Recreating an orthochromatic look

[djhurley92]

Hi,

I'm looking to get an orthochromatic look for portraiture on a modern b&w film like Pan F+. I guess I should use a blue filter, but I can't find one anywhere. Can anyone recommend a (not too expensive) brand, or an alternative idea? B+W don't seem to do it. My lens takes a 39mm filter.

Thanks
David

 

[charjohncarter]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TIFFEN-39MM-80A-BLUE-FILTER-IN-ORIGINAL-BOX-W-INSTRUCTIONS-/171036789986

It looks like Tiffen at least made one. This is US Ebay, but maybe you could at least watch for one in the UK.

From you avatar it looks like a Leica screw mount. I would check because the treads may not fit. I'm not sure the screw mount 39mm lenses were designed for filters rather for access to the front element.

I have a UV 39mm that tightens (from Leitz) on the lens ring. You could get some Blue 'gel' (really plastic) that is used in lighting for strobe covers and cut a piece to fit the tighten on almost clear filter.

 

[djhurley92]

Okay thanks for the idea I'll set up a few ebay notifications. Hopefully tiffen is high enough quality not to mess with the sharpness too much although I have no experience with them. I was also wondering if anyone had any input on the general idea or had tried this before.

 

[charjohncarter]

Maybe try Fomapan 100.

 

[f16sunshine]

Hi David

Just Shoot some Ortho. You can still find the film easy enough.
I have a good size box in my freezer with ortho 25 in 135 and 120.... nice for portraits 🙂

 

[tsiklonaut]

Why not use Rollei Ortho 25 and skip all the BS on recreating or simulating "look"? Filters don't do the whole trick, filters almost always regress the image quality. Just shoot the real thing on dedicated emulsion. I.e. many famous portraits of celebs in 60/70s were shot on orthochromatic films, especially skin colors on men work out really great:

Rollei Ortho 25​

 

[djhurley92]

Great photos. Okay - I might try Ortho 25. The effect wasn't as strong as I've seen on old photos (very dark skin, white iris for blue eyed people) so I thought maybe it wasn't true orthographic, but after looking it up I guess it must be.

 

[DominikDUK]

Great photos. Okay - I might try Ortho 25. The effect wasn't as strong as I've seen on old photos (very dark skin, white iris for blue eyed people) so I thought maybe it wasn't true orthographic, but after looking it up I guess it must be.

Those old pictures (ie. collodion or callotypes) were not made with orthochromatic emulsions but with emulsions that were only sensitive to blue light and UV (sometimes referred to as color-blind emulsions). The first ortho emulsions were made around 1884.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why not use Rollei Ortho 25 and skip all the BS on recreating or simulating "look"? Filters don't do the whole trick, filters almost always regress the image quality. Just shoot the real thing on dedicated emulsion. I.e. many famous portraits of celebs in 60/70s were shot on orthochromatic films, especially skin colors on men work out really great:

Which 1960s and 1970s ortho films were you thinking of?

Also, what on earth does "almost always regress the image quality" mean?

Have you tested the effect of image filters on quality? I and most people I know (including better experimentalists than I) have found no detectable deterioration in real-world pictures except when shooting directly into light sources. What is the nature of the deterioration you have seen?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jockos]

If it's for a short project, I'll lend you mine! Throw me a PM if you're interested 🙂

 

[tsiklonaut]

Which 1960s and 1970s ortho films were you thinking of?

I'm not from that generation, but I know both Kodak and Agfa had orthochromatic films on the market, Agfa still makes it (now under Rollei Ortho 25 trademark).

Many famous Elvis Presley portraits were done on orthochromatic films. Or the iconic pic of the Union Jack on South Magnetic Pole, 1908. I find the modern day Ortho 25 does have certain tonal qualities that aren't acheivable by using just a blue filter on a regular full spectrum film.

Also, what on earth does "almost always regress the image quality" mean?

Have you tested the effect of image filters on quality? I and most people I know (including better experimentalists than I) have found no detectable deterioration in real-world pictures except when shooting directly into light sources. What is the nature of the deterioration you have seen?

Well it means precisely that - reducing image quality. I have tested many filters and I could tell WORLDs of quality loss using cheap to medium price-range filters on my own photos, i.e. the popular Cokin pro line filters that visually soften the sharpness, especially the corners, introduce unwanted color casts (especially their NDs and GNDs) and as with any filter you lose light-power (it's around 4% loss on each surface the lightbeam has to pass, multicoating reduces it, but it's still a loss - i.e. if you have 2 completely clear filters non-coated in front of a lens you'll already lose around 16% of the light). Also if you use two or more low- or medium pricerange filters the results often render just visually softer in sharpness compared to a non-filtered shot, add reduced contrast and degraded midtones wise, horrible glow when shooting against the light. I've been there and done that, started with the cheap filters thinking it's a smart move but and constantly dissapointed with results I've kept buying the better ones, and ended up with the high-ends.

