Question about pushing a few frames on a roll

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

Perhaps I just got into the habit of valuing the photographs already taken more than the instrinsic value of whatever film was left in the cassette. In any commercial environment cutting the film would be too risky no matter how clever the idea. For instance you wouldn't find a press photographer having shot the front page with only five shots telling the editor he was just going into the darkroom to cut the film and save the remaining unexposed frames.

 

But it depends, not all people are the same, and some enjoy the challenge of taking a once in a lifetime image (which they all are) and then risking everything to save a few pence.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[M9reno]

Steve, my question really was: what do you see as risk, or as more risky than any other step in the process of hand developing a film?

[philipus]

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?

 

You should use something like Portra 400 which has an amazing exposure latitude. Tim Gray did an interesting test (here) where he over- and under-exposed and developed at box speed.

 

I've tested this myself and it is pretty amazing what comes out. I have found that it is possible to safely under- and over-exposed by two stops and get very decent results.

[tobey bilek]

certainly you can process the roll to optimize the last few frames at the expense of the rest.

 

Pushing is underexposure and no amount of increased developing will get you the shadow detail lost.

 

Buy a tripod or faster lens

[250swb]

Steve, my question really was: what do you see as risk, or as more risky than any other step in the process of hand developing a film?

 

I don't see developing a film as risky. But taking the lens off and making a time exposure so you can stick some tape onto the film requires two things. The first is blind faith that the tape will stick and not lift and roll up as the film is advanced. The second is blind faith that you can achieve this before light bleeds onto the exposed film that isn't in the cassette. And going back to the begining, I don't see developing a film as risky because I remove risks, I don't introduce them. That includes planning ahead and having enough film so I'm not so desperate that I need to contemplate changing ISO in the middle of a roll. And one of the oldest tenets of photography is that you can't get every photograph all of the time, so maybe its just time to go home if you find yourself with a film that is too slow.

 

Steve

[erl]

I find myself agreeing with Steve on just about every point, except the not cutting the film partway through the roll. Some of life's lessons cannot be unlearned it would seem. Coming through the great depression, my parents taught me to "waste not, want not". I'm afraid I have been unable to shake that off. The consequence has been that on some occasions I have cut a film mid roll.

 

My method with the R8 was to open the back in the darkroom and cut off the exposed film and process immediately, saving the short length in the cassette for a 'short' job. In the 'M' cameras, I would note the counter number and then rewind the film and remove it. Later, in the darkroom, I would pull the film from the cassette in the dark and hold it on the bench where I had marked a series of 'standard' lengths, conforming to frame numbers, indicated in the dark by taping a ruler or other object at the desired mark, measured from the bench end. I then cut with a generous margin to get the film section for processing.

 

Again, I agree with Steve in the main, but cave in to the fact that if I can save a useable length of film, I will. The $10 cost of the film is still better in my pocket than anyone else's! My method is as risk free (important) as any part of a controlled developing process.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For instance you wouldn't find a press photographer having shot the front page with only five shots telling the editor he was just going into the darkroom to cut the film and save the remaining unexposed frames.

 

 

True, but...

 

A friend of mine told me a story from when he started working as a newspaper photographer in the mid 60s. The paper had recently converted from Speed Graphics to 35mm. Another older photographer who was an ex-jockey was assigned to photograph the Preakness horse race. Back at the paper after the race, my friend saw him come out of the darkroom with a strip of processed film having about six shots on it... paddocks before the race, the finish line, and the award presentation. To him it was just like shooting 4x5 sheets and he figured he covered the event. My friend thought it was pretty funny that the other photographer was saving The Washington Star part of the cost of a roll of film and was so confident in his ability to get it all on so few images.

 

It is possible to make a note of the current frame counter, rewind the film and use it again later... after advancing it to the correct spot. This assumes you have another roll with you and don't have another camera body available.

[M9reno]

For what it's worth, besides Osterloh, Theo Kisselbach (Pocket Leica Book, 3rd ed.) dedicates a three-page section to "cutting or marking partially exposed film lengths". His methods include cutting or nicking the film with ABCOO in the darkroom. He advises against a variant of Osterloh's trick (opening the shutter to pierce the film, or to mark it with a chinagraph pencil), which incidentally reveals how common these various methods were sixty years ago.

 

Anyway, people like Osterloh and Kisselbach were certainly not amateurs likely to take senseless risks, and they probably knew the equipment better than most of us.

