What to push this film?

[greg jansen]

I mistakenly shot a roll of NPH 400 with my camera at ISO 2000. I had +.3

exposure compensation dialed in (as always).

 

What to tell the lab to do?

 

Shot outside, nice even light.

 

Not a critical roll, thankfully.

 

I know you can get a little in printing, or get a little in processing. I

can't remember the last time I had the lab push or pull something. Fuji

Frontier.

 

What would be your recommendations?

 

Thanks

[austinphoto]

You can tell them to push it at least 2 stops. The third stop will fall within the tollerance of the film and still show good detail. Many places will not do the pushing on this film. YOu will probably need a custom lab. If they won't push it, see if they can shut off the motor to the processor after the film has entered the developer for aproximately 1 minute. Good luck!. The colors and contrast will be be as good, but at least you'll have a good image.

[rob_s___san_francisco_bay_]

If there are potentially nice shots on the roll, have the lab do a snip test. I'd do +1 or +2 and

see what happens. <p>

NPH is very good and very forgiving film. 1-stop underexposure is nothing to worry about...

2 1/3... I'd just push the whole roll a stop (depending on what the light was like) and see

what happens if there's really nothing real critical as you mention.

[steve_levine]

Shoot a second roll under similar conditions (same light, same exposure glitch) and have 'it' pushed, and see what you get. Trial & error is better not done on your client's film.

[savagesax]

You may have a problem. Most, if not all labs can't go moch past 2 stops.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I agree with Steve. Sage advice.

 

Russ

[suzanne_.]

Snip test at a professional lab, definitely. That way you can get an idea of how much to adjust the developing. I shot motion picture stills for 16 years and used snip tests all the time. Most pro photographers do.

Suzanne, Los Angeles, CA

[karl_borowski]

I would just get a +2 done. Don't snip tests destroy at least the first frame on the roll? Unles

you shot a slate or test shot, like cinematographers, ahem ahem, would, I'd just go plus 2.

Try not to pay more than an extra four dollars for it too. I'd say anything over 6 is a total

ripoff. Personally, I am really really spoiled having C-41 equipment now. I will intentionally

overrate films when I need to because there's no added cost for pushing anymore. . .

 

Oh wait, is this 35mm or MF BTW? A two stop push on 35mm 400 might not be worth it

depending on lighting conditions. I'd just assumed you were shooting MF.

[greg jansen]

35mm film. So if it was shot at 2000, +.3 that would make it shot at 1700, or we'll say roughly 1600, or 2 stops under what it should have been. So.... is it best to have them push one stop in processing, one stop in printing, or push two in processing, or push 1 1/2 in processing, rest in printing? Need an answer from someone familiar with results. Thanks!

[kelly_flanigan1]

You really need to see what each C41 LAB means by "pushing". Are they really overdeveloping, or just giving extra attention in printing to pull those underexposed images out of the films toe region and base. Many times labs really dont adjust C41 development times, but act like they do. Doing a snip test or better yet shooting another roll at a EI of 2000 may cull out some labs.

[greg jansen]

My lab will do what they tell me. They can push or pull in development. I will not be doing a clip test. Just need to know If anyone has experience in the end results. I need to know if I should push two in processing, OR push one in processing, one in printing. Thanks again!

[karl_borowski]

OK Greg: No need for a test, push two stops. Generally, in movies, where pushing is far

more common as it is necessary for some situations, the general advice is to rate a 400 at

640 for a one stop push and at 1000 or 1250 for a 2 stop push. So you develop at 800

and 1600 ASA respectively, but expose only 2/3 and 4-5 /3 of a stop over respectively. I

do not know if you can find a lab that would do partial stops, but if you could find one that

did a 2 1/2 stop push that'd be better. Then again, anything over two is pushing it, no

pun intended. You're going to get extreme contrast and grain. If these pictures are only

being blown up to 4x5 or put on CD, that's fine, but I wouldn't be comfortable enlarging

them beyond 5x7 personally.

 

I can give you more information about what I would do, but I need to know what

conditions were like outside that day:

 

Were you shooting at night or in the daytime?

 

Was it cloudy and overcast or sunny?

 

Was there fill flash or available lighting?

 

Another thing you might consider is only pushing 1 stop and then compensating for the

rest in printing. This was another, older, trick used in movies back when there was only

one speed negative stock, at the time it was an ASA 100 speed. THey'd shoot it two stops

underexposed, as you did, but only push one stop. THen, in printing, they'd compensate

for the other stop. Of course, digital printing has more trouble with pulling back up,

generating more noise IMO, than optical printing, so you might want to print these either

yourself, if you are able, or find a lab that can do a print run on optical equipment

 

It all depends on just how important the pictures you have are.

