Overexposing and pushing the film

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since you quoted me, I won't respond point for point - I'd just be repeating your quotes.

 

I'll leave it to the readers to decide for themselves who was providing some calm, rational discussion, and who threw an emotional tizzy-fit. It was beneath you.

 

Adan - Yes, I think we do have some differences.   Mine have to do with the elitist attitude that your posts often portray.  And how your chapter and verse wasn't really on topic.   Nor was it respectful of other's valid views (even though perhaps not presented in a textbook fashion).

Edited December 3, 2017 by A miller

[adan]

OK. I won't get into elitism or respect (those are Barnack's Bar subjects, if discussed in any length).

 

As to quoting chapter and verse, and whether that goes off-topic - I found that when I was coming up in photography, that digging into the underlying details was a great way to "connect the dots" and improve my understanding when solving technical photo questions like we get here. When it was time to enter a new room in the house of photography, I already knew something of what to expect.

 

It's like the old saying - tell a man how push one film to one ISO, and you feed him for a day - give him some background information on how exposure and development actually work, and you've fed him for a lifetime.

 

I guess I'm also influenced by having come from an academic and engineering family, spending my career in journalism, and doing some teaching on my own (including over a camera store counter) - disciplines where "the truth" requires "the whole truth."

 

But I'll try to edit myself more tightly....

Edited December 3, 2017 by adan

[A miller]

OK. I won't get into elitism or respect (those are Barnack's Bar subjects, if discussed in any length).

 

As to quoting chapter and verse, and whether that goes off-topic - I found that when I was coming up in photography, that digging into the underlying details was a great way to "connect the dots" and improve my understanding when solving technical photo questions like we get here. When it was time to enter a new room in the house of photography, I already knew something of what to expect.

 

It's like the old saying - tell a man how push one film to one ISO, and you feed him for a day - give him some background information on how exposure and development actually work, and you've fed him for a lifetime.

 

I guess I'm also influenced by having come from an academic and engineering family, spending my career in journalism, and doing some teaching on my own (including over a camera store counter) - disciplines where "the truth" requires "the whole truth."

 

But I'll try to edit myself more tightly....

 

All fair enough, Adan.  But next time you just might want to re-consider beginning your response-posts with "No..." or "Wrong again..." and consider something more along the lines of "In substance you are right, however, there are some technical underpinnings to sort out..." or "I hear what you are saying and I know what you mean, which makes sense, however...."  This would go along way to address my concerns.

[adan]

I hear what you are saying....

[fatihayoglu]

Thank you very much all, every single piece of entry will help my future understanding of the FILM. For now, I have received answers to my questions and some details about film processing, all provided by few passionate photographers 

[fatihayoglu]

Hi masters of film photography,

 

How one can obtain a bit more contrast on film (not just whites and blacks) ? I need answers as rate (dial) your film at this ISO and ask the lab to develop as this ISO I know some of you would like to give really long detailed and perfect answers tbh, but the problem is I'm not perfect. The films I use is TriX400, Portra 400, Velvia 50, Velvia 100 and Ektar 100 (Haven't shot with the last 3, they are in the freezer and I'll use them in Turkey).

 

Many thanks,

 

Fatih

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Slide film (such as your Velvia 50, Velvia 100) shoot it by one stop more.  In other words, shoot Velvia 50 at 100, and shoot Velvia 100 at 200.  Be sure to mark your film.  When you take your film to the lab, tell them to push the film one stop.  You might have to pay a little extra for the push process, but that's all you do. 

 

Tri-X 400, you can shoot that at 800, and tell the lab to push one stop.  You can also shoot it at 1600, and tell the lab to push two stops. 

 

With color negative film such as the Portra 400 and Ektar 100, there's a couple things you can do.  You can shoot them both by one stop more (Portra 400 at 800,) (Ektar 100 at 200,) and have the lab develop normally.  The results will be a little bit more color saturation (but maybe slightly darker images.)  Or, you can shoot (Portra 400 at 800,) (Ektar 100 at 200,) and tell the lab to push one stop.   

 

It's a little bit harder to get more contrast from color negative film, and easiest to get more contrast from color slides and B&W film.  Another thing you could do to increase the contrast in color negative film is to shoot it normally and have it developed normally, get scans, then increase the contrast digitally in your favorite photo editing software. 

 

One last thing; there are not as many labs that can or will push C-41 (color negatives.)     

[fatihayoglu]

The Barnman, thanks a lot for your answer, it’s much appreciated.

 

Just a point to check, when you say “tell your lab to push the film a stop more” means overdevelop it right? So say I shoot Velvia 100 at 200 (so the ISO dial is at 200) and then ask the lab to develop it for 200. Also what happens, if I shoot Velvia 100 at 100 but develop for 200?

Edited July 1, 2018 by fatihayoglu

[01af]

How one can obtain a bit more contrast on film (not just whites and blacks)?

Obviously, first of all you need to understand the concept of 'contrast.'

 

 

I need answers as rate (dial) your film at this ISO and ask the lab to develop as this ISO ...

