Jump to content

The Leica Forum uses cookies. Read the privacy statement for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    OK, understood.

Photo
- - - - -

Pushing a film in dev *same* as boosting exposure in scanning/PP


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 jmahto

jmahto

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,900 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 16 September 2018 - 15:35

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Well, after experimenting and scanning with several rolls in past few months I had this thought. 

 

Is pushing a film in chemical development *same* as either boosting exposure while scanning or increasing exposure in PP?

Look at this example of Tri-X 
 

Without any adjustment in scanning. On visual inspection also negative was on the lighter side (not sufficiently dense anywhere) and histogram on scanner confirmed that it was underexposed.

Attached File  Mono_lake-20180701Kodak_Tri-X_test_homescanned-PUSH_INPP_TEST-101.jpg   122.96KB   0 downloads

 

After +1 exposure in LR. It seems to me that this exposure boost in PP has increased the contrast in the same way chemical push would have done.

Why am I thinking about this? Because, if my observation is correct then I have the flexibility to push process frame by frame in PP after normal development.

Attached File  Mono_lake-20180701Kodak_Tri-X_test_homescanned-PUSH_INPP_TEST-101-2.jpg   158.8KB   0 downloads

 

And yes, that is E-Type on the road :)


Edited by jmahto, 16 September 2018 - 15:38.

Jayant Mahto

 Flickr  Blog

"There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." - Ansel Adams
 


#2 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 7,567 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted 18 September 2018 - 07:40

Kinda-sorta.

 

"Pushing" is amplifying or multiplying or "cranking up the gain of" whatever base image is there. You start with a captured brightness range of between 0 and x, and if x is still too dark, you can multiply the whole range of brightnesses in the picture by, say, 4 (the "push"), and get a brightness range of between 0 to 4x (any number times zero is still zero, of course).

 

Result - a steeper line connecting 0 and the maximum (higher "gamma") = more contrast, plus a stronger maximum and mid-range - a picture you can see.

 

Thus all of the following do roughly similar things (assuming, in the case of a digital capture, that the sensor is "ISO-invariant"):

 

- underexpose a sensor by setting the camera to a higher ISO than base, and letting the camera "push" or multiply the image values for you

- underexpose a sensor by leaving the camera ISO setting at base ISO, but using a hand-held metered exposure (or exposure-compensation dial) to feed it too little light, and then doing the amplification in LR or Photoshop or whatever.

- underexpose film, and amplify the silver in it by extended development (pushing it chemically)

- underexpose film, and give it normal development, and then scan the film, and use LR to "crank up the gain" just like any other digital image.

 

The main obvious difference will be this: chemical "pushing" tends to increase the "grain/noise" in the highlights, by creating more and more silver in the only place there is any exposure to develop. Digital pushing tends to increase the "grain/noise" in the shadows, because that is where the signal/noise ratio is worst. *

 

Attached File  pushedfilm.jpg   94.35KB   0 downloads Attached File  pushdigi.jpg   109.1KB   0 downloads

Pushed film detail -                                                             Pushed (high ISO - 16000) digital -

clean shadows, noisy bright tones                                    noisy shadows, smoother highlights

 

Digital pushing is rather like recording sound with a weak mic or preamp, and then trying to recover the original sound by cranking the primary amp or playback volume up to 11 - you can hear the song, but also every tiny pop and scratchy bit of static noise.

 

There may be other differences, just due to the fact that the whole "film" thing tends to be non-linear, especially at the extremes of exposure (toe and shoulder of the film's response to light = "characteristic curve" ** ), and in development (where to compensate for a whole stop of underexposure (half the needed light) you give 1.4x (root-2) the development. You may find that playing with a "curve" in LR better replicates chemical pushing than an overall exposure bump of "+1". Or some combination of curves, exposure, contrast, shadows or highlights, etc.

_________________

 

* the one thing that frustrates me about digital - after 40 years of seeing pushed film pictures with (usually) grainy highlights and smooth empty shadows, the noisy shadows and "smoother" highlights of high-ISO digital just look - wrong - to me.

 

** http://www.sprawls.o...cteristic Curve

 


  • M9reno, jmahto and AntonioF said thank you to this

"Art is not what you see, but what you make others see." - Edgar Degas

Andy Piper
http://andrewpiperphotography.com/
http://www.coloradoseen.com/


#3 jmahto

jmahto

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,900 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 18 September 2018 - 16:23

Kinda-sorta.

 

"Pushing" is amplifying or multiplying or "cranking up the gain of" whatever base image is there. You start with a captured brightness range of between 0 and x, and if x is still too dark, you can multiply the whole range of brightnesses in the picture by, say, 4 (the "push"), and get a brightness range of between 0 to 4x (any number times zero is still zero, of course).

