Overexposing and pushing the film

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So how can I gain an extra stop of shutter speed from a TX400 film during night?

Learn to use a fast lens.

 

Also how about setting ISO wheel to 200 and developing as standard 400. It does mean everything will be 1 stop overexposed right?

 

OK, you are determined to push film. Half of my professional work required me to squeeze all the speed I could from film. One approach is Damn the Grain, get Ilford Delta 3200 and have it processed normally by a company that knows what its doing.

 

If you are going to develop the film yourself, then write back here and I will recommend a couple bullet-proof two-part developers to get the most from Delta 3200.

[fatihayoglu]

Learn to use a fast lens.

 

I use a 50mm Summicron and it is the only lens I am using on my film Leica. I don't think I need to spend $10000 to get a Noctilux

[Advertisement]

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

[pico]

I use a 50mm Summicron and it is the only lens I am using on my film Leica. I don't think I need to spend $10000 to get a Noctilux

 

I'm 100% in agreement.

[chrism]

So how can I gain an extra stop of shutter speed from a TX400 film during night? If I set the ISO wheel at 800 and develop for 800 or develop for 400? I am getting really confused now, even more than before

 

Also how about setting ISO wheel to 200 and developing as standard 400. It does mean everything will be 1 stop overexposed right?

 

Yes, if you want an extra stop of speed, expose TX400 at ISO 800 and develop it with a regime suited to one stop of underexposure  (ie one stop push).

 

As to the second question, it's a lot more complicated. When you pull a film you overexpose it and under-develop it. Development times for pulling film are shorter than standard times. So if you expose TX400 at 200, you have overexposed by one stop. Follow that with standard development designed for TX400 exposed at 400, and you will have overdeveloped it. Knowing that, you might think, that you have now got a negative that is, in effect, 2 stops overexposed. But it gets more complex still, as for every doubling or halving of in-camera exposure, development time needs to change in the opposite direction by roughly 33%, so that image will be a bit more than 2 stops too light by this point. This is a rule of thumb, and is best thought of as a starting point when pushing or pulling film. Now you can juggle these things around if you want, but you'll simply make your head spin.

 

My best advice is this: use film at box speed and with standard development regimes for a long time. Years. Hundreds of rolls. Then muck about with the rules. Do it too soon and you'll probably give up as the results won't always be what you want. The advice that you quoted at the start of the thread that it is best to over-expose film should be looked at this way: whenever you have to set an aperture or shutter speed and the desired value is between click-stops, err on the over-exposure side if using film. If all film would be improved with over-exposure, I think the manufacturers would adjust their box speeds accordingly as people will buy a film again if the last lot came out nicely. It's just that film copes better with a little over-exposure than with under-exposure.

[A miller]

It sounds like you want extra speed for low light and also want to see how the film handles a little overexposure. 

One approach I have had good results with is to shoot the film at (i.e., set the ISO dial to) 800 ISO and have it developed for 1250.  I personally tend to add a half stop or so of extra exposure in order to capture a bit more of the midtones (So this would mean that the ISO dial would be 640 and you would tell your lab (I assume you are not developing this yourself) to process it at 1250).  Why 1250?  I find that it gives a little more of a pop to the highlights.  This gives a certain look.  It may not be the look that you want given your circumstance.  So you may not want to do it.  But this approach will give reasonably contrasty results with bright highlights.

 

Here are some examples of this approach with Tri-X.  It seems to be exactly on point with what you are looking for:  pushing for extra speed and over-exposing a little to retain a bit more shadow and midtones, all in the context of pushing the film, which will come with more native contrast (i.e., less over all midtones) and a bit less sharpness, but who cares about that anyway!):

 

I am breaking up my examples into multiple posts to avoid non-compliance with technical forum rules...

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A miller]

a few more:

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!

 

 

 

 

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

a further few more...

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!

 

 

 

 

[A miller]

a further further few more

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A miller]

The end...

I hope you've found some of this useful. I sometimes find things better said with photos

 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2017 by A miller

[sblitz]

this push pull thing gives me a headache ..... instead of shooting tri-x at 800 and developing at 1250, why not just shoot and develop at 1250 instead of pushing 1.5 stops in development and underexposing it by 1/2 stop when shooting?

