This is a follow up to a discussion started in another thread, and triggered by looking at the published curves of (chemically) push-processed film. From those curves it appears that push-processing reversal film buys you next to nothing in added shadow detail. At least, nothing that couldn't be got from alternative digital enhancement techniques. So I thought I'd post some pictures to illustrate. The following two shots were taken years ago on 50 ISO Fujichrome. The underexposed shot (bottom) was a genuine mistake, and got underexposed by about two stops before I reset the camera ISO to take the top picture. There's also quite strong lens vignetting that adds to the underexposure in the corners. Both slides were copied in RAW format with a digital camera at the same 'scanning' exposure. I.e. the copying exposure was set just short of highlight-clipping for the correctly exposed slide and the same settings used for the underexposed slide. This gives an idea of how dark that slide appears to the eye. Next is the digitally 'pushed' version of the underexposed slide. Extra camera-copying exposure was given, in addition to a tweak of the curves in Photoshop and a slight saturation boost. The aim was to try and match the shot exposed correctly in the camera. A pretty successful exercise, IMO. Here are 100% crops of the deepest shadow areas of the two slides. I don't see much shadow detail loss, apart from an increase in noise in the pushed version. In my view, the noise is actually less obtrusive than the increased grain and colour shift that you'd get from conventional push processing. Therefore it's my opinion that scanning and using digital enhancent techniques can make chemical 'pushing' a thing of the past. This is the 21st century after all.