 

Result - a steeper line connecting 0 and the maximum (higher "gamma") = more contrast, plus a stronger maximum and mid-range - a picture you can see.

 

Thus all of the following do roughly similar things (assuming, in the case of a digital capture, that the sensor is "ISO-invariant"):

 

- underexpose a sensor by setting the camera to a higher ISO than base, and letting the camera "push" or multiply the image values for you

- underexpose a sensor by leaving the camera ISO setting at base ISO, but using a hand-held metered exposure (or exposure-compensation dial) to feed it too little light, and then doing the amplification in LR or Photoshop or whatever.

- underexpose film, and amplify the silver in it by extended development (pushing it chemically)

- underexpose film, and give it normal development, and then scan the film, and use LR to "crank up the gain" just like any other digital image.

 

The main obvious difference will be this: chemical "pushing" tends to increase the "grain/noise" in the highlights, by creating more and more silver in the only place there is any exposure to develop. Digital pushing tends to increase the "grain/noise" in the shadows, because that is where the signal/noise ratio is worst. *

 

attachicon.gifpushedfilm.jpg attachicon.gifpushdigi.jpg

Pushed film detail -                                                             Pushed (high ISO - 16000) digital -

clean shadows, noisy bright tones                                    noisy shadows, smoother highlights

 

Digital pushing is rather like recording sound with a weak mic or preamp, and then trying to recover the original sound by cranking the primary amp or playback volume up to 11 - you can hear the song, but also every tiny pop and scratchy bit of static noise.

 

There may be other differences, just due to the fact that the whole "film" thing tends to be non-linear, especially at the extremes of exposure (toe and shoulder of the film's response to light = "characteristic curve" ** ), and in development (where to compensate for a whole stop of underexposure (half the needed light) you give 1.4x (root-2) the development. You may find that playing with a "curve" in LR better replicates chemical pushing than an overall exposure bump of "+1". Or some combination of curves, exposure, contrast, shadows or highlights, etc.

_________________

 

* the one thing that frustrates me about digital - after 40 years of seeing pushed film pictures with (usually) grainy highlights and smooth empty shadows, the noisy shadows and "smoother" highlights of high-ISO digital just look - wrong - to me.

 

** http://www.sprawls.o...cteristic Curve

 

Thanks for detailed reply. I will have to think about your following comment that is very fascinating:

...The main obvious difference will be this: chemical "pushing" tends to increase the "grain/noise" in the highlights, by creating more and more silver in the only place there is any exposure to develop. Digital pushing tends to increase the "grain/noise" in the shadows, because that is where the signal/noise ratio is worst....


Jayant Mahto

 Flickr  Blog

"There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." - Ansel Adams
 


#4 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 7,567 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted 19 September 2018 - 15:26

BTW - how did you meter your Jag picture?


"Art is not what you see, but what you make others see." - Edgar Degas

Andy Piper
http://andrewpiperphotography.com/
http://www.coloradoseen.com/


#5 jmahto

jmahto

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,900 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 19 September 2018 - 16:22

BTW - how did you meter your Jag picture?

I did sunny16 (f/16 and 1/500), Tri-X 400 lab developed. I am just wondering whether 1/500 sec is not that accurate or I might have made a mistake and set speed higher (1/1000). Later is a possibility since in the same roll there is another sunny16 shot in similar sun that looks ok. I shot from running car and might not have set exposure correctly.


Jayant Mahto

 Flickr  Blog

"There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." - Ansel Adams
 


#6 pico

pico

    Sponsoring Canine

  • Premium Member
  • 17,370 posts
  • LocationMinnesota
  • City / Ort:Winona

Posted 19 September 2018 - 20:24

One stop would not make that big a difference. Something else is going on.



#7 jmahto

jmahto

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,900 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted Yesterday, 03:33

One stop would not make that big a difference. Something else is going on.

Any guess? I have used Sunny16 many times after this and it has been fine (even in the same roll). My own guess is mistake in exposure setting (most probably) or inaccurate shutter (less probable).


Jayant Mahto

 Flickr  Blog

"There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." - Ansel Adams
 


#8 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 7,567 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted Yesterday, 05:59

1) side-lighting: need to add ~1 stop for that (with side lighting, on average, half your subject is front-lit and half your subject is backlit, just like a half-moon)

 

2) tinted car windshield - need to add a "filter factor" for that. Anywhere between 2/3rds-stop for basic faintly green safety glass (blocks 35% of the visible light), to several stops with a serious dark tint (factory tinting blocks ~75-80% of the visible light).