[A miller]

this push pull thing gives me a headache ..... instead of shooting tri-x at 800 and developing at 1250, why not just shoot and develop at 1250 instead of pushing 1.5 stops in development and underexposing it by 1/2 stop when shooting?

 

Steve - there are two things going on here.  A little over-exposure and a little over development.  

I tend to slightly over-expose in these types of settings b/c I find that with Tri-x the highlights are more forgiving that the shadows.  

The slight overdevelopment (1250 vs 800) is to give a little extra pop to the highlights.  This can be done in the editing process with film shot and developed at box speed.  But having this built into the negative can be beneficial.

[adan]

Steve - there are two things going on here.  A little over-exposure and a little over development. 

 

Nope - you are making the same conceptual error as the OP.

 

An ISO 400 film exposed as though it is ISO 800 is underexposed. Period. Done and dusted. Fini.

 

No matter what you do with the development afterwards.

 

If you like the results of underexposing a stop to E.I. 800, and overdeveloping a little extra as though you had used E.I. 1250, that's fine. But it will never ever mean you "overexposed for 1250." That ain't how sensitometry (the science of film sensitivity) works.

 

Note that I used the abbreviation E.I. (for "Exposure Index") - something that has fallen out of use as digital camera "ISOs" have confused the issue. A film has one and only one ISO - that speed at which it delivers the correct amount of shadow detail and tonal range, as measured through laboratory testing by the manufacturer according to standards set by the ISO (International Standards Organization). Or substitute rules carefully noted (Ilford has their own "technique" for measuring and establishing ISO, based on mid-tone density).

 

If photographers prefer, they can of course use a different meter setting - an "exposure index" of 200 or 320 or 500 or 1600, and any developing regime that works for them.

 

But if the measured and published ISO is 400, then any E.I. higher than 400 means underexposure, and any E.I. less than 400 is overexposure. Development cannot change that. It can change how much silver is formed in the midtones and highlights (but not the shadows - see graph linked in previous post).

 

It can produce a usable image from an off-base E.I. - but not an equal image - there will always be artifacts from using something other than box ISO and box development.

[A miller]

Nope - you are making the same conceptual error as the OP.

 

An ISO 400 film exposed as though it is ISO 800 is underexposed. Period. Done and dusted. Fini.

 

No matter what you do with the development afterwards.

 

If you like the results of underexposing a stop to E.I. 800, and overdeveloping a little extra as though you had used E.I. 1250, that's fine. But it will never ever mean you "overexposed for 1250." That ain't how sensitometry (the science of film sensitivity) works.

 

Note that I used the abbreviation E.I. (for "Exposure Index") - something that has fallen out of use as digital camera "ISOs" have confused the issue. A film has one and only one ISO - that speed at which it delivers the correct amount of shadow detail and tonal range, as measured through laboratory testing by the manufacturer according to standards set by the ISO (International Standards Organization). Or substitute rules carefully noted (Ilford has their own "technique" for measuring and establishing ISO, based on mid-tone density).

 

If photographers prefer, they can of course use a different meter setting - an "exposure index" of 200 or 320 or 500 or 1600, and any developing regime that works for them.

 

But if the measured and published ISO is 400, then any E.I. higher than 400 means underexposure, and any E.I. less than 400 is overexposure. Development cannot change that. It can change how much silver is formed in the midtones and highlights (but not the shadows - see graph linked in previous post).

 

It can produce a usable image from an off-base E.I. - but not an equal image - there will always be artifacts from using something other than box ISO and box development.

 

Adan - Perhaps I am not being clear and have gotten myself tongue-tied with useless technical jargon. Of course shooting the film one stop faster than box speed is underexposure.    But the one stop push development will of course correct for this.  So the end result will be a properly exposed image (i.e., zone 5 will be zone 5), although it will feel the result of being pushed, as the renditions in my examples show (i.e., much darker and lighter  zones may be of a lower/higher EV than what the meter indicated).    The fact that the film is underexposed in the shooting/exposure process is really just half the story and on its own doesn't really teach much.

 

I think you misunderstood the aspect of overexposure to which I was referring.  If I meter at 650 ISO and then tell my lab to push the film one stop, I am absolutely overexposing the film (i.e., what my meter would have said is zone 5 will come out more than zone 5).  Just like if I metered at less than 400 ISO and developed the film at box speed.   

