Jump to content
erniethemilk

Push/Pull Film

Recommended Posts

Depends on the film, I don't jump around much, but Tri-X I use an ISO of 200, TMax 400 and 100 at box speed. Every once in a while I will push TMax 400 to ISO 1200 or so, + 25 % development. Just shot some 120 TMax 400 at ISO 200 (camera issues) won't do that again. Also just shot a roll of Rollei Infrared, that was interesting I should concentrate on one filter per roll, I did 3 different filters, each needed different development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 1960s I normally shot Tri-X at EI 1200 for indoor reportage and sports, developed in Acufine. Back then Acufine (Ethol) claimed 1200 was not a push, but was the normal speed for Tri-X in that developer. I see Acufine is still available, but now claims EI 1000 for Tri-X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

Just shot some 120 TMax 400 at ISO 200 (camera issues) won't do that again

Why's that?

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, erniethemilk said:

box speed or do you frequently push/pull your film

I think there are two concepts here. Push/pull refers to development of the film. You could shoot 400 iso film at 200 but not pull development. 

You should adjust the exposure and the development of the film to match the contrast of your scene.

For a normal contrast subject, like outdoors on a bright sunny day you might shoot at iso 400 and develop the film for N minutes to give you a nice rage of tones on the negative.

Under Exposure

If you gave the film less exposure, so you're in effect shooting it at a higher iso (e.g. shooting 400 iso at EV 800), you might lose some of the darker tones and the highlights would look underexposed with whites looking more grey, so you need to develop longer (Say, N+10%). This is pushing the film and increases the contrast on the negative and therefore of the final image.  N+10% might bring you back to a contrast on the negative that is more "Normal". The longer you develop the film (the more you 'push' development), the higher the contrast, and this can be exploited for visual effect. A lot of street photographers like this look because it can look grungy (especially with the increased grain through over development). I imagine Ralph Gibson might have done something like this for his high contrast images. The 'dynamic range' of the image is narrower when underexposed and over developed. So if you have a low contrast scene, this is a technique you might like to employ to give your image more punch.

Overdevelopment brightens the highlights, builds up the midtones and leaves the blacks about the same.

Overexposure brings more information into the shadows. Underexposure in the example above will mean there's less information in the shadows and overdeveloping it won't put it back.

Over Exposure

Conversely, if you over expose the film effectively shooting it at a lower iso (e.g. shooting iso 400 at EV 100) you might lose your highlights and your blacks would tend to grey, so you need to develop the film for a shorter time (Say, N-20% in this case for 400@100) to give you a 'normal' contrast on the negative. Further reducing development time continues to stretch out the contrast which is useful for a scene with a high dynamic range. For example, portraits in bright sunlight (or portraits in general) where you want to avoid hotspots on the skin and dark shadows around eyes. Night time scenes is another example where you might want to have an increased dynamic range (think of that Edwin Hooper restaurant painting). Another example is taking a photo of someone by a window. If you exposed for the person in the room but pulled the development (maybe try N-40%) you might not lose the highlights (the view) through the window.

The other advantage of under development is you get less grain.

So, ideally you should look at the scene you're about to photograph and note the difference in light levels between shadows and highlights and expose your film and develop it with the effect you wish to create in mind. 

Photographing the interior of a house - you might want 'Normal' contrast but you have Tri-X400 and it's a bit dim. So you might choose to shoot it at 1600 and over develop 20%.

You see some trash on a grass verge. - you might want it to have a high contrast high grain grungy look so you might expose your Tri-X at 1600 but overdevelop 50%.

You want to take a photo of your partner standing by the hotel window with the view down the lawn to the river beyond. You expose for your partner with Tri X at 400 but halve the development time.

Pete

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Stealth3kpl:

Why's that?

Pete

On a Rollei there is a spring that makes it a challenge to go to 1/500, haven't used this camera in 20 or so years, the adjustment was just not working. All I had was ISO 400 film, had to make do. Will have to get the shutter cleaned. As with any Compur shutter, the exposures were good after a few actuations. Was a bright sunny afternoon.

 

Edited by tommonego@gmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

Depends on the film, I don't jump around much, but Tri-X I use an ISO of 200, TMax 400 and 100 at box speed. Every once in a while I will push TMax 400 to ISO 1200 or so, + 25 % development. Just shot some 120 TMax 400 at ISO 200 (camera issues) won't do that again. Also just shot a roll of Rollei Infrared, that was interesting I should concentrate on one filter per roll, I did 3 different filters, each needed different development.

I find that with Rollei 400 infrared I use a number of different red filters from just dark red, Leica Rh or Rd, to very dense, IR or even darker so that you cannot see anything through it. But they all seem to need five stops extra exposure over a normal black and white film, in bright sun 125th at f5.6

i have just started another roll of infrared, using the 50mm f2.8 Elmar means I have put the Leica E39 IR dense filter on.

Edited by Pyrogallol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
vor 10 Minuten schrieb Pyrogallol:

I find that with Rollei 400 infrared I use a number of different red filters from just dark red, Leica Rh or Rd, to very dense, IR or even darker so that you cannot see anything through it. But they all seem to need five stops extra exposure over a normal black and white film, in bright sun 125th at f5.6

 

I mostly used an R72 filter, with that filter I found a loss in the shadows, could have been inaccurate metering, weather was changing in the hour I was out, I was using ISO 12. I have a 1970s era Leitz infrared filter, it is a little lighter than the R72, 39mm so doesn't fit most of my lenses, that I used ISO 25 and the exposures were over exposed. I also tried a Wratten 25, at ISO 50 and that was over exposed. Then I developed it in TMax developer (what I had) for 10 minutes at 75 degrees.

