Best B&W film for Chiaroscuro

[Weihan]

Question to the B&W specialists: what are your favorite films for chiaroscuro compositions, particularly portraits? Thanks!

[Jim Noel]

Question to the B&W specialists: what are your favorite films for chiaroscuro compositions, particularly portraits? Thanks!

Lighting is more necessary than film choice . Study paintings done in chiaroscuro very carefully as to lighting.

[TheToadMen]

I had to look up what "chiaroscuro" was. It is also called "clair-obscur". I understand it is about: "the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition." The midtones aren't used much and there isn't much regard for color.
Interesting!

Is that what you're doing? If so, wouldn't (besides lighting) the developer and printing method be of greater influence than the film itself? (assuming you'll use B&W film).

[Doug Howk]

Ralph Gibson's work is much about chiaroscuro especially with portraits and female form. He overexposes and overdevelops Tri-X400. I've only used Tri-X320 on occasion, but not in his manner.

[Brian Ellis]

To see the techniques used by Ralph Gibson (and many other well-known photographers) try this book - http://www.amazon.com/Darkroom-Wynn-Bullock/dp/0912810203. It's a fascinating book, available used on Amazon for $7.50. You'll see that many of these photographers don't use what most here would call normal darkroom techniques - they use methods that they've developed over the years as best suited to what they want to accomplish and some of them are really odd. Whether you ever actually use these techniques or not, it's still a very interesting book for a darkroom enthusiast.

[Mark Sampson]

Broadly speaking, the slower the b/w film, the shorter its tonal scale is. So a slower-speed film will give you the 'chiaroscuro' effect more easily than a fast film, by and large. Although any standard film will work fine; as Jim Noel says, it's more about how you light our subject, or what light you find it in, than anything else.

[Drew Wiley]

It has nothing to do with the speed of the film, but can be facilitated by the steepness of the toe. I've had excellent results in both portrait and landscape work
using either TMax film and UNDERexposing them a full stop to abruptly black out the deepeset shadows, followed by plus development to expand the midtone and
highlight tonality. There are various tricks in printing too, like simply punching the shadows in VC paper with a deep blue filter after the primary white light exposure.
For studio lighting, an old school focusing fresnel light like an Arri can be invaluable.

[ImSoNegative]

wow there is a cool name for the way these couple of portraits I did the other day turned out. : )

[Weihan]

Thanks all! I don't normally shoot B&W, but the chiaroscuro genre has been the one area that has always greatly appealed to me. I don't normally care for the same technique used with color film. The B&W chiaroscuro images, especially portraits done in the 1930s and somewhat later (e.g., those of Marlene Dietrich, with her glistening blonde her silhouetted in a pitch black background) and the stark contrast in print are just what I'm looking for. I'm actually having fewer problems with the lighting than with the contrast of the films I'm using. I'm thinking now of trying the various setups I've been using with the Rollei Ortho 25. I don't know if anyone has had any experience with this film, but it is quite slow at 25 ISO. There's something simply timeless / classic about the portraits I've seen that have been shot with the steep gradations in chiaroscuro, but I have no idea what film they were using. Thanks again! I'm definitely going to get the Ralph Gibson book - excellent tips.

[SergeiR]

Thanks all! I don't normally shoot B&W, but the chiaroscuro genre

it is not a genre

[Weihan]

Thanks for the correction of my English. I can't find the word I'm looking for, "style" perhaps? In any case, here is an example of the type of image I'd like to reproduce with today's emulsion(s): http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3246626816/nm0000017

[SergeiR]

Thanks for the correction of my English. I can't find the word I'm looking for, "style" perhaps? In any case, here is an example of the type of image I'd like to reproduce with today's emulsion(s): http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3246626816/nm0000017

no it is not style either. Chiariscuro is not specific to b&w, it is in fact has nothing to do with colour or lack of it. It came from painting technique of italian masters, and refers to interchanging of light and shadow to accentuate shapes in painting by enforcing contrast rythm. It is exact opposite of japanese technique called notan (sp?) that enforces lack of rendering of shape but instead concentrating on rendered area so you cant perceive depth but you can see what content is. Typical example is all the "bird and flower" paintings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro

You looking for completely different kettle of fish and it has nothing to do with film. You need lighting technique.
Any decent book on period lighting would work.

[Weihan]

I had to look up what "chiaroscuro" was. It is also called "clair-obscur". I understand it is about: "the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition." The midtones aren't used much and there isn't much regard for color.
Interesting!

Is that what you're doing? If so, wouldn't (besides lighting) the developer and printing method be of greater influence than the film itself? (assuming you'll use B&W film).

Yes, exactly. But I think certain films lend themselves more to these darkroom techniques and produce better results than others. I thought maybe this forum might have artists who regularly used the technique and could shed light on the films that worked best for them.

[Mark Barendt]

But I think certain films lend themselves more to these darkroom techniques and produce better results than others.

Why?

