This "soft" B/W style

[sara]

So I've always admired photos done by Peter Lindbergh, and Paolo Roversi, and was wondering how they managed to capture a really "soft" b/w style.

The first thing I'm thinking of is of a slow shutter speed?

or would it the film that also affects the look? I know Paolo Roversi used a large format camera 😛

I wanted to try out some portraits with this soft look (on film!).

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Two different styles and approaches.
Peter Lindbergh shot with Nikon film cameras, 50-105mm, and favored Plus-X in D-76. He also shot Pentax 67s, and i'd guess it was the same film, but maybe Tri-X instead?

Paolo Roversi was largely known for 8x10 cameras (Deardorff?) and Polaroid emulsions.

Lindbergh is now shooting digital. I've seen pix of him with Nikon digital SLRs, but he may also use medium format digital—not sure. Roversi.... I think he bought a lot of polaroid stuff before it was discontinued, but i haven't seen his work in quite a while, and don't know what he's using now. Roversi did use slow shutter speeds. I think his studio had natural light from windows and a skylight. Lindbergh shot with movie lights and natural sun outdoors. In studio, i'm not sure. Maybe HMI and window light?

 

[helen.HH]

i have always LOVED the work of Peter Lindbergh ...
though I am not sure I would consider him 'soft'
Stylish, Atmospheric, Elegant, with a Classic modern edge
(certainly not hard edge, nor hi contrast, but for sure always in Focus, clean,crisp , tres Cinematic with a Lovely Glow)
I suppose his Genius is all about the Poetry of Light... the seduction in creating Atmosphere

I met him back in 1990 when I was managing the Restaurant '44' at the Royalton Hotel ... It was a Fun year for me there... meeting Artists, Movie Stars, Rock Stars, Writers and Editors (the hangout of Conde Nast)

Peter was staying at the Royalton Hotel ( owned by Ian Scrager and designed by Philippe Starck)
He came down w/ Christy Turlington, Linda Evangelista, and Naomi Campbell, he was a Lovely gentlemen, quite unassuming.

So pleased to hear he is shooting the 2017 Pirelli Calender 😉

 

[Jockos]

Big windows and/or big softboxes!
Then you should be able to use a normal contrast film and developer.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I have used with some success a blue filter and an uncoated lens with plus x or tri x. Low contrast glass and soft lighting helps but for street shots I like the blue filter.

 

[spaceistheplace]

It is not a slow shutter speed as the images are not blurry.
It's primarily about the lighting. It is muted and low contrast. If there are any shadows they are very soft. Using specific coloured filters for B&W can also affect the tones.
Then a combination of film/developing and the paper it is printed on.

Here are a couple I did in this style, one portrait, one architectural:

What filters can you use to lower the contrast? As far as I know yellow, orange and red give higher contrast.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Further options: soft focus lenses (including old, cheap zooms), soft focus screens (e.g. Zeiss Softars), low-contrast paper grades.

Cheers,

R.

 

[daveleo]

Peter Lindbergh has a *beautiful* photo ad in last week's New Yorker (Aug29, page 45), for the NYC Ballet. I'd like to post a screen cap, but that's gotta be illegal.
If you see it, note (among the many beautiful features) the posing of the 2 dancers on the right. Just fabulous !

There is also an exquisite (but too-small) video here:
https://www.nycballet.com/

Possibly he shot that as well ????

 

[daveleo]

Back on topic ....
for a soft look, try Zeiss Softar filters #1 or #2.
Tiffen Diffuser #2 and soft FX#1 are okay also.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If on Leica I would use older lens. Summar, Cron v1 or v2, no filters. Ilford FP4 or HP5 (@200) film for grain and tones, developed in D-76 or HC-110 and printed on FB with medium contrast paper.
One of the reason why I like prints scans, not negatives scans is because the look is softer.

 

[charjohncarter]

Two different styles and approaches.
Peter Lindbergh shot with Nikon film cameras, 50-105mm, and favored Plus-X in D-76. He also shot Pentax 67s, and i'd guess it was the same film, but maybe Tri-X instead?

Paolo Roversi was largely known for 8x10 cameras (Deardorff?) and Polaroid emulsions.