IMHO, unless you look for lo-fi only high-end filters, multi coated and made out of high quality glass preserve more or less the IQ one would expect to, and only if you use 1 max 2 filters at time. I've tested them all the way from cheap to high ends and ended up using now Lee (GNDs, non-coated), B+W and Heliopan filters (all multicoated versions), and I find even those very expensive filters can degrade image quality in certain conditions, i.e. shooting against the light or using them on very wide angle lenses (reducing corner sharpness).


Cheers,
Margus

 

[djhurley92]

Okay thank you for the help, I'll pick up some Ortho 25 next time I am passing through London.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not from that generation, but I know both Kodak and Agfa had orthochromatic films on the market, Agfa still makes it (now under Rollei Ortho 25 trademark).

Many famous Elvis Presley portraits were done on orthochromatic films. Or the iconic pic of the Union Jack on South Magnetic Pole, 1908. I find the modern day Ortho 25 does have certain tonal qualities that aren't acheivable by using just a blue filter on a regular full spectrum film.

Well it means precisely that - reducing image quality. I have tested many filters and I could tell WORLDs of quality loss using cheap to medium price-range filters on my own photos, i.e. the popular Cokin pro line filters that visually soften the sharpness, especially the corners, introduce unwanted color casts (especially their NDs and GNDs) and as with any filter you lose light-power (it's around 4% loss on each surface the lightbeam has to pass, multicoating reduces it, but it's still a loss - i.e. if you have 2 completely clear filters non-coated in front of a lens you'll already lose around 16% of the light). Also if you use two or more low- or medium pricerange filters the results often render just visually softer in sharpness compared to a non-filtered shot, add reduced contrast and degraded midtones wise, horrible glow when shooting against the light. I've been there and done that, started with the cheap filters thinking it's a smart move but and constantly dissapointed with results I've kept buying the better ones, and ended up with the high-ends.

IMHO, unless you look for lo-fi only high-end filters, multi coated and made out of high quality glass preserve more or less the IQ one would expect to, and only if you use 1 max 2 filters at time. I've tested them all the way from cheap to high ends and ended up using now Lee (GNDs, non-coated), B+W and Heliopan filters (all multicoated versions), and I find even those very expensive filters can degrade image quality in certain conditions, i.e. shooting against the light or using them on very wide angle lenses (reducing corner sharpness).


Cheers,
Margus

Dear Margus,

Well, to start with, "regress" and "reduce" do not mean the same thing, so it ain't "precisely that".

Yes, many companies made ortho films. Ilford still does, as far as I know. But by the 1960s these were sheet films, not roll or 35mm, and were therefore little used for portraiture. Especially of pop stars and actors.

The differences between old and new images are not just down to sensitization, either. Consider also format size, exposure, internal camera reflections, and coated vs. uncoated lenses, to say nothing of the use of lens shades/hoods. My suggestion is that all of these are at least as important as sensitization vs. blue filters.

As for filters: were these "real world" tests (substantially non-quantifiable, so you could see what you wanted to see) or test targets (which don't necessarily relate to the real world)? The formal tests of which I am aware are the latter; the informal, the former.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Landshark]

Blue filters were pretty common.

80A,B,C,& D were all conversion filters from tungsten to daylight.
There are also color compensating filters in gel. Roscoe makes a series of them for lighting but they're not an optically clear filter.

Take a look on the bay for "color conversion filter" 39mm may not be very common.

 

[Dwig]

Blue filters were pretty common.

80A,B,C,& D were all conversion filters from tungsten to daylight....

Color correcting filters (e.g. Wratten 80a, 80b, ...) will NOT do the trick. They pass all colors with only a slight bias to passing blues more than reds.

To get the effect of classic color-blind emulsions you need filters that completely, or nearly so, block portions of the spectrum. Orthochromatic (meaning "all colors" but it was a slight lie) films see predominantly blue and green while seeing yellows weakly and not seeing reds to any significant degree. Blue sensitive (aka color blind emulsions like those common in the 19th century) see UV, blue, a little green, and nothing else.

To simulate blue sensitive films you want a Wratten #47 ("C" in the ancient letter designations). To simulate orthochromatic emulsions a Wratten #11 (X1 in the old designation) yellow-green filter or perhaps a Wratten #58 green. The #58 passes little blue an may not deliver the desired results while the #11 passes all except red.

 

[Peter_Jones]

If you want to see the whites of their eyes, try using paper as a neg (depending on camera). I think this will give you the look you are seeking.

 

[Schlapp]

Or Kodak Fine Grain Positive film.

 

[traveler_101]

Ortho 25 by Agfa. Following the suggested link I found this:
"Orthochromatic film is a low ISO fine grain film ideal for copy and reproduction work but because of it’s fine grain it captures amazing detail."

I assume this means that it was used to produce magazines and publicity photographs under studio lighting--undoubtedly with large format cameras. I'm not sure why this film is appropriate for 35mm, though tsiklonaut's photos show it can be used in the field with good results.

 

[JoeV]

Or shoot paper negatives. Besides a 4x5 or other sheet film format camera, you can cut down paper to fit inside various medium format cameras, even older Polaroids.

~Joe

 

[gsgary]

Maybe Kodalith Ortho, i managed to get 100 feet for £0.50 not used it for portraits yet, this was shot with available light