It is true that many people have favorite films that they prefer, I know I do, but I'm also an opportunist and pick up deals now and again on films outside my range of favorites.

What I have found it that with just a little practice I can use almost any B&W film I have interchangeably.

Like the Toad Men I had to look up the style to see what Chiaroscuro was but with that said it is obvious that it is a style very comparable to normal modern low key (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-key_lighting) lighting and exposure setups.

I used low key techniques a fair amount when I had my studio. The dark background is fun because it allows the mid-tones to be printed darker, the colors and tones can be made to appear richer, more saturated and even brighter than they might appear when printed in a high key setup.

Brightness (as opposed to luminosity) is a visual effect, not necessarily a measured value.

Careful choices in the lighting lays the foundation for this basic effect, printing finishes it, the film in the middle just gets you from A to B, its effects are real but typically pretty minor.

[Kodachrome25]

Yes, exactly. But I think certain films lend themselves more to these darkroom techniques and produce better results than others. I thought maybe this forum might have artists who regularly used the technique and could shed light on the films that worked best for them.

With the exception of perhaps Kodak Technical Pan film, most black and white films have enough inherent latitude that it really does become more of a question of proper vision and lighting to achieve a result like this. The closest film I know of that really "rewarded" an honest lighting effort in this direction was Kodachrome....it very much looked like a painting falling off very rapidly into the deepest of shadows when proper lighting was employed.

It's a fine lighting technique, just pick a good readily available film like Tmax and then get to work on the real meat and potatoes of the image, the proper execution of lighting and relevant vision.

[JeRuFo]

I would focus on the shadows, you hardly ever see sharp highlights with this type of lighting. I'd probably go for a film that has quite good shadow detail and has a classic look like fp4/hp5.

[Weihan]

I would focus on the shadows, you hardly ever see sharp highlights with this type of lighting. I'd probably go for a film that has quite good shadow detail and has a classic look like fp4/hp5.

Many thanks! Not being a B&W shooter, I'm not familiar with either of these Ilford emulsions. The only B&W I've ever shot was Tri-X, TMAX 100, and Fuji Acros. I definitely preferred the tonality of Tri-X, but I somehow felt it might not be ideal for the stark, steep contrast I'm looking for. Thanks again!

[Mark Barendt]

Many thanks! Not being a B&W shooter, I'm not familiar with either of these Ilford emulsions. The only B&W I've ever shot was Tri-X, TMAX 100, and Fuji Acros. I definitely preferred the tonality of Tri-X, but I somehow felt it might not be ideal for the stark, steep contrast I'm looking for. Thanks again!

If HP5 will work, Tri-X will too.

The "contrast" you are seeing in Chiaroscuro, and in low key studio work, the dark blacks versus the bright mid-tones is caused by a big difference in the lighting. It's an artificial lighting situation. Think candle light in a dark room, people standing around campfire, people on a dark street face lit by an iPhone, or by using strobes/studio lights to artificially raise the mid-tones without lighting the shadows/background.

Forget the blacks, just for a second, look at the main subject matter and the contrast rate across the faces. The faces show a fairly normal contrast rate maybe a little plus development, but its not over the top.

Any B&W film (or color film for that matter) can do low key work nicely.

[Otto Seaman]

It's all in the lighting and film development ~ of the current choices left.

If you're scanning and working digitally then you wouldn't even want to develop your film too harshly, you'd still err towards keeping as much information as possible (less drama) and making the contrast decisions in editing.

[JeRuFo]

I agree that film is probably not the most important part, but if you want to emulate old photographs I wouldn't take a very recent b&w film, they are very contrasty and have less 'character' (read flaws). Tri-X would probably work very well. Sticking to what you know definetely has benefits.

[TheToadMen]

FP4+, HP5+ and Tri-X in Rodinal will do fine. Just concentrate on the lighting...

[Lenny Eiger]

This type of effect is simple, Just underexpose a little and overdevelop a little. Any film will do. I wouldn't suggest Rodinal (for anything) because it will increase the grainy look. If you want a smooth look the grain won't help. More than likely these shots were done with Plus-X, a film that fashion photographers loved. It was unforgiving with regard to exposure compared to the other film of the day.

Any film will do.... but I would suggest either a slow film or a medium one (with an ISO of around 100).

Lenny

[Weihan]

This type of effect is simple, Just underexpose a little and overdevelop a little. Any film will do. I wouldn't suggest Rodinal (for anything) because it will increase the grainy look. If you want a smooth look the grain won't help. More than likely these shots were done with Plus-X, a film that fashion photographers loved. It was unforgiving with regard to exposure compared to the other film of the day.

Any film will do.... but I would suggest either a slow film or a medium one (with an ISO of around 100).

Lenny
Thanks everyone for these useful responses. Since this high contrast light/dark effect is my favorite for B&W images, I'll take these recommendations to heart. I plan on using a 4x5 to shoot these set ups with, so I'll be able to experiment with several different emulsions and developing times etc. THANKS everyone!