 

All best wishes,

[adan]

For instance you wouldn't find a press photographer having shot the front page with only five shots telling the editor he was just going into the darkroom to cut the film and save the remaining unexposed frames.

 

Actually, at the first paper I worked at in the 70's as a student intern, "robbing a roll" was standard practice (note the procedure was common enough to even have a name ). I.E. we'd shoot a quicky headshot or other brief assignment on 3-5 frames on deadline, cut them off in the dark for immediate processing, and mark the remaining roll as "short roll" for later use, usually for other low-priority jobs.

 

Cheap or not, film was a budget item for which the chief photographer was accountable.

 

But no, we probably wouldn't have robbed a roll for important breaking news.

[250swb]

 

It is possible to make a note of the current frame counter, rewind the film and use it again later... after advancing it to the correct spot. This assumes you have another roll with you and don't have another camera body available.

 

Yes I happily agree, it is far more sensible to rewind a film, it is what I would do. But it still leaves the daft idea of pushing a few frames on a roll or segmenting a roll. That is something for scientists making tests to do, cut and process five frames then carry on. It isn't something that can be practically done when you are out and about as a safe plan.

 

You see posts on this forum saying how much people have invested in their camera equipment, and some people berate others for cutting corners over (what I see as )inconsequential boutique items like special half cases, straps, bags etc. But every time a few dollars worth of film is mentioned it is like every frame costs a Kings ransom. The reality is that if an average photographer (of which I am one) didn't make capricious stupid purchases of things unrelated to image capture they would have a fortune left to invest in wasting a few frames every now and again just to be safe.

 

Steve

[erl]

Steve, I thing you are arguing to two different points here. In one case, the idea of 'push processing' a few frames on an otherwise normal roll. Clearly that is 'muck around' country and I would not advocate it either. In the other case, of clipping a roll, just to process a few frames, that has always been a common practice professionally. You suggest that such practice is being lousy (my word, not yours), but when one is responsible for balancing the darkroom budget, it makes very good sense. I am speaking from 50+ years experience at that balancing act.

 

I do take your point about half cases etc. but that is a personal thing for those concerned. It's their disposable dollar. OTOH, saving film contributes to productivity, and it does cost a 'king's ransom', at least in my country.

[M9reno]

My friends, I must say this thread has taught me some important things about myself. Yes, I confess it: I love to muck around, especially with equipment like a Leica film camera, which seems designed precisely to let me indulge thoroughly in my mucking. I know it's expensive, and I know it's crazy, but I love Leica because... it sets me free to muck!!!

 

When I go out with a film Leica... not for me the auto controls of a "modern" DSLR, designed to ensure the "perfect photograph" of a lifetime.

 

...not for me the precision of modern auto focus, nor some machine with "face recognition" (...the latter feature was naturally built into all people, so why put it on a camera?). No, none of that, even if the promise is a "perfect" shot.

 

...not for me even a little light meter, magical arrows miraculously saving my eyes and my brain the trouble of seeing and interpreting light (another feature supposedly built into most people), all designed to give me the "perfect" exposure.

 

....not for me the mini lab, equipped with the machines to ensure my "perfect" photos come out perfectly. Yes friends, I like to keep mucking around even after I finish playing with a film Leica! Thats why I take film into my own darkroom, and muck around in total or semi-darkness enveloped by chemical fumes. My love of mucking is why I shoot only B&W. Color is too hard to do myslef: there is a limit even to my mucking.

 

I have to face it. Shooting with a film Leica is fun for me because it is risky, and for me the risk would remain even after taking advice from Osterloh and Kisselbach. If I wanted or needed "perfect" I probably would not be using a Leica. Actually, when I want to muck around less I just take out my M9, or maybe my M6 - in one stroke digital removes hundreds of risks, like my penchant for running around meterless. But I admit my M9 is not nearly as fun as my muck-indulging M3 and M2, not to mention those wonderful, thrilling, edge-of-the-abyss Barnacks.

 

I know: this is all kind of weird. I respect that other people actually depend on their photographs for their earnings, or will simply feel differently. I don't call them daft, and I don't propose to tell them how to do things my way. I'm a Leicamucker, and I'm perfectly fine with that. :)

 

(Apologies for this little manifesto!). Yours, buying film cameras in 2012, and with best wishes,