Lindbergh is now shooting digital. I've seen pix of him with Nikon digital SLRs, but he may also use medium format digital—not sure. Roversi.... I think he bought a lot of polaroid stuff before it was discontinued, but i haven't seen his work in quite a while, and don't know what he's using now. Roversi did use slow shutter speeds. I think his studio had natural light from windows and a skylight. Lindbergh shot with movie lights and natural sun outdoors. In studio, i'm not sure. Maybe HMI and window light?

Where do you get this info, I'm always looking for cameras and details photographers use but am never successful? I use a body cap mounted Polaroid Lens from a Color Pack II to get soft 'look' then used with my Pentax 6x7.

 

[sara]

Thanks allllll!

I guess it is to do with the lighting since most of those shots are studio based. I'll give Tri-X a go? I've only ever been using HP5 my entire life. *gasp*.

daveleo, never knew there were filters to make photos look "soft". I think Zeiss #1 is as far as it goes.

 

[sara]

i have always LOVED the work of Peter Lindbergh ...
though I am not sure I would consider him 'soft'
Stylish, Atmospheric, Elegant, with a Classic modern edge
(certainly not hard edge, nor hi contrast, but for sure always in Focus, clean,crisp , tres Cinematic with a Lovely Glow)
I suppose his Genius is all about the Poetry of Light... the seduction in creating Atmosphere

I met him back in 1990 when I was managing the Restaurant '44' at the Royalton Hotel... It was a Fun year for me there... meeting Artists, Movie Stars, Rock Stars, Writers and Editors (the hangout of Conde Nast)

Peter was staying at the Royalton Hotel ( owned by Ian Scrager and designed by Philippe Starck)
He came down w/ Christy Turlington, Linda Evangelista, and Naomi Campbell, he was a Lovely gentlemen, quite unassuming.

So pleased to hear he is shooting the 2017 Pirelli Calender 😉

I think you used the right words there - "atmospheric". and "tres cinematic with a lovely glow".

I used to intern at UK Vogue! also at Conde Nast but didn't see any stars there ***. So lucky that you got to meet Mr. Lindbergh. I'd be "PLEASE TAKE ME TO YOUR STUDIO". 😀

 

[sara]

If on Leica I would use older lens. Summar, Cron v1 or v2, no filters. Ilford FP4 or HP5 (@200) film for grain and tones, developed in D-76 or HC-110 and printed on FB with medium contrast paper.
One of the reason why I like prints scans, not negatives scans is because the look is softer.

It's funny how I used to love really constrasy b/w photographs, slightly sharp, but now I'm heading in the opposite direction to the b/w I used to loathe!

I don't think I'll be printing anytime soon (unless an amazing photograph appears). Yet to try FP4.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If you are comfortable with Tri-X it should work for wide tonal range and skin soften by the grain.
I was just looking at Jane Bown portraits book this morning and studio or not, the light as you have mentioned is very important.

 

[rhl-oregon]

Think like a portrait painter in choosing settings and positioning models.
Natural north light, however you get it. It's there for the finding in all seasons.

 

[lynnb]

What Kosta said about older, low contrast, uncoated lenses like a Summar, or an early folder if you want larger negs.

If you overexpose (within reason) and under-develop, your negs will have full shadow detail without blowing the highlights, and prints will have a good range of tones with possibly some reduction in sharpness.

 

[Cirrus1]

I have always liked long scale "flat" images similar to Platinum/Palladium. When I am making images I always shoot a little flat (digital adjustments in camera) and then set then black/white points so there are open shadows and no pure whites. It doesn't work on all images, but most.

 

[f16sunshine]

Soft reflected and defused light and little or no subject shadows.
This one is with a Color Skopar f2.5/50mm which many think of as higher contrast.

Layne by Adnan, on Flickr

 

[Roger Hicks]

What Kosta said about older, low contrast, uncoated lenses like a Summar, or an early folder if you want larger negs.

If you overexpose (within reason) and under-develop, your negs will have full shadow detail without blowing the highlights, and prints will have a good range of tones with possibly some reduction in sharpness.

It's quite hard to blow highlights with most B+W films if you're printing conventionally and exposing anything like reasonably, so a lower-contrast printing paper is often an easier way of doing it. If you're scanning, the problem is usually that the scanner can't penetrate the highlights, even if they'd reveal plenty of detail when wet printed.

Cheers,

R.