 

A lot of customers probably wouldn't even notice a 2-stop push, but I wouldn't be

comfortable, professionally and ethically, pushing more than one for something blown up

beyond 5x7.

 

Perhaps it IS best to do a test roll, similar conditions, cut in half, and half puhsed one stop

and the other half pushed 2 or 2 1/2, dependind on how you meter and expose film.

 

Frankly, I'd be scared of a professional lab doing a push these days. Make sure you go

over it with the operator, and make sure they run 1 minute, 40 seconds over for a one

stop push, with a 3 minute 19 second standard development time, to see if you are on the

same page. Equipment, operators, and procedures all vary, so best to exercise caution

with this.

 

One final thing: The subject matter really can make or break a push process. Closeups

should be fine, but shots of large groups from far away can really suffer. Technically, I've

heard two different camps with regards to what a push does. I'm still frankly not sure

which of the two I believe, as I've pushed and seen what to me appears to be better

shadow detail, or detail that wouldn't have come out without a push.

 

The first line of thinking is that pushing only increases development on the highlights, and

no extra detail comes out in a push in the shadows than would have had the film been

processed regularly. The CONTRAST generated from pushing the film is what gives an

illusion of an increase in speed, hence the above advice to only underexpose 2/3 of a stop

for every stop pushed.

 

The second line of thinking is that there is some increase in shadow detail, although it

isn't as great as would have been in normal exposure, and that you are actually gaining

some extra information, at the expense of grain, in addition to the apparant gain in

shadow detail due solely to contrast buildup.

 

 

Hope this helps, and a happy New Year to you Greg,

 

~Karl

[kelly_flanigan1]

In the movies one is using more control; one runs tests and knows whats going to happen. One plans and runs more tests and has a tight relationship with the lab(s). <BR><BR>Its been my experience that many pro still labs lie and really dont "push" C41. You really want to get a handle if they are going to overdevelop; or just say they do. Running some test rolls will cull out the liers versus actual "overdevelopers". The vast majority of C41 operators dont adjust development time at all.<BR><BR>Just blindly assuming that the lab is going to magically do what you want them to do is dangerous, really so with wedding images that cannot be reshot.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Color negative films tend to have alot of exposure latitude without pushing. <BR><BR>The layers develop differently so overdevelopment causes some color shifts.<BR><BR>In the old days for super custom prints one often supplied a swatch of wedding dress material; to close the loop around color. <BR><BR>In some astronomy experiments with C41; I found many labs really dont overdevelop C41, and a few do. <BR><BR>The labs that did a real overdevelopment all caution about color shifts and maybe a 1 to 1.5 stop real boost if any for pictorial work.<BR><BR>When Flexcolor/C41 came out the Kodak seminar I went said C41 wasnt really designed for pushing.

[karl_borowski]

Greg, if you can't find a lab that will really push for you, and you aren't in a terrible hurry,

get it to me in the next week and I can push it for you, for free. I'd recommend you get it

printed elsewhere, as I'm using consumer-grade glossy paper for proofs right now, but I

can do the negs. I use KIS chemicals, which are done at 40C, a few degrees hotter and

shortened from 10 minute total process time from 15, but results are comparable, maybe

a slight bit more contrasty than standard C-41 development. I'll have to check with the

former owner on times for a 2-stop push, as I've only ever done one stop pushes with my

personal stuff, but I can do really any time. It's spiral reel processing, so I literally just

twirl the reel around in there by hand and then start the cycle with the mechanical arm for

the remainder of the time.

 

Kelly: C-41 isn't "designed" for push processing, but then again, neither was ECN-2. It

was something that cinematographers demanded labs do. Kodak actually advised against

it for a while. Yes, extensive testing is done in movies before principal photography

commences, but we as wedding photographers, aren't shooting a million feet of film as a

wedding. We don't have money for extensive testing, often running into tens of

thousands, to test film stock as extensively as cinematographers do. If Greg knows what

he exposed it at by mistake, and these aren't critical shots of the bride and groom getting

into the limo, then I'd say a 2 stop push is fine. Most, if not all the shots will be usable

assuming the information he's given is correct. If this were for critical application, I'd

strongly agree that Greg needs to go back and shoot several rolls under as similar of

conditions as possible and process to determine the optimal processing "fix".

 

Happy New Year Everyone.

