how I get this grey tones?

hi,

thanks for the manifold and interesting answers.

there are some nice ideas and experiences.

may workflow at the moment is trix in rodinal, 1:100, stand development for 50 minutes.


an example from my shots:
6929850088_d152d09761_b.jpg

scanned with a cheap plustek 7400
 
k__43 said:
looks good

it's available everywhere in germany and by far one of the cheapest films. they are still selling the last agfa batches, also rebranded as Rollei Retro 100
check fotoimpex.de or maybe macodirekt.de will ship worldwide
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info, it will be worth a shot. The real stuff was really great. I used some fill in that shot.
 
Araakii said:
Would the film also play a role? This was taken in 1965 so I assume the film characteristics back then were pretty different from the ones we have now.
Click to expand...

Seven years later this thread resumes with another negatives scans. And this is why I quoted the comment above. This is the key to the common misunderstanding five years ago and in the current.

Which is:
People are asking about 1965 pictures on the internet - how do I get this look? They keep on asking this question but almost nobody is looking at the picture. What is pictured? If it is from 1965 it is scan of what?
Bingo! It is scan of the darkroom print.
And what most of the people are keep on asking? Right, how to make my negative scan looks like the print scan.

I have no idea and I'm finding this exercise useless. If you want it to look like a scan of the print, then do the print and scan.

Once you start to print, all talks about film developers and film types quickly becomes next to irrelevant.... Because where is negative developed to print from and where is negative developed to scan from.

On ex-APUG they did blind test of prints from different films. Conclusion was all looks very similar.

It is paper developer and paper which makes print and scan of the print looks different. This is what you need to know about pictures from 1965. Most, if not all of the papers made in 1965 are not made anymore, but still possible to find. They were single grade, not RC, but FB papers. Grade 4 gives rich contrast, grade one also gives contrast, but also tonal range...
 
When I started out in photography I was inspired by masters like David Vestal and Minor White, and strove to emulate their results in the dark room. Film/developer choice did influence the process somewhat but it was more about the contrast and quality of the negatives that could be perfectly printed on #2 fiber paper - Ilford Gallerie for general photography and Portriga Rapid for portraits. I did not understand how to properly expose a negative nor did I bother to study anything on a technical level, i.e., zones other then blindly rely on the camera center weighted meter until I tried to make a decent print from it. Once I understood what quality of negative I needed for a fine print did I understand how to expose for it. Film/developer is not so relevant other than dynamic range you can get out of it and desired grain. Consistency is more important.

Now my question is: can a 100% digital process yield a result close to classic David Vestal prints?
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Seven years later this thread resumes with another negatives scans. And this is why I quoted the comment above. This is the key to the common misunderstanding five years ago and in the current.

Which is:
People are asking about 1965 pictures on the internet - how do I get this look? They keep on asking this question but almost nobody is looking at the picture. What is pictured? If it is from 1965 it is scan of what?
Bingo! It is scan of the darkroom print.
And what most of the people are keep on asking? Right, how to make my negative scan looks like the print scan.

I have no idea and I'm finding this exercise useless. If you want it to look like a scan of the print, then do the print and scan.

Once you start to print, all talks about film developers and film types quickly becomes next to irrelevant.... Because where is negative developed to print from and where is negative developed to scan from.

On ex-APUG they did blind test of prints from different films. Conclusion was all looks very similar.

It is paper developer and paper which makes print and scan of the print looks different. This is what you need to know about pictures from 1965. Most, if not all of the papers made in 1965 are not made anymore, but still possible to find. They were single grade, not RC, but FB papers. Grade 4 gives rich contrast, grade one also gives contrast, but also tonal range...
Click to expand...

You nailed it KoFe. Film was never designed to scan in the first place. In 1965, I was shooting then, scanners didn't exist. Film was different and contained more silver. Everyone's beloved TX since 2006 is a totally different film from the 60's. I shot many thousand feet of TX in the 60's and can attest to that. As KoFe said virtually all of the papers from that time are gone. In that era we had leftovers of Ansco, we had DuPont verilour, velure black and varigam, polycontrast, medalist, kodabromide, ektalure, portriga and brivira to name only a few.

Most people scanning have no idea about using or how to use profiles, curves and levels. The end result of scanning a neg is completely different from wet printing on classic FB paper with dodging and burning. How many of you dodge and burn your scans? Bet not many.

In addition many of our favorite developers are gone as well as many films, Berichrome Pan, PX, KB14,KB17 original TX, Royal Pan, Super Pancro Press B, Super XX, Panatomic X and dozens more from Agfa,Ansco, DuPont, Adox and Kodak.

It's possible to make stunning scans with the right film and developer combo that fits YOUR technique and printing with the right enlarger and especially the right paper.

There are still excellent films and developers and IMO the best paper I've ever used is still on the market, Bergger FB Warmtone. Beautiful results don't happen over night. To make excellent prints takes years and honing all the skills in the process from correct exposure to development and learning excellent skills in printing, burning and dodging.
 
When I was sniffin chemicals back in the day..my biggest improvement in printing was doing contact prints on Chloride paper..astonishing results w/o much effort..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom