Your thoughts - rate at box speed, push or pull?

<p>I have now pushed and pulled my film and seen what it does. What are your thoughts, what is your method generally and the reasons behind it? </p>

<p>Pushing has more atmosphere, it is what I may use on travel, if I am tripod bound with a large heavy camera I may shoot at box speed ie 100. Pulling does have that maybe classic look but I am not sure how often I would use it given that the entire roll has to be pulled. Maybe good with older style buildings etc. </p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Box speed is the speed at which the curve is as flat as can be....as much detail as pooible over the complete spectrum. That's important because the lower spectrum will not change in sensitivity (saturates) and you will lose detail when you push. This means that if you expose a 400 iso film at 1600, the dark areas of your photo is still only being captured at iso 400. This means detail is lost due to the darker areas being under exposed and it does not respond to longer development like the rest of the spectrum.</p>

<p>So pushing......Well lit scenes may go unnoticed that you have bushed. Night shots definitely will.</p>

<p>Pulling.....Tones of detail in the darker areas. Better in black and white as this is photography of shadows and not colour.</p>

<p>For purest reasons, stage (band) shots are an example of what not to do. Almost all detail is lost. For artistic reasons, this *IS* the thing to do.....it's a look.</p>

<p>Well lit 3200 push of HP5 in rodinal<br>

<img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2701/4102416846_8fed887279_b_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Darker 3200 push of HP5 in Rodinal</p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2453/4060395555_0a9a3a5eda_b_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Different films have differing tolerances for pushing and pulling. Pushed film exhibits coarser grain and higher contrast. Pulled film exhibits the opposite - finer grain and less contrast. Pushing or pulling to extremes results in a loss of either highlight or shadow detail. Your metering technique and shutter accuracy also influence your results. When I was working exclusively with B&W films (35mm and medium format) I adhered to manufacturer's recommendations for exposing and processing the negatives, varying tonal curve through variously graded papers. Every negative potentially had detail in both highlights and shadows with a good mid range, as the manufacturer intended. But that was a long time ago. Maybe these days, "anything goes". I'm glad to see you're having fun and experimenting. </p>

<p>When you are stuck in a low-light situation, pushing sometimes helps. As above, it doesn't help much in the shadows, but sometimes it helps enough.</p>

<p>Zone system users sometimes suggest a one stop pull for rolls. Unlike sheet film, where you can choose the development time for each shot, you need one time for a whole roll. A one stop pull gets you a little less contrast, allowing for a little more dynamic range. Useful if you have bright highlights and dark shadows at the same time. </p>

<p>In my experience, I've typically done an initial test roll for each film in a camera body (I already know the shutter speed variations among bodies based on my shutter tester results)...bracketing in both directions from stated box speed...that gives me a baseline for "box speed" for that combination. If I'm using slides (not often these days, although I've got about a dozen rolls in the freezer), I tend to underexpose (daylight) scenes by 1/3-1/2 stop for more saturated colors and overexpose by the same amount for female portraits. For B&W pretty much the opposite. I don't do the push/pull development, much preferring to keep that constant and rely on the exposure of the film in camera to achieve my desired results.</p>

<p>Pushing generally works better in flat lighting whereas pulling might help under high contrast lighting. Both the type of film and choice of developer are important factors. A slow, fine grain film like Ilford Pan F+ might handle high contrast by pulling a bit, but would be a poor choice for pushing. Kodak's Tri-X and Ilford's HP5+ generally push well. </p>

<p>Generally, if you have to ask, you should use box speed. That is the idea behind the ISO system.</p>

<p>Also generally, negative films do better with a little more exposure (reduced EI), and reversal films with a little less exposure (slightly higher EI), in both cases with normal development.</p>

<p>Pushing increases contrast, but it sometimes necessary. Pulling decreases contrast, and is sometimes useful when you have enough light, and have need for the decreased contrast.</p>

<p>Not so obvious is the effect of compensating developers and stand development. With those, it seems possible to extract a little more speed without so much increase in contrast. </p>

<p>Note also, that Kodak recommends the same development times for some films pushed one stop. That is, they those films have enough latitude built-in to allow for it. </p>

<p>Box speed is a starting point. When trying a new film or new developer with a familiar film it's what you would normally try first. </p>

<p>I have shot some film, first obviously at box speed. I guess I am asking what is your preference and why do you like that?</p>

<p>I find the box speed too plain. I pushed Tri-X 400 to 800 on travel which increased the grain and contrast which I don't mind. If I am tripod bound or with a larger format camera so I can use any ISO, I am thinking I prefer to pull the film, looks less grain, and more smoother, more dynamic range. </p>

<p>I almost invariably used box speed. Can't see much rationale for habitual pushing or pulling when you're using roll film and in my case having processing done at a lab. Pulling- sure it might be less grainy, smoother and offers a bit more dynamic range. In many cases that's just a euphemism for "boring" and removing the character from a film. There's rarely any use for more dynamic range and I found I'd rather use grads anyway when I needed it. Grain isn't a problem with medium format anyway. I would push when I had to, and not otherwise. If I was habitually getting tempted to pull then I'd be asking myself whether I really should be using a characterful film like Tri-X anyway.<br>

Bear in mind also that printing is an essential part of the b&w process and you have the opportunity there to change contrast through the selection of paper and chemicals and how you or your lab uses them. A contact print will often be very dull.<br>

The discussion seems to indicate that you haven't yet decided what look you want from your b&w . Keep experimenting till you do. </p>

<p>I always shoot at the box speed and control contrast and grain by using different developers. I trust the film manufacturers knew what they were doing when they created the emulsion.<br>

just my two cents (been developing film for 50 years)</p>

<p>When I was younger, after learning about it from my grandfather, my favorite developer was Diafine, partly for the extra speed. Also, for the ease of not having to get accurate times or temperatures.</p>

<p>The Diafine recommended EI for Tri-X is 1600 (sometimes it might have been 1200), and my old favorite, 160 for Panatomic-X. </p>

<p>But most newer films have much less EI increase. For T-Max 100, they recommend 160. </p>

<p>Lately I have been using HC-110 more, as it is supposed to be better with old film, and usually at box speed.</p>

<p>To the original question: I prefer box speed for Tri-X, Plus-X, Ilford FP4+, and most other medium to fast films. However, Ilford's Delta 3200 isn't a true ISO 3200 film anymore than Kodak's discontinued TMAX 3200 was. Those films could be rated at that E.I., but it was still a push. When Fuji made Neopan 1600 I got my best results rating it at E.I. 800. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> However, Ilford's Delta 3200 isn't a true ISO 3200 film anymore than Kodak's discontinued TMAX 3200 was.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true, but they aren't really the speed that ISO says, either. Look at the B-H curve for them, and you see that there is no straight section. There are some assumptions in the way the ISO speed is computed that aren't true for these films. <br>

<br>

If you look at the data sheets for both Tri-X and TMY, the push to EI 800 recommends no change in development time. <br>

<br>

On the other hand, TMZ has development times for push to 6400, 12500, and 25000,<br>

and TMY has push times for 1600 and 3200. Some of the 3200 for TMZ and Delta 3200 is just stretching the normal exposure latitude, especially with push development.</p>