 

~Karl

[kelly_flanigan1]

When one runs DlogE curves often on so called "pushed films" one finds the toe region really doesnt budge much. <BR><BR>Thus one often is just increasing contrast in the decently exposed areas, and little in the image that is almost lost in the fog. The numbers folks quote on stops pushed are usually just emotional bunk with no real DlogE curves run. Also folks dont have a control of what normal processing does. Thus often if they get printable images they preach they got a 2 or 3 stop push, based on emotion and not facts. It may not work as well next time!<BR><BR> Details in the toe region often dont get much more printable with overdeveloping; but one gets color shifts in the decently exposed areas. Thus one must weight the effect of higher contrasts, color shifts versus subbornly trying to pull details out of the toe and almost base fog. <BR><BR>With most folks uncalibrated meters, not metering , lighting ratios unknown and the safety margin of films, when one gets lucky and a push gives OK results for a 2 , 3 or 4 stop error; <b>the danger is folks may believe all of this magic is in the pushing.</b> <BR><BR>One can develop film for 1 hour and the push will still not yield details that are vastly lost in the base fog forever. From a technical standpoint one is not raising the iso number since the speed points are defined with respect to base fog and the pass thru points define the slope. <BR><BR><b>If one went back to the wedding area and shot another three rolls all at an EI of 2000, then one could do a no-push, slight push, and aggresive push to see what development procedure works the best. </b>This is how we do stuff in the movie industry, you want to remove the "guessing"; by actual tests. The costs of running a test like this are trivial compared to a irrate Brides Mother over botched prints, or getting rock salt in ones bum from an irrate Brides father:). In the long run one reputation is far worth keeping, than "saving money" by not doing any tests. The bride can have a huge circle of friends, and a botched set of prints can be talked about.<BR><BR>Experimenting with pushing using wedding negatives seems real goofy and dangerous.<BR><BR> Running some tests can also be just some extra shots with bridesmaids, teenage girls who may want to dress up, the girl next door shot in the same location at an EI of 2000 and same lighting.

[steve_levine]

Sacrificing a 2nd roll to do your pushing tests is too much bother and expense? IMHO, doing a 'snip' test on a roll of someone's wedding film is a really bad idea.

[karl_borowski]

Kelly, I disagree with nothing you are saying. I recommended he go back and shoot a

second roll (36exp cut into two or three test strips) too, assuming the pictures are actually

worth the test. Folks, I know some of you are very very controlled in your shooting ratios

and feel every shot is important, but personally, with the amount of backup I do, I

wouldn't loose any sleep were I to loose a few frames from a roll of formals, because I

have them all backed up on another roll. If he feels he has great candids on this roll (why

it's a good argument to label every roll of film that comes out of your camera as to what

images it contains), then I'd say extensive tests are in order, but his saying "Not a critical

roll, thankfully" indicates to me that these pictures, even if they didn't come out, wouldn't

be missed by his clients.

 

Face it, every wedding film or digital, there are shots that "don't come out". People blink,

turn there heads, and the damned drunken amateur with the huge red autofocus light on

her digital camera insists on "autofocusing" while you're trying to take your shot, despite

your several polite requests for her to stop for a moment. Autofocus fails or get confused,

manual focus (I.e. the human eye) gets confused, flash syncs fail, shutters accidentally get

set higher than the flash synch, light leak in the filmback or camera body, accidental

digital erasure of shots, hard drive failure, etc. are no better and no worse than a

processing error, because you DON'T GET THE SHOT THAT YOU HAD INTENDED.

 

Realize that, were Greg shooting a movie, they'd go back and reshoot this roll. Pro

cinematographers don't say "Gee, we screwed up and underexposed this roll two stops,

but that is OK because we can just have the lab push it." That roll wouldn't intercut well

with the rest of the movie because they're all projected at the same size on a pretty huge

screen. Weddings need to "MATCH" in look for the final album, but there's more flexibility

with shots for proofs or candids, because they will probably intercut well enough when

only enlarged to 4x5/6 or 5x7 sizes.

 

Pushing always equates to an increase in grain and increase in contrast due to highlights

developing far faster than shadows. 35mm 400 pushed 2 stops is probably going to look

grainier than Fuji Superia 1600, which obviously won't be acceptable except to maybe a

5x7 or with extensive digital or optical trickery.