 

https://oceanoptics....dow-Tinting.jpg

 

3) plus, of course, under sunny 16, Tri-X nominally needs 1/400th sec and f/16 - 1/500th is technically a tad under to begin with. I usually cheat to the half-stop between 11 and 16 ("f/13") with 400 film and 1/500th sec.

 

OTOH, if a film Leica shutter (except electronic M7) is off-spec, it is usually too slow, and gives back the needed half-stop. Typically, unless very recently serviced, a Leica M clockwork shutter at "1/1000th" is running about 1/750th.

 

But it all adds up.


Edited by adan, Yesterday, 05:59.

  • jmahto said thank you to this

"Art is not what you see, but what you make others see." - Edgar Degas

Andy Piper
http://andrewpiperphotography.com/
http://www.coloradoseen.com/


#9 AntonioF

AntonioF

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 509 posts
  • LocationFrancavilla Fontana, Italy

Posted Yesterday, 06:25

When I push film (usually from 400 to 1600) I do it also for other 2 reasons, besides the extra flexibility of the higher iso:

1 - I want a certain look with more contrast (and of course I embrace the grain)

2 - the extra 2 stops gives me the possibility to use a smaller aperture and get more depth of field in worse light conditions

 

You might get the constrast in PP, but not the DOF.

 

Well, after a second thought, you could use anyway a small aperture, shoot underexposed, don't push and correct in PP (which is what you want to do) but you'll get a lot of extra digital noise/grain in the shadows if it's more than 1 stop. That's my experience, at least. 

 

PS I usually cheat with Sunny 16 as well: iso 400 -> 1/500 F11


Edited by AntonioF, Yesterday, 06:37.

  • jmahto said thank you to this

- Antonio - Instagram

 


#10 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 7,567 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted Yesterday, 17:24

Anyway - here is your first jpg, revised with a PhotoShop "Curves" adjustment. The blockiness in the shadows is from the jpg compression of your post; you shouldn't see that, working from your original scan file.

 

At this scale, of course, any noise or grain is mostly too small to see. And the exact curve drawn can vary according to taste - you don't have to like mine. ;)

 

Attached File  revisedarkscan.jpg   346.72KB   0 downloads


  • jmahto said thank you to this

"Art is not what you see, but what you make others see." - Edgar Degas

Andy Piper
http://andrewpiperphotography.com/
http://www.coloradoseen.com/


#11 jmahto

jmahto

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,900 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted Yesterday, 19:18

Anyway - here is your first jpg, revised with a PhotoShop "Curves" adjustment. The blockiness in the shadows is from the jpg compression of your post; you shouldn't see that, working from your original scan file.

 

At this scale, of course, any noise or grain is mostly too small to see. And the exact curve drawn can vary according to taste - you don't have to like mine. ;)

 

attachicon.gifrevisedarkscan.jpg

Thanks Andy, That looks much better than simply using exposure slider.

I tried to mimic the curve in LR and results came out similar. I had to add 0.5 exposure as well. See the settings. The grain (crop) doesn't look bad either. I guess now I have a tool to recover from underexposure. :)

Attached File  exp_sm-20180701Kodak_Tri-X_test_homescanned-PUSH_INPP_TEST-101-adjustment-101.jpg   115KB   0 downloads

 

Crop (licence plate masked)
Attached File  exp_sm-20180701Kodak_Tri-X_test_homescanned-PUSH_INPP_TEST-101.jpg   169.42KB   0 downloads


Edited by jmahto, Yesterday, 19:22.

Jayant Mahto

 Flickr  Blog

"There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." - Ansel Adams
 


#12 pico

pico

    Sponsoring Canine

  • Premium Member
  • 17,370 posts
  • LocationMinnesota
  • City / Ort:Winona

Posted Yesterday, 22:57

Interesting. I have never seen a black E-Jag.



#13 Jeff S

Jeff S

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 12,575 posts

Posted Today, 03:19

Interesting. I have never seen a black E-Jag.


You could have had one for a half million...

https://www.hemmings...-new-york-sale/

Or a lot cheaper; it was an available color for some variations.

Jeff

#14 pico

pico

    Sponsoring Canine

  • Premium Member
  • 17,370 posts
  • LocationMinnesota
  • City / Ort:Winona

Posted Today, 03:27

You could have had one for a half million...

https://www.hemmings...-new-york-sale/

Or a lot cheaper; it was an available color for some variations.

 

The one in the OPs picture was a +2 model, no?

 

Half million? Can we get snow tires for it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic