Best B&W for 50's look

[cosmonaut]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I your opinion which B&W film gives that 50's look? I am leaning torwards Trix right now.

[stunsworth]

Tri-X is good, but for an older look - maybe more 30s or 40s than 50s - try something like Efke 25.

[Guest stnami]

get everyone to dress 2050's style and use 3D digital

[Mark Antony]

All the Adox/EFKE emulsions are basically unchanged since their introduction in 1953, so they are the real thing,

Any older emulsion type Tri-x, FP4, HP5 will be a good staring point, some of the Forte films are basically old tech from the 50's too.

The best way to get the 'old look' is to use a uncoated lens, or just a 1950's lens

like an Elmar or collapsible Summicron or similar.

Here is Tri-x drawn with a late 50's Elmar F2,8

 

Oh as a final note if you want an even older look try an ortho chromatic film, which will darken skin tones.

Mark

[andybarton]

And use an old developer too

[budrichard]

Films have changed, developers have changed and papers are changed if you actually print. If you don't print, then all bets are off because digital print making is not the same as actual print developement, so in short, the 50's are gone and you can not bring them back.-Dick

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And use an old developer too

......... supervised by a qualified eldery person:cool:

[haris]

Films have changed, developers have changed and papers are changed if you actually print. If you don't print, then all bets are off because digital print making is not the same as actual print developement, so in short, the 50's are gone and you can not bring them back.-Dick

 

Beside films, EFKE still make paper and developers like they used to make them in old times. So, buy some EFKE film, EMAKS paper and FR-4 developer (and FF-2 fixer), and there you are... As I know (and I don't know much) it is closest to 1950es look you can be these days...

[haris]

Sorry, EFKE doesn't make anything, EFKE IS MADE

[Dan States]

I've used Efke films and while they may be made the same way they always were they still don't look as good as old Tri-X or Plus-x. They have too much grain and the tonal scale does not appeal to me.

 

Remember also that much of what we assume to be effects of the film was created by older tech lenses. Ilford Fp4 gives me the kind of full tonal range that you see in the best old photography. I use it with the Summar or on my Contax with the Sonnar F1.5 and the combination looks really good. If you are trying for a vintage effect with a modern lens you will be disappointed. New lenses have too much contrast and are absurdly sharp a wide apertures. Sharpness, contrast and vintage just don't go together.

 

D-76 is still the best all around developer that I have found and it's CHEAP!

 

Best wishes

Dan

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[haris]

Last time I bought FR-4 I payed it 1.5 USD for 1 liter pack

 

And one can allways use old lens

[cosmonaut]

Thanks for all of te help. I did buy a 50's era lens. I have a collapsable Summicron on the way. I think it is dated to 1953. I will give the Efke film a shoot next time I order and the Plus X too. Currently shot Trix and TmaX and use Tmax developer.

[Stephan_Chandler]

How about Fomapan 200? (it's Czech). Hasn't changed very much. It's cheap too, and easy.

[fotohuis]

Here a nice example of Fomapan T200 in R09. High sharpness, acutance and pronounced grain. E.I. 125-160 with a para-amino phenol developer like R09 or Rodinal.

 

Prague in the 50's

M7+Elmarit 2,8/28mm, a new millenium combo

 

[thrid]

Tri-X and Plus-X.

 

Adox CHS 25, 50 and 100. These are the original emulsions from the 1950s.

 

Most important - a vintage lens.

 

D76, D23 or Rodinal.

[Mark Antony]

Thanks for all of te help. I did buy a 50's era lens. I have a collapsable Summicron on the way. I think it is dated to 1953. I will give the Efke film a shoot next time I order and the Plus X too. Currently shot Trix and TmaX and use Tmax developer.

 

The EFKE will give you the effect as it's basically unchanged since 1953 (they use the same coating machine)

But...

Don't use T-Max Dev as its too vigourous, D76 and Rodinal are 'of the time"

Mark

[cosmonaut]

I am currently using a Summitar 5cm which I love and have bought a Summicron (1953). I hope those are vintage enough. I bought the Cron so I can have a lens mounted on both the IIIa and a M6 at the same time. I am going to order film soon and am going to try a few rolls of each suggested here. I have use TriX but never Plus X. Is the Fomapan here in the US?