To reduce film contrast, over-expose and under-develop. That's called 'pulling.' It's a good strategy to capture very high subject contrast, such as outdoor scenes in full mid-day sun.

 

If the subject contrast is low, you may want to increase film contrast by under-exposing and over-developing. That's called 'pushing.' However, the highest image quality usually is obtained when exposing at nominal film speed and developing accordingly, i. e. neither push or pull. You should deviate from that only when absolutely necessary.

 

All this applies to black-and-white film. Colour film (negative or chrome) doesn't respond well to pushing or pulling. In low-light conditions, you may want to push the film a bit but you'll risk blocked shadows and colour casts.

 

 

[thebarnman]

The Barnman, thanks a lot for your answer, it’s much appreciated.

 

Just a point to check, when you say “tell your lab to push the film a stop more” means overdevelop it right? So say I shoot Velvia 100 at 200 (so the ISO dial is at 200) and then ask the lab to develop it for 200. Also what happens, if I shoot Velvia 100 at 100 but develop for 200?

 

Yes, when the lab is pushing film by one stop, they are overdeveloping it.  And yes, when you shoot Velvia 100 at 200, you set the dial of your camera at 200.  To avoid confusion, it's best to simply tell the lab to push your film one stop.

 

Velvia film is a transparency film (slide film,) so it reacts differently than regular negative film.   So if you shot Velvia 100 normally at 100, but had it develop at 200 (developing it with a one stop push) the results will be a lighter image. 

[chrism]

Might we not make an official forum policy that all new members with clever ideas about underexposing and overdeveloping a film to attain some kind of photographic nirvana be told to stick to box speed and standard development for a minimum of 100 rolls of film before they experiment? I understand their thinking, and concede their cleverness. But I know that chemistry is the mistress of non-linearity (learnt that in the kitchen more than in the darkroom), and so many good ideas just don't work in practice.

My own field of hard-won expertise is in mis-developing chromogenic films in B&W developers. I have played with several B&W developers that don't officially work with chromogenic film, and slowly found the times that allow for pushing and pulling such film. This would be a stupid waste of time and effort unless there were some gain, which there is in terms of reduced grain compared to conventional B&W silver halide film.

I first developed a film in a 'Gnome' tank about 45 years ago, and the thousands of films since then have given me some feel for how to proceed. That feeling says to me that no one who is a recent newcomer to film ought to try to be clever. Just be good at what works, and after many years of that you might start to experiment with your new ideas. I don't want to suppress some amazing new process, but I do still want to help new film developers stay within the parameters that will encourage them to continue, as nothing works better than success when it comes to doing it over again. In the end, whether one uses film or digital, a good photograph is seen, captured and ultimately defined by measures that are nothing to do with darkrooms or computers. We all know how useless and dreadful most frames are, and how rare the obvious keepers are, no matter whether they were obtained digitally or on film. I know enough to think that is more important than any technical difference; and only can wish I were capable enough to make such photographs more often than I do, if I do so at all.

Once again, I come up against the basic dichotomy in photography, which is far more strongly pronounced in film photography: you can make good photographs artistically, and you can make good photographs technically (and the bigger divide technically means you have to understand film, its exposure, and its development as well as whatever factors went into seeing the image before you captured it). There really isn't any divide at all in the artistic sense: a good photograph is still a good photograph whether on film or on a sensor. Look at HCB, who essentially snapped his photos, and neither developed or printed the results. He saw what he wanted as an image and took it with no regard for all the chemical considerations of film. I'm not saying one ought to emulate him—that depends on what you expect from your activities with a camera and how you obtain your pleasure in doing so (and you might not care for his photographs as exemplars. I don't particularly like them either.). But all of us have to find some reason to load the next roll of film. That might be an experiment in some technical aspect of exposure or development. It might be an experiment in an optical sense with a new lens. It might just be some vague and undefined sense of wanting to create a great image, and the last film gave us enough subconscious encouragement to think it is within reach.

These things matter much more than how to deceive a film into being exposed incorrectly, and then developed incorrectly again for some projected result. Just lately I've started using a point-and-shoot camera from 1968 to force myself to concentrate on those things that I can change. Isn't it strange how such restrictions can result in greater freedoms?

[pico]

chrism and I might be good for a few friendly pints together - the more pints the better. In the end, I expose without academic metrics, using a meter, or none, and make me way into the basement to process, disregarding its ambient  temperature which we cannot control and I do me best with our random water temperature and so far the god of photographic chemistry has not deemed my images unacceptable.

Edited July 1, 2018 by pico

[fatihayoglu]

Well, to be honest, those who suggest that I should stick to box speed for many many rolls and then once I learn what I do, I should take it from there, let me clear. Guys you are right, the best way to learn is, first and foremost, learning the basics and then moving the more advance stuff, which is piling and pushing, over and underexposing.

 

However, I shoot with film occasionally as I have 2 digital Leicas and 1 film Leica. My setup is, while I'm walking in the city I have my M10 with me. If I travel, I'll take M10 and M9 with me. Sometimes I am taking my MP with M10. Since M10 is my main camera and M9 or MP supplement, they don't have much usage on them so I need to know exactly how the film will behave so I can be more confident to shoo with MP more.

