

[semilog]

I don't agree with some users recommending Acros 100 and Delta or TMax 100, these are high contrast films.

Like most films, they are not high-contrast if they are not over-developed. When I run ACROS in XTOL 1+1 at EI80, 9 min. @ 20°, I generally find myself printing onto grade 3 paper. These films are, however, very responsive to development time (that is a good thing) and one must therefore take some care not to over- or under-develop.

As Mike Johnston says: Expose enough. Don't develop too much.

 

[Kolame]

As this thread will move on, we'll have every film-developer combination to be said as pretty creamy. 🙄

 

[wblynch]

It appears that everyone seems to have a different concept of "creamy".

 

[amateriat]

It appears that everyone seems to have a different concept of "creamy".

For me, strictly speaking, I only think of the term regarding the rendering of skin in portraits (male or female, although it's usually the latter when people talk about this). The usual two criteria are smooth tonal gradation and fine to ultra-fine granularity, but lighting plays a vital part in the mix as well.

And, when said light is beyond your control, you need all the help you can get:

Skyline Pose, Staten Island Ferry, July 31, 2010

(Technical: Contax TVs, Kodak BW400CN)

I left out the drawing characteristics of a particular lens, and how some of us wouldn't think of photographing someone with certain lenses regardless of the film (or sensor) they happen to be parked in front of. Alchemy is the magic word here.


- Barrett

 

[Trius]

The reason 400 BW/CN looks "creamy" is that there technically is no grain, but dye clouds. At least IMO.

With any combination, post-processing can affect how we evaluate on the web.

As for eventually seeing every combination mentioned, I can't wait to see the Harvey's 777 samples. 😀

 

[timor]

As for eventually seeing every combination mentioned, I can't wait to see the Harvey's 777 samples. 😀

That might be tough. Hands up who is doing Harvey's 777 !!!
Who is doing any glycine film developer ?

 

[teddy]

To me, "creamy" in film means not necessarily low contrast, but low enough that the highlights don't burn out, with extended tonality. Particularly in the mid-tones. An image does not need to be high resolution, or necessarily have no grain, it has to do with tonality. Plus, the effect can be compounded with the type of lens, it's rendering of an image and also coma, curvature of field and other imperfections and so on. It can be very subjective, but I find in this case Leitz lenses, the ones from the 50's tend to give more of a "creamy" look.

Would be interesting to hear what others think of this opinion.

 

[teddy]

A better questions is, what is the creamiest image have you taken in 35mm format? Post some photos please! Then we can compare.

 

[mijosc]

Another shot with Pan F, developed in DDX.


20110605-01-27 by mijosc79, on Flickr

 

[redisburning]

Im going to say Acros too.

I dont attribute cream to the low contrast shots with huge amounts of grey in them. There is just something about Fuji Acros that screams cream, or creams scream, or something like that.

 

[Tom A]

This is with Kodak Tmax 2-400 (the new Tmax). Slight over exposure and Rodinal 1:100/19 min with agitation every 1 min.
Leica M2 and Zeiss C-Sonnar 50mm f1.5

 

[Peter_S]

My vote - without having tried many film/developer combinations as I am happy with FP4+ and Deltas - is your 2/50 Planar with Neopan 400 in HC-110. Certainly not grain-free though; again, avoiding over-development is key.

http://gallery.lfi-online.de/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28554&pos=1

 

[Gary Briggs]

WoW...what responses !!

WoW...what responses !!

I can't believe it....let no one say RFF'ers get torqued up only about equipment !!

Unfortunately I cannot reply at home, can't figure out why, and on get few opportunities to get on this computer.

You guys are posting some great stuff...how can anyone not understand the love of film ?!

I am trying to consume all that has been written while starting to learn how to develop. Have been using Acros 100 more as so many of you love it.

Thanks so much, this is turning into one of those threads I have loved to read/reread over the past couple years.

Gary

 

[Tom A]

Shot from a couple of days ago. This is with ORWO's UN 54 moviestock and developed in Pyrocat HD, semi stand development for 13 min. Very smooth and almost seamless grey scale. As most movie stocks it emphasizes the mid-tones without blocking shadows.
Even with a high contrast coated lens (Nikkor 35f1.8 SP 2005 version) it has a nice range to it. If it is "creamy" enough is probably up to the user - and as all black/white films, it can be manipulated a fair bit in developers and times. It is rated @ 100 iso here.
Available in 100 ft and 400 ft length. Nice replacement for the now defunct EK 5231 (movie version of +X).
The ptocess might sound a bit esoteric, Pyrocat, 400 ft cans of film, semi stand development etc - but it is not that complicated. You make your own Pyrocat HD (google it) and 500 ml of A and B will develop 2 cans of 400 ft of film + some extra. Cost per roll probably in the $0.08 - 0.10/roll!