Question about pushing a few frames on a roll

[MichaelM6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm new to film (haven't shot any since high school 15 years ago!). Say you're shooting an ISO 160 film, but you push a few frames, say near the end of the roll, to ISO 400 or ISO 800 - should you have everything developed normally or inform the lab that you pushed some frames and have it developed a bit differently? Or should you try not to push frames in the same roll at all?

[madNbad]

Pushing or pulling film speed needs to be for the entire roll. Since there is a change in devopment time there is no way to adjust for just a few frames. Have fun.

[xalo]

Hi and welcome (back) to film ,

 

In short, I would avoid underexposing a couple of frames on a roll (as you probably know, push processing basically overdevelops the film to compensate for underexposure).

 

In practice, some negative films (esp. b&w, did it with Ilford Delta 400) have such exposure latitude that they remain reasonably exploitable if underexposed here and there by a stop (or a bit more) and developed normally. Specialists of homesouping might even have particular recipes for that. However, if you rely on a lab, developing for 160 and exposing for 400 (-1 1/3 stop) will likely produce very thin negatives in the underexposed part - overdeveloping will probably clog up the correctly exposed ones.

 

I recall that years ago, a few frames of slide film could be test developed in pro-labs (against a hefty supplement) before the whole role or lot got done, but I don't think any standard lab will take chances in cutting your film (where - in the middle of the most important and yet invisible frame?!) before developing two separate parts of it.

 

Best option: change films with different speeds mid-roll, note respective frame counts (to later advance to that count, lens cap on). Even better (but luxury): two differently loaded bodies

 

Cheers,

 

Alexander

[ismon]

That's also how we justify owning two camera bodies.

[250swb]

I'm new to film (haven't shot any since high school 15 years ago!). Say you're shooting an ISO 160 film, but you push a few frames, say near the end of the roll, to ISO 400 or ISO 800 - should you have everything developed normally or inform the lab that you pushed some frames and have it developed a bit differently? Or should you try not to push frames in the same roll at all?

 

If the frames that you pushed are more important than the rest then just tell the lab to push the film, those will be saved, the rest ruined. But you can't mix and match on one film, it is usually all or nothing, the lab has no way to select individual frames for a different treatment.

 

If you were processing your own B&W negatives there are some staining developers like DiXactol that you can use to even out the exposure variations if you change film speed halfway through a roll. But it isn't an ideal situation.

 

Steve

[gravastar]

For your interest, Metro Imaging in the UK will do a clip test on E6 and C41 films and will push/pull if required. They'll also push/pull black and white.

 

Bob.

[MichaelM6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting stuff guys - thanks a lot. I can't wait to get my M6 in my hands so I can start playing with some film.

 

Now - Voitlander Nokton 50 f/1.1 or Zeiss Planar 50 f/2...uh oh!

[chrism]

Or use a compensating developer such as Diafine that is agnostic about film speed.

 

Chris

[Keith (M)]

With regard to Diafine, this webpage makes interesting reading.

[SJP]

Pushing or pulling film speed needs to be for the entire roll. Since there is a change in devopment time there is no way to adjust for just a few frames. Have fun.

I was aware of pushing film speed, but pulling is a novel concept to me. Does this means you can overexpose a 100 ASA film and then develop so that it behaves as 25 ASA? What happens to grain in that case, presumably that does not change?

 

I can imagine cases where this would be useful, e.g. if you inadvertently exposed a 400 ASA film as if it was 100 ASA.

[erl]

Stephen, I used to do that a lot. When shooting outdoors, say in very strong contrasty light and I had to retain shadow detail, I overexposed the film and then under developed it. This produced a flatter contrast that did not burn the highlights (less dev) and brought up the shadows (over exposure). Simple and effective.

 

I was mainly shooting Hasselblad in those days so grain was not a real issue. I don't think it is anyway.

[adan]

The whole Zone System is based on the idea of both pushing and pulling film (i.e. changing development per picture according to the picture's needs).

 

Purists will argue that extra development to add contrast is NOT the same thing as "pushing" to add silver to an underexposed image. But to me, more time in the tank is - well - more time in the tank. Same processing, for different reasons.

 

The conceptual difference is more obvious when doing the exposing - the photojournalist pushes film when the light is low (without reference to scene contrast or shadow exposure), while the ZS photographer adds development to increase contrast with a low-contrast subject (without necessarily having a requirement for shorter exposures per se).

 

The thumbnail version of the Zone System is "expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights" - more or less as Erl describes. Contrasty scene = "pull" development to control the highlights; flat or low-contrast scene = "push" development to expand the tonal range and separate the shadows and highlights.

[pico]

[...]The thumbnail version of the Zone System is "expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights" - more or less as Erl describes. Contrasty scene = "pull" development to control the highlights; flat or low-contrast scene = "push" development to expand the tonal range and separate the shadows and highlights.

 

This is where I drop a reference to Exactol Lux. (Also see DiXactol Ultra). It is a very interesting developer to extend tonal range under contrasty situations.

 

(Andy, I'll bet you remember the news photographers attempting to salvage a film by developing by inspection. Not very often, however. As I recall, the Rocky normally used a Versamat processor.)

 

All this is for wet printing mavens only.

[M9reno]

For those with only one camera or roll:

 

Osterloh (Leica M: Advanced Photo School 2nd. ed. - I can't remember the page) has a clever suggestion that goes something like this: Separate the frames that you want to push/pull differently from the rest of the film by advancing a frame; then remove the lens, open the shutter as if for a timed exposure, and while the shutter is open stick on a thin piece of tape directly onto the film; then close the shutter, stick the lens back on and advance. In the darkroom, unroll the film and feel with your hand for the tape, then cut there.

 

There is also the alternative of heading straight into the darkroom and cutting out the frame/s you want to treat separately using ABCOO (at least on a Leica Screwmount - can ABCOO be used in a Leica M?).

 

By the way, I have never tried either method, just marvelled at their cleverness.

[pico]

[...]By the way, I have never tried either method, just marvelled at their cleverness.

 

Some cameras had built-in film slicers so that one could cut the film in daylight, in-camera and it would roll into a take-up cartridge and developed differently. And there was the thick Contax with interchangeable backs. That seemed silly to me but I was older than the technology in which they were made - "film is cheap" was our mantra. It was not always cheap, and it isn't today.

[xalo]

Ah, the Osterloh trick is excellent! Thanks a lot.

 

Using a changing bag to cut the film in the camera, take the exposed part out and spool it on an empty canister would also work.

 

Alexander

[250swb]

Any cut-n-shut method of saving a few frames of film, even when film is marginally more expensive than it was twenty years ago, does show that the cost of the film is more important than the value of the photographs contained on it. Just waste half a roll, it isn't worth messing about, just do things right.

 

Steve

[M9reno]

Steve, I'm not sure what you mean. What about this method do you think is undervaluing the photograph, or not doing things right?

[Keith (M)]

As per post #8 and the link I gave in post #9, Diafine does allow for the EI to be changed during the shooting of a roll. The writer makes a convincing case - might even try myself one of these days.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[chrism]

I keep some D76, Rodinal and T-Max developers around for a change, but since I scan for the most part rather than wet printing, I find Diafine is a super choice for most films. Almost totally insensitive to time, doesn't change much with temperature, and copes with various ISO's, it even produces B&W negs from C41 films. It gets the job done!

 

Chris