 

From all the entries above, I have an understanding of the film behave well on the box speed processing, which is fine. It is exactly like digital camera as they behave well at their base ISO (in terms of DR)

 

I also understand that on color film, saturation is pretty much fixed among all the speed whether it is over or under exposed pushed or pulled.

 

Contrast is variable and more contrast means more grain usually.

 

With all of these knowledge, let say; if I rate TriX400 at 200 and develop it for 400, would I get more contrasty image with the reasonably well behaved film? (Well behaved film, as highest image quality).

 

According my research, Velvia is not good with overdeveloping so my plan with that will be exposing and developing for the box speed.

 

(I wish there is a website, where I can choose the film and then choose the rating and developing of it and then it will show me a rough virtual picture so I can have an understanding )

 

(Also what happens if I shoot TriX at 400 but develop for 200, will I get flatter and darker images?)

Edited July 1, 2018 by fatihayoglu

[chrism]

I have a brewery within 100m of my front door, so Pico, I can both ensure we have enough pints and beds to stagger into (downhill, as well).

 

Now:

 

 

With all of these knowledge, let say; if I rate TriX400 at 200 and develop it for 400, would I get more contrasty image with the reasonably well behaved film? (Well behaved film, as highest image quality).

 

According my research, Velvia is not good with overdeveloping so my plan with that will be exposing and developing for the box speed.

 

(I wish there is a website, where I can choose the film and then choose the rating and developing of it and then it will show me a rough virtual picture so I can have an understanding  )

 

 

(Also what happens if I shoot TriX at 400 but develop for 200, will I get flatter and darker images?)

No such website, anywhere, ever, at all. Expose your Tri-X 400 at ISO 400 and develop it that way. Do that many, many times. Then, perhaps, begin to experiment. And by the way, never ever play around with slide films like Velvia this way. Only heartbreak can be found that way.

I'm not being facetious, but it might be the case that you will never really 'get' film until you abandon those nasty digital Leicas. I've owned and sold an M8, an M8.2, an M9 and an MM. I'm much better off without them in all respects other than monetary. We all make mistakes.

Edited July 1, 2018 by chrism

[thebarnman]

Well, to be honest, those who suggest that I should stick to box speed for many many rolls and then once I learn what I do, I should take it from there, let me clear. Guys you are right, the best way to learn is, first and foremost, learning the basics and then moving the more advance stuff, which is piling and pushing, over and underexposing.

 

However, I shoot with film occasionally as I have 2 digital Leicas and 1 film Leica. My setup is, while I'm walking in the city I have my M10 with me. If I travel, I'll take M10 and M9 with me. Sometimes I am taking my MP with M10. Since M10 is my main camera and M9 or MP supplement, they don't have much usage on them so I need to know exactly how the film will behave so I can be more confident to shoo with MP more.

 

From all the entries above, I have an understanding of the film behave well on the box speed processing, which is fine. It is exactly like digital camera as they behave well at their base ISO (in terms of DR)

 

I also understand that on color film, saturation is pretty much fixed among all the speed whether it is over or under exposed pushed or pulled.

 

Contrast is variable and more contrast means more grain usually.

 

With all of these knowledge, let say; if I rate TriX400 at 200 and develop it for 400, would I get more contrasty image with the reasonably well behaved film? (Well behaved film, as highest image quality).

 

According my research, Velvia is not good with overdeveloping so my plan with that will be exposing and developing for the box speed.

 

(I wish there is a website, where I can choose the film and then choose the rating and developing of it and then it will show me a rough virtual picture so I can have an understanding )

 

(Also what happens if I shoot TriX at 400 but develop for 200, will I get flatter and darker images?)

 

Hi Fatihayoglu,

 

Shooting Tri-X at 200 and developing it at box speed (400,) will result in more shadow detail.  You might end up with a slight loss of detail in the very light grey (almost white) areas depending on your subject matter. 

 

Shooting Tri-X at box speed (400) and developing it at 200 is simply pulling your development by one stop.  The images will not be darker, but your contrast will be slightly reduced (and you can say flatter if you'd like.)  It's your final print that determines how dark or bright your final image will be. 

 

You are correct about Velvia...it's already a very contrasty color saturated slide film.  However, you could try shooting it at 80 (by setting your camera at 80 iso) and simply ask for a one stop push in development.  Don't tell them you shot it at 80 iso, just tell them you want a one stop push.  The reason I say that is some say that Velia 50 is really rated more like 40...that's why shooting it at 80 iso might give you more of the effect your looking for when having it pushed one stop.

 

The big thing to remember about transparency film is it does not have much latitude at all.  So if you can, on the same roll of film, you can limit your subject matter so that it's either all lit well, or all subdued.  Another words, photographing subjects that have low contrast (either with the whole subject having lots of light, or the whole subject not having lots of light) would work well with pushing transparency film.  Of course you can shoot regular subjects with normal contrast too, (and assuming correct exposure,) but anything that is slightly dark will be all black, and anything near white (or very bright) will be blown out.          

Edited July 1, 2018 by thebarnman