[cosmonaut]

Here a nice example of Fomapan T200 in R09. High sharpness, acutance and pronounced grain. E.I. 125-160 with a para-amino phenol developer like R09 or Rodinal.

 

Prague in the 50's

M7+Elmarit 2,8/28mm, a new millenium combo

 

 

I like this and also need a good 28mm to fill the gap between my 5cm and 15mm.

[Gerhardt Isringhaus]

Kodak still makes EASTMAN DOUBLE-X - 5222 negative movie film, 35mm. You'd have to bulkload it yourself. I think it's the same emulsion that HCB and others, back in those days used.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bullis]

I am currently using a Summitar 5cm which I love and have bought a Summicron (1953). I hope those are vintage enough. I bought the Cron so I can have a lens mounted on both the IIIa and a M6 at the same time. I am going to order film soon and am going to try a few rolls of each suggested here. I have use TriX but never Plus X. Is the Fomapan here in the US?

 

When I was a student, back in 1966, I was shooting with a Contax II. It had the uncoated f/2 sonnar, which was a really wonderful lens. I shot plus x then, and processed it in Rodinal. It was amazing, and I love the way it looked. Now, however, I have no confidence in Kodak to continue to make anything, so I'm generally interested in other materials, preferably made by much smaller organizations. EFKE, Adox are attractive for that reason. It looks to me as though there is a lot of activity going on by smaller players who are willing to consider the needs of a market that we might actually inhabit, rather than the former vast markets - they aren't there anymore. Digital has finished most of them off. Anyone making film now has to consider us amateurs or professionals who remain amateur (in its root meaning of lover).

 

Anyway, the films that cluster around 100 ISO are my main focus; I've been using FP4 recently to get back into the swing of it after a fairly long inertial period. I'm not using Rodinal now (probably ought to, I have a bunch of it that needs using) but rather, have been mixing my Beutler's which has a very similar characteristic. High acutance, well defined and really beautiful grain structure.

 

The developer you use is just as important as the film. I think most people ignore this. By the way, I learned from someone on this forum that Harvey's 777 is available at Photographic chemicals in the Frugal Photographer catalog. This was the famous developer used by HCB, Gene Smith, and other photographers who defined that image of the 50's.

 

Your Cron will probably be coated. 50's lenses usually were, at least as the 50's got going. I think that the fact that a lens is coated is less important than HOW it is coated. I've got a copy of the Cosina Voigtländer 40mm Nokton in the single coated version which was made for the Japanese market, to service the market there that likes that look. It seems a lot like those early coated lenses. I really love the quality, even though it is not quite the Summicron in its resolution; I expect its contrast will be similar to your collapsible summicron. I've had examples of earlier Summicrons, Summilux, etc. that I loved also, and since I am a creature who, in the 1960's bought and used old cameras and lenses only out of economic necessity, that 50's "look" is the appearance of my world. All my Leica lenses, including the Canon and Nikon versions that I use now are of that era. Coated, but not like the newer ones. I really don't care much for lenses which produce contrast which seems excessive to me. Probably coated is preferable, but the older coatings seemed a lot more friendly.

 

While I really don't have any up to the minute lenses at all, and really don't have much desire for one, my lens collection does offer a virtual history of the camera optic up to the mid '70's. I still shoot with Goerz Dagors on the view cameras beginning with the first version, introduced in 1909 and is marked off in US stops (just prior to the adoption of the f/stop system), and a variety of the f/18 zeiss and B&L protars. I've got early coated lenses like the Ross f/12.5 wide angle, the Goerz Rectagon (both really sweet). On the Graphlex XL, however, I have the Zeiss Planar and the 47mm Super Angulon. The difference is notable; since I use the same films with all of them, I can easily see it. I much prefer the older ones, although it is pretty hard to beat that Planar.

 

Prior to Kodak's betrayal of our part of its customer base, I was experimenting with using some odd film and developer combinations. One was the old 2475 recording film, which almost nobody used because it was universally thought too grainy. It was grainy (seemed to be exactly the same as High Speed Infrared without the extended sensitivity), but paired with a high acutance fine grain developer such as MCM 100 (paraphenylene diamine/pyrocatechin) it looked just like Life Magazine.

 

Now, I don't know what I'll be doing next to get things to look the way they ought'a, but it is probably my next big challenge.