1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Black and White

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by pocketshaver, Dec 9, 2019.

  1. pocketshaver

    pocketshaver In the Stop Bath

    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  2. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    Like this?


    Kentmere 100. The WW1 picture was likely taken on a negative at least 6cm x 4cm, too. My picture is from a 35mm negative.
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I'd think modern emulsions would be good if you stick to low ISO ( ISO 125 or less) if you want big prints. If you are sticking below A4/10x8 prints then up to 400 if you don't push it. Choice of developer can also affect the end result.

    As John said, larger formats than 35 mm (assuming that's what you want), were in use so there was less enlargement involved in going from negative to print and it is enlargement that shows up grain and other imperfections. Pre-digital, if you wanted better quality in film photography than possible with a 35 mm system you moved up to a medium format (4.5x6, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9) system, or for landscape or portraiture, a large format system (4x5 inches, 8x10 inches or larger) using a plate camera. It is possible the shots you show were made using 4"x5" film.

    I went 35 mm film to 6x6 cm film to 35 mm digital.
  4. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Also Fomapan 100 and Retropan - though that one is very grainy;
    Rollei r80s, rather contrasty but you can play with IR with a 720 filter.

  5. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    And, of course, there are Ilford B&W films, including XP2, and Kodak films.
  6. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Agreed, to a certain extent you are comparing apples with oranges. The WW1 photos will have been taken on a film that was no smaller than 6x9cm, and was probably much bigger - the chap with the aerial camera would be exposing on plates at least 5x4", and I suspect the camera that took the photo was similar in size. These are a bit later - 1920s, but you see what I mean about the size and the quality: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/threads/wet-day-fun.140126/#post-1575502

    The film used for those photos was also very, very slow by modern standards - I forget where and how I worked it out (I think I found a speed in a catalogue in Hurter & Driffield units), but high speed plates in the 1920s were about the equivalent of ISO16 - so the grain size would be almost infinitesimally small. So you are comparing a huge negative with an almost grainless emulsion that can be used for straight contact prints to faster films with bigger grains that need to be enlarged, enhancing the effect of the grain.

    That said, I'm very impressed with John's shot above - the film has handled a difficult lighting situation very well.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  7. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    Some details of the picture - taken with an Agfa Ambi Silette fitted with a 50mm Color - Solinar lens, metering by a selenium Sekonic meter, at a local pizza restaurant.
  8. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Wow - I had to look up the Ambi-Silette! I had an ordinary Silette once, but that is a very rare beastie.
    John Farrell likes this.
  9. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    There are some ortho films as well, Ilford and Rollei.
    Adox do a 25 ISO.
    Rollei do a 25.

    This lot do some odd-bod stuff, but not much use if you are in USA:


    Their DP-3 can go down to 3, 6, 12 and is lovely at 25. It says here.

  10. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

  12. pocketshaver

    pocketshaver In the Stop Bath

    Ive tried 10 rolls of the tri x. Not exactly great in the department. It doesn't have the qualities of that photo listed above. Ill post one of the GOOD ones I have from tri x 400
  13. pocketshaver

    pocketshaver In the Stop Bath

    cant even load a 1.45 mb photo
  14. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    If you find the instructions on posting photos on this forum (as opposed to the gallery) you'll find you don't need to post anything anywhere near that large - with the 800px limit, one member used to get stuff down to about 15kb without jpeg artefacts appearing, quite good enough for screen viewing. I think John's might be rather bigger, but I bet the file is a fraction of the size of yours.

    I'd never expect Tri-X to look like the pics above - it's a faster film so it's going to be grainier.
  15. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    For colour 800 px and minimum compression (100% jpg quality) 200-350 kb is normal so 1/3 of that for mono I guess.

    I don't know if upload ability is tied to the number of user posts (12 as of this minute) as there are anti-spam measures in place to limit what a new member can do.
  16. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

  17. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    You're a bit late, Jack, the OP is in the stop bath for turning out to be an abusive nut job.
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  18. John King

    John King Well-Known Member

    One possible point you have missed is the film of that era could very well have been Orthochromatic and not Panchromatic so the tones could have been a lot more contrasty
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  19. John King

    John King Well-Known Member

    To add to the above before anyone else says 'why not'. Panchromatic emulsions did became available from around 1912, but were horrendously expensive, even the film industry didn't start using panchromatic film until 1922
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  20. Kate Mitchel

    Kate Mitchel Member

    Oh, I love B&W photos especially portraits I think they look much more emotional than in colors.
    Done_rundleCams likes this.

Share This Page