 

Adding a little more development time has nothing to do with the exposure of the film and everything to do with continued effect (mostly) on the highlights, the results of which are illustrated in my examples.  

 

The reason that I jumped in is b/c I got the feeling that no one really was squarely addressing the OP's question, which essentially is what workflow to use if you want to ETTR and also push Tri-X.  All of my examples illustrate this.  Forget the jargon and technical mumbo jumbo, which is really best learned from The Negative, which should be on top of every newbie's toilet.  

Edited November 26, 2017 by A miller

[adan]

Nope - again. Technically, exposure is based on shadow detail/exposure - not Zone 5 gray. "Expose for the shadows....," plus that is how the ISO defines "ISO." Precisely because, as the graph linked to before shows, shadow density is not affected much by development - you either provide enough light, or you don't.

 

Now, as someone who has pushed film many times over 45 years, - yes, the usability of the final picture depends on getting the midtones and highlights to a density that can be printed and make into an effective picture. In many cases, shadow detail is rather overrated as an artistic requirement.

 

Development does not correct for "wrong" exposure. It can partially compensate for it. The analogy would be - if you lose a leg, a prosthetic or a crutch can partially compensate for the missing leg, but it cannot correct the condition.

 

If you expose 400 at 640, you will get more shadow detail than if you expose at 800 or 1250 or 1600. That will be true whether you develop for 640 or 800 or 1600 - and the shadows won't change much at any development (but the highlights will, and if that is the effect you want, that's a fine choice.)

[A miller]

I think the difference between us is that you speak in terms of exposure of a negative and i speak in terms of exposure of an image. They may as a technical matter in a classroom be apples and oranges.

 

 

But i believe that i have most comprehensively and helpfully and practically addresed the OP and you have provided helpful technical detail that one can read on a film box or a book.

 

The proof is in the pudding in my images. They all were shot with an ETTR workflow and push processed. And they all have a pushed feel and were - as an image - slightly overexposed right out of the scan which made them more digitally editable. This is exactly what the OP asked about. I think your (and some other) responses may have missed the mark, which is one of the reasons that i commented.

Edited November 26, 2017 by A miller

[fatihayoglu]

Thank you very much all. The problem might be as I’m starting to shoot film, I don’t know the whole science behind it. I have had 2 aims,

1) at night, I will need extra speed. Can I do this by setting ISO dial to 800 for TX400 film? And will this give me a full stop extra shutter speed? I guess the answer is yes.

2) exposing to shadows and and overexposing 1 stop will give a brighter mid tones, can I do this by asking my lab to process my film at a higher ISO rate. Let’s say I exposed at 400 and asked my lab for 800 (for overcast day), similarly I exposed at 200 and asked my lab for 400 (during the day) and of course I exposed for 800 and asked my lab for 1600 (at night).

I understand this is not necessarily shadow recovery.

 

I will but the Negative and put in my toilet as well

[A miller]

Thank you very much all. The problem might be as I’m starting to shoot film, I don’t know the whole science behind it. I have had 2 aims,

1) at night, I will need extra speed. Can I do this by setting ISO dial to 800 for TX400 film? And will this give me a full stop extra shutter speed? I guess the answer is yes.

2) exposing to shadows and and overexposing 1 stop will give a brighter mid tones, can I do this by asking my lab to process my film at a higher ISO rate. Let’s say I exposed at 400 and asked my lab for 800 (for overcast day), similarly I exposed at 200 and asked my lab for 400 (during the day) and of course I exposed for 800 and asked my lab for 1600 (at night).

I understand this is not necessarily shadow recovery.

I will but the Negative and put in my toilet as well

putting technical mumbo jumbo aside, you are correct on both counts for what you are seeking to do. i strongly recommend giving it a try and reporting back some results. There us a very good thread called "I like film" in the "Other" section which is raging with film photo sharing of all types. Most people who have commented on your thread do not participate in that thread. But it is still the best thread on the Forum anyway

[pico]

fatihayoglu, this is getting old. Why not just buy a film with a fast box speed and expose at the recommended ISO?

[Steve Ricoh]

^ Yes why not, eg http://ffordes.com/product/13021310460281

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

^ Yes why not, eg http://ffordes.com/product/13021310460281

 

other than grain the size of golf balls, I cannot think of a single reason