 

Also, I don't know why this post didn't get posted last night, but I extended an offer to

Greg if this isn't very time critical, i.e. he can wait two weeks, that I would be happy to do a

push for him pro bonum, as it costs me something like 70c a roll, maybe 85c with a push

to do a 36exp. I've only ever done one-stop pushes, but I can ask the former owner of my

equipment to give me his lab notes for what I'd need to hold it for for a 2 stop, be that 3

minutes 20 seconds extra, or something else. It's quite easy to do, as my machine uses

spiral reels, and all it takes is manually placing the film into the developer tank for the

desired push time, starting the actual processing cycle, and attaching the reel to the

mechanical arm that carries it through the rest of the cycle.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

[kelly_flanigan1]

Karl, whether to "just go for it" with overdevelopment; OR spend actual time and labor with tests and another roll(s) at an EI of 2000; or a snip test depends on what the images are worth and whether one will degrade ones reputation with lost/ill shots.<BR><BR>In printing for the public at my stores we often "eat" the profit on some print jobs by doing tests, reprints to keep quality up. <BR><BR>The intent of mentioning an actual retest at an EI of 2000 or a snip test is to increase the odds of getting better images to the customer, and for some folks to learn something too. <BR><BR>Here I sure would not experiment with overdeveloping using somebodys wedding negatives that cannot be reshot, but thats my biased opinion to maintain quality and maintain a reputation.<BR><BR> I have found in the long run that real life actual testing is a good learning tool, and that the costs of the tests to be trivial compared to a deeper understanding and gain of control one gets. <BR><BR>In "lets go for it" trys I have seen AND DONE MYSELF! when young and reckless; I have seen great successes, mediocre stuff, and some real total disasters. The goal of the tests is to help save ill exposed images and make them better prints; and reduce the luck factor.<BR><BR>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Steve Levine summed up a test earlier up the thread:<BR><BR><i>

Shoot a second roll under similar conditions (same light, same exposure glitch) and have 'it' pushed, and see what you get. Trial & error is better not done on your client's film.</i><BR><BR>I just added a control roll at EI2000 that wasnt to pushed, and maybe another if the lab has two overdevelopment schemes. <BR><BR>I suppose in a large town if one goofs up a clients images it doesnt matter as much as in a dinky town where all is told.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In the old Vericolor II days in the 1970's one would often shoot with 220 in a wedding and the first frame would be a color patch control with ones name, address and phone number on a card. This gave the lab a control for ill lighting, and radically truncated lost rolls. In super premium work one sent the lab a snip of the wedding dress material for color balance on high end prints. With exposure one if in doubt overexposed. Maybe folks were more paranoid about results then than today, one didnt really shoot more than a handfull of rolls, even if it was just 12exp 120 or 8exp 620 with a Medalist.

[karl_borowski]

I really can't speak from experience to this regard Kelly, as C-41 is older than I am, but

from what I've heard with the veteran photographers/lab owners I correspond with, in the

old days colors were much more iffy from emulsion batch to emulsion batch, and that the

color biases used to be so bad that you couldn't get a neutral black white and grey without

getting biases in the skintones.

 

Doing my own C-41, which I find does not need test strips if you know what you are

doing, I find the process no more finicky than B&W. It's a pretty flexible process. Even if

you do encounter color shifts, which haven't given me a problem, even in cases where

temperatures have been slightly off by accident, or in the rare case where I accidentally

pushed a bit over the one stop that I had intended.

 

Portra is such a good film that you can rate it pretty much at box speed without worrying,

although I still expose at 320 for safety on the 400. It is also, supposedly designed for

pushing by Kodak, the only remaining line that is designed with this in mind now that

Ektapress is gone. So Kodak probably didn't design C-41 with push in mind, but it

certainly does work. Now when you're doing PULL processing, then that can be a problem.

 

I've never pushed or pulled Fuji, so I wouldn't know how their films behave as opposed to

Kodak's. I doubt that there's any problem with pushing Fujis though, as they're pretty

much in line with Kodak in terms of R&D, maybe a step behind at this point now that

Portra II is out.

 

I probably will end up shooting test charts, not on every roll but at the beginning of each

emulsion batch I shoot, or at the end of each 15 foot roll if and when I start shooting

70mm at weddings.

 

Things like test charts, emulsion tests, are HELPFUL, but not necessary. Running test

strips every day with C-41 would be helpful with keeping my filter packs more even from

film to film, but it isn't NECESSARY, as I don't use overly exhausted chemicals like some

Pro Labs have tried to do, and I run a test roll, some unimportant snapshots, to make sure

chemistry is fresh every day. I also run my wedding film all at one time, in one batch so

the color is consistent for every wedding I do