Ruhayat Posted May 3, 2011 Share #1 Â Posted May 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, film newbie question here. What happens if you shoot B&W ISO 400 film at ISO 1600, but then get it developed at ISO 400? Will the film get noticeably darker, or lighter? Will the images be useable? Â Reason I'm asking is, I have a box of undeveloped mostly black and white film which have been stored for some time, and some have lost the ISO markings I wrote on the canister. Now I'm not sure whether I should get them processed at box speed, or just assume they are all pushed (most of my B&W films are, but not all) and have them processed at the pushed speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Hi Ruhayat, Take a look here What happens when you push film but develop at normal?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted May 3, 2011 Share #2 Â Posted May 3, 2011 The film will be lighter, and therefore the prints will be darker. You're under-exposing by two stops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 3, 2011 Share #3 Â Posted May 3, 2011 I'd try processing a roll based on it being rated ISO 800 and see how it turns out, and adjust from there. Being 1 stop out either way shouldn't matter too much, but it will also depend on just how long these films have been stored for, and how they've been stored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 3, 2011 Share #4  Posted May 3, 2011 Hi  The shadow areas may be devoid of detail. If you have accurately metered and the sceans are low contrast you will just be ok, otherwise the shadows too dark, and uniform, more difficult to print.  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted May 3, 2011 Author Share #5 Â Posted May 3, 2011 Thanks all, for the quick responses! I think that must have been why one roll of Tri-X I sent off came back rather dark, then. So to be on the safe side, I should have the ISO400 film developed at a compromised speed, ie as ISO800? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efix Posted May 3, 2011 Share #6 Â Posted May 3, 2011 As far as I understand, the terms "push" and "pull" refer to how the film is processed. Thus, technically, if you expose your ISO 400 film as if it were an ISO 1600 film, it is just underexposed. "Pushing" refers to correct for the underexposure during developing. Â I assume I am highly nitpicky here ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 3, 2011 Share #7 Â Posted May 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Like efix says - you are only "pushing" film if you BOTH underexpose and then overdevelop to partially compensate. Underexposure without "push" development is just - underexposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted May 3, 2011 Share #8  Posted May 3, 2011 This shot was taken 3 stops under exposed (I'd forgotten I'd left the ND filter on ). The negative is very faint. The scanned image has quite a lot of noise in the dark areas. It came out surprisingly well though. Portra 400 shot at 3200iso in effect!!. Normal development (not pushed). Pete  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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/150843-what-happens-when-you-push-film-but-develop-at-normal/?do=findComment&comment=1662720'>More sharing options...
piblondin Posted May 4, 2011 Share #9  Posted May 4, 2011 This shot was taken 3 stops under exposed (I'd forgotten I'd left the ND filter on ). The negative is very faint. The scanned image has quite a lot of noise in the dark areas. It came out surprisingly well though. Portra 400 shot at 3200iso in effect!!. Normal development (not pushed).Pete  [ATTACH]255938[/ATTACH]  Portra 400 has an abnormally large amount of exposure latitude from my experience. One of my friends accidentally took some shots in the snow at ISO 25, four stops underexposed, and the results were acceptable.  To the OP, don't expect that sort of latitude with Tri-X or any other film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexM. Posted May 4, 2011 Share #10 Â Posted May 4, 2011 Portra 400 has an abnormally large amount of exposure latitude from my experience. One of my friends accidentally took some shots in the snow at ISO 25, four stops underexposed . Â actually 4 stops overexposed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted May 4, 2011 Author Share #11  Posted May 4, 2011 This shot was taken 3 stops under exposed (I'd forgotten I'd left the ND filter on ). The negative is very faint. The scanned image has quite a lot of noise in the dark areas. It came out surprisingly well though. Portra 400 shot at 3200iso in effect!!. Normal development (not pushed).Pete  Yes, this overall darkened effect is what I'm seeing, too. On some frames it works - makes the images seem richer - in some it just makes everything turn really dark as if in a partial eclipse. Good learning experience for me, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted May 4, 2011 Author Share #12 Â Posted May 4, 2011 To the OP, don't expect that sort of latitude with Tri-X or any other film. Â That's useful info, thanks. The reason why I've kept the B&W film is because I was hoping to learn how to process film and then do these myself since my local lab won't do push or pull processing. Unfortunately, the plastic canisters made the marker rub off fairly easily, so I must have used the wrong sort of marker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted May 4, 2011 Share #13 Â Posted May 4, 2011 Portra 400 has an abnormally large amount of exposure latitude from my experience. One of my friends accidentally took some shots in the snow at ISO 25, four stops underexposed, and the results were acceptable. Â Â How did he meter? Unless you use incident metering, snow pictures should be "overexposed" by one or two stops. (And, as said above, your friend "overexposed".) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
piblondin Posted May 5, 2011 Share #14  Posted May 5, 2011 actually 4 stops overexposed  Yes, overexposed, not under. My mistake.  The exposure error resulted from the cold's effect on the M6's batteries, I believe. The meter was giving erroneous readings, and before my friend realized this, he had taken a couple photos at f/2 in the sun and snow. We used sunny 16 after the fact to estimate that he had overexposed by about 4.5 stops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 5, 2011 Share #15 Â Posted May 5, 2011 My estimate is that the scene looked more like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted May 5, 2011 Share #16 Â Posted May 5, 2011 My estimate is that the scene looked more like this. Â Yes, somewhere between the two. I made it a little darker to get rid of the scanner noise alluded to by you in this thread. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted May 5, 2011 Share #17 Â Posted May 5, 2011 Normal development will have reduced contrast and require a 3,4, or 5 paper the get the tonal range in the print. Â Extending development will get more printable tones in the brighter areas, but you still will lack detail in the darkest shadows, ie will print pure black in either case. Â Extending development will not put additional detail in the shadows. You can not do one to compensate for the lack of the other. Â A few developers will get modest amounts of more detail in the shadows, Diafine, Microphen, Acufine. Most will not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 5, 2011 Share #18  Posted May 5, 2011 Hi  Tobey means you will need to photoshop the scans.  If you want to 'push' ISO the chromogenic films like Ilford XP2 are 'better' choice, and again you have to photo the scans to get resonable prints.  If you want to stay with retained silver you need to home process with one of the magic brews Tobey suggests, but you wont get miracles.  Use faster film if you need the speed expect grain...  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted May 7, 2011 Author Share #19 Â Posted May 7, 2011 Tobey means you will need to photoshop the scans. Â Thanks. I was just thinking the same thing today... have the film developed at normal ISO (so no additional cost), and then adjust the brightness levels afterwards. I like the high contrast look anyway so this might work. But I'm not really in much of a hurry, so I might just wait until I learn how to process it on my own and then process it "properly". The local lab charges double to process pushed or pulled film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.