My B&Ws look retro style/ old fashioned

[varchs]

Hello to all RFF friends!!!
I have started taking photos again, after a some years break.
I am using the rollei retro 400 mostly pushed... and I think that my pictures look retro / aged / old fashioned / nostalgic etc... :-(

Do you think the same for all the B&W photos?

It might happens, because of pushing the film? (400->1600).

Do you have any examples of contemporary B&W photography that does not have an old essence???

ex. Rotterdam: HP5+@400

 

[Murchu]

I like the image myself, but am rather partial to non-modern looking images. Perhaps more modern emulsions, such as Acros/ T-Max/ Delta/ etc will give you the results you wanted. Places like Flickr can be a good source to see what certain film/ developer combos look like, but how much so, I am not sure, given scanning technique and post processing will also be factors affecting the look.

 

[charjohncarter]

I like the image myself, but am rather partial to non-modern looking images. Perhaps more modern emulsions, such as Acros/ T-Max/ Delta/ etc will give you the results you wanted. Places like Flickr can be a good source to see what certain film/ developer combos look like, but how much so, I am not sure, given scanning technique and post processing will also be factors affecting the look.

Correct, Tmax/Delta for sure.

 

[mbisc]

I don't think film choice is as important for "old look" as paper choices, motives (or digital post-processing). This image was taken with TMax100 film, and IMHO definitely has an "old look."



Purana Qila - South Gate (BW) by nbg90455, on Flickr

 

[varchs]

Thank you all!
I will try the T-max & Delta... but after researching flickr it seems to me that it might be a assignment to me to make some futuristic B&W without nostalgia...
I think that it may be more white & with out grain...
So more light, more ambient light, and slower film...
I'll try it and I'll let you know! ;-)

P.S. My only "issue" is that I have almost 10 more rollei 400 films... :angel:

 

[Roger Hicks]

Will other films really make a difference? I most sincerely doubt it. Same for printing. There's always a style du jour -- and often, it's incompetently imitated. Then, of course, there are those who are imitating the style du jour of 20-30-40-50 years ago (or more).

Ask yourself what you don't like about your pics. Then why. Then how to cure it.

As a small exercise, just cover up the two people walking out of shot in the picture posted. Suddenly it's a lot more graphic, a lot stronger. Still not a great picture, but a lot better. Get rid of the other two people, better again. Get the tonality right so the tower block isn't merging into the sky (filtration, more exposure, better printed...), better again. And so forth.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thegman]

If you don't mind C41 films, try XP2 Super or Kodak BW400CN. You get a clean/grainless black and white image with those two.

 

[varchs]

Thank you all again!

I am about to reach the point that the issue it is not a matter of film quality...

Thank you Roger for pointing out the image components organisation... I will try to think more about which should be the vocabulary of contemporary appealing B&W.
...one think may be a more minimalistic composition...

many (...) means that I am still thinking of all these ideas. Excuse me about it.

 

[timor]

Roger is very right. Beauty of film photography is not in what given emulsion can give you, but what you can do with it. That require just one thing - time, time to learn how to love it and there is a billion possibilities.

 

[varchs]

Thank you all for your thoughts!
I am testing some film with my lenses optimum settings 35mm f8 (EF 28-105 USM II).

I will post the results...! ;-)

 

[Photo_Smith]

What you need to do is drop the idea of optimum settings and look at communicating the things you see around you in 2D image form.
Your posted image is fine to a point... but a little confusing.
The subject seems to be the sculpture which is held back by the large benches that take up the bottom third.
Don't take it personally, I just feel they are a literal 'barrier' to the subject for me, the people bother me less but are extraneous to the story I think you want to tell.
As for films that don't look 'retro' I'd say the fine grain ones or the C41 B&W look quite modern...
10 years old but doesn't look too retro:

Kodak C41 mono

Have fun...

 

[varchs]

I have found I V500 Epson flatbed scanner from my sister, and it produces a more precise tonality...
Black is real black and white is real white... unfortunately it does not have such many MPxls.
But your comments make also sense... communications have to be a fact. I have to work on it more...

 

[charjohncarter]

I don't think film choice is as important for "old look" as paper choices, motives (or digital post-processing). This image was taken with TMax100 film, and IMHO definitely has an "old look."



Purana Qila - South Gate (BW) by nbg90455, on Flickr

I get that old VeriChrome feeling (long tone) with TmaX100, not taken by me, but Verichrome:

and TmaX100, by me:

 

[hepcat]

Hello to all RFF friends!!!
I have started taking photos again, after a some years break.
I am using the rollei retro 400 mostly pushed... and I think that my pictures look retro / aged / old fashioned / nostalgic etc... :-(

Do you think the same for all the B&W photos?

I agree with Roger as well, but I think your statement above is a little nebulous... perhaps it might be useful if you tell us why you think the image looks old fashioned.

I'm not seeing that. I see a snapshot here... not a lot of thought to composition, and the tonality is quite flat with a total loss of detail in the sky. The midtones are... well... midtones.

One of the problems with film today is that you either have to scan the negative or a print, and I find that the loss of the printing step to monitor viewing leaves a lot to be desired for internet viewing. It just isn't the same for me as gallery viewing in person for B&W.

But back to the basic question... what makes you think this photo looks old fashioned? What do you see?