Filters for 'atmospheric' indoor B&W photography

[Benchmark]

I am hoping to take some 'atmospheric' indoor photographs at Beamish Museum using my OM4Ti with conventional mono film (HP5 plus). I don't want to use flash, and will probably use a Monopod to minimise any camera shake.

Does anyone have any suggestions for filtration (if any) for this kind of photography? I am reasonably familiar with filters for outdoor B&W photography, but have never really tried this kind of indoor photography before.

The photograph below was taken on my Canon G6, and converted to mono from raw using Photoshop defaults, but it does not have the low light quality that I need.

[beejaybee]

What "atmosphere" do you want? If you want your photos to look "old" you could try an overlong lens hood (to give deliberate vignetting) plus, if you can afford the light loss, an 80 series filter to remove practically everything except the blue (matching the blue-only-sensitivity of early emulsions). If the light source is domestic tungsten then you could be losing up to 3 stops.

I suggest you try adjusting the percentages of R G and B individually in your digital sample, as that will give you an idea as to what transmission characteristics you would need from a filter to provide whatever "atmosphere" you want.

Possibly some deliberate underexposure (to darken the whole scene) might be worth trying, too. I'd try to get the darkest part of the black circular thing behind the lady jet black, let the other dark parts sit right down on the toe of the response curve and make the mid-tones quite dark. I don't know the metering characteristics of your G6 but I do know the OM4Ti quite well. On HP5 processed normally I'd spot meter from the lady's face and bracket, expecting to underexpose by 2/3 stop from the meter indication to get the effect I've indicated.

[taxor]

I'm not sure any filtration would be needed for the kind of shot you describe. Unless you're using some kind of diffuser or centre spot (which wouldn't affect the exposure but would look a little hackneyed,IMO) you'll need all the light you can get. Speaking personally, if I was doing this shot, I'd uprate the HP5 to maybe 800~1600 asa and dev it in DDX or Microphen. The effect would be grainy (or gritty if you prefer) and contrasty and perhaps in keeping with the mood of the place.

[Benchmark]

Thanks for the comments and advice.

I had been thinking of using conventional colour filters to bring out textures and so forth, but this has given me some new ideas to think about.

We went to Beamish for a family day out, so I took the G6 along for snapshots, but I so enjoyed seeing the inside of the old buildings that I thought I would go back and try to capture the 'feel' on proper B&W film.

Thanks again.

[beejaybee]

I'd uprate the HP5 to maybe 800~1600 asa and dev it in DDX or Microphen. The effect would be grainy (or gritty if you prefer) and contrasty and perhaps in keeping with the mood of the place.

HP5 is quite grainy anyway. If you follow my "underexposure" idea then you will have a "thin" negative which requires to be printed on hard paper (or multicontrast paper filtered as hard as possible). That will naturally accentuate the grain; push processing as well might leave you with "too much of a good thing".

OTOH pushing Delta 400 by a stop or two might be interesting.

In the past I've used Microphen quite a lot, with Tri-X or HP4 I found it worked best for me if I adjusted the speed by 1/3 stop rather than 2/3 stop as reccomended and underdeveloped by 10% to compensate. I used the same overexpose/underdevelop technique with other films and developers as well, the reason being that I prefer a slightly "thin" negative but not "football" grain, and this technique enhances the detail in the shadows. I'm suggesting underexposure in your specific case as I feel it would make a better picture to suppress (but not eliminate) detail in the shadows, concentrating attention on the main subject.

[Neal]

if you mean grain............i'd use Kodak Tri-X. It's grain is fantastic. I use it from 400 ISO upto 3200 ISO. developed in XTOL, you'll struggle to see any change in grain for a 10x8 print.

Other than that.......high contrast with lots of dark shadow areas works well.

can you print your own or just scan?

[Benchmark]

if you mean grain............i'd use Kodak Tri-X. It's grain is fantastic. I use it from 400 ISO upto 3200 ISO. developed in XTOL, you'll struggle to see any change in grain for a 10x8 print.

Other than that.......high contrast with lots of dark shadow areas works well.

can you print your own or just scan?

Thanks Neal.

I picked up a couple of rolls of Tri-X 400 yesterday to try, alongside the HP5 that I already have.

However, I don't have any XTOL (yet), but I do have Ilfotec LC29.

My question is, which is the magic formuala; the Tri-X, XTOL or the combination?

I assume that if I can get hold of some XTOL, I can still use my Ilford Rapid Fixer with it to save buying yet more chemistry?

I appologise for being a bit rusty with B&W, but it is some years since I have ventured from FP4 and occasionalHP5, and I don't want to experiment too much with this particular project. All the same, I would be keen to improve on the grain of HP5 if possible.

Finally, I shall be scanning rather than wet printing, but if I produce anything that I really like, I might just be persuaded to dust off the enlarger one dark winters evening.

[Mojo_66]

You probably won't need any filters for Tri-X as it's quite a contrasty film anyway. Scanning also tends to enhance grain as compared to a darkroom print. Far as I know the Ilford fix should be fine.