Edited by tommonego@gmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep buying filters (and viewfinders) for some reason and just bought a B&W 093 infrared filter, but I think it might be a bit too dense with a high cutoff point. I have tested it on the latest film and will have to wait to find out if it is usable, the 090 is ok but is only like an everyday red filter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

RE: TMax 400 at 200 - has a tendency to block up the highlight tones rather fast - see Tom's bridge highlights. TMax films are tricky that way (it is a price we pay for the finer grain and sharpness. ;))

Personally, I shoot TMax 400 at box speed** but pull the processing slightly (underdevelop 10-15% from the Kodak times and use Ilford agitation (once per minute). Because 1) my Mamiya 6 Sekor lenses are rather contrasty in the modern style (even more prone to chunking the highlight tones), and 2) scanners are generally happier with a notch less overall density anyway.

** but meter with a bias towards shadows - point my hand-held meter away from the brightest parts of the scene.

___________

Ideally, I want a neg that has silver density higher than film-base + fog everywhere in the negative (no empty blacks unless I choose to clip them myself) but don't get too dense anywhere in the highlights. Detail everywhere (unless I choose to add contrast later).

This is with a Mamiya 6, Sekor 75mm, 13-stop brightness range from sun on white wall to black curtain in shade (bottom left). A repeat of a test I did last fall with HC-110 1:31, now with D76 1:1. Only "empty" black is in the film border.

 

On the other end, I don't push even in low light, because I like the Arbus-y look of direct flash - which I sometimes combine with a long exposure for ambient light. Old-school stuff.

 

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Film has little to no latitude for underexposure. It cannot be pushed or pulled. That is a myth. You can give more than the absolute minimum exposure, several stops, in fact, but there is no underexposure latitude at all. Changing the degree of development is completely ineffective.

Edited by Ornello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Ornello said:

Film has little to no latitude for underexposure. It cannot be pushed or pulled. That is a myth. You can give more than the absolute minimum exposure, several stops, in fact, but there is no underexposure latitude at all. Changing the degree of development is completely ineffective.

Not really true, unless one only uses the very narrow ISO technical standard of shadow density and detail (or "foot speed") as the measure of useful pictures.

It is perfectly possible, and a useful technique, to overdevelop underexposed film (pushing), or underdevelop overexposed film (pulling), such that the average density of a negative - and the midtones - is generally equivalent to a normally-exposed and normally-developed negative. To permit pictures in dim light, or to save pictures accidentaly (or intentionally) overexposed, or to adjust final negative contrast to suit the native subject contrast range - e.g. the Zone System.

Ilford, which has produced and sold far more film, and knows far more about film, that you (or I) ever will, specifically states they do not use the ISO "foot speed" methodology. As company policy. This note appears on virtually all their film data sheets (except Kentmere and Ortho films):

Quote

EXPOSURE RATING

Best results are obtained at EI 400/27, but good image quality will also be obtained at meter settings from EI 400/27 to EI 3200/36. It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) range recommended for HP5 Plus is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/technical-downloads/technical-data-sheets/

As a newspaper intern in the 1970s, I had to take sports pictures in very-dimly-light school gymnasiums. To reasonably capture rapidly-moving basketball players, this required shooting Tri-X at EI (exposure index) 3200, to get a bare-minimum exposure of f/1.4 and 1/250th sec. And then overdeveloping ("pushing") the film 3 stops.

Had I come back to the newspaper and told the editor, "Sorry, but it 'is a myth' that Tri-X can be pushed to EI 3200, and it has 'no underexposure latitude at all.' So I didn't get any pictures," that would have been the end of my photojournalism career.

What actually happened was I got great action moments with good mid-tone and reasonable highlight detail - and I printed them - and they were published - and no one important cared whether the shadow density was 0.1 above film-base + fog or not. And my career has prospered.

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes in the degree of development cannot compensate for exposure errors. Underexposure is lethal, and cannot be corrected. Overexposure, so long as it is not extreme, is not a problem. Extreme overexposure (more than four stops) should be treated with increased development, to help gain contrast, because overexposure tends to decrease contrast. An extremely overexposed negative that is given reduced development will be so flat that it may be unusable.

Edited by Ornello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness - should I put out a recall notice to all my customers?

"Sorry, the picture you loved and bought was clearly substandard and unusable."

Try overdeveloping TMax 400 when it is already overexposed 4 stops, and then show us the image. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

I think it should be pulled (shorter development).

Pete

No, this is myth. It will be so flat as to be unprintable. By increasing development, contrast will be increased. It may be very dense, but it will have some contrast.

 

 

Edited by Ornello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Ornello said:

It will be so flat as to be unprintable.

Are you aware of contrast filters?

A contrasty negative is always much, much worse to print than a flat one. Anybody that does darkroom work can attest to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2020 at 12:25 AM, Ornello said:

Changing the degree of development is completely ineffective.

I don't think that has been found to be the case, but you are correct to say:

20 hours ago, Ornello said:

By increasing development, contrast will be increased

"When you develop film, the highlights are much more responsive to the developer than the shadow areas. Therefore, as you develop a sheet of film longer, the highlights will continue to get brighter while the shadows will not be affected as much. This principle is how we compensate for scenes where the range between the critical shadows and highlights doesn't fall in III-VIII sweet spot. It's also the basis for the photography saying, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights."

21 hours ago, Ornello said:

No, this is myth. It will be so flat as to be unprintable. By increasing development, contrast will be increased. It may be very dense, but it will have some contrast.

I think you're saying for over exposed film the contrast between zones 10, and hypothetical 10.2 and hypothetical 10.4 will be improved with increased development, but of course we'll just lose all information on the film as it blows. Under development brings the tones back to a steeper part of the curve to zones 8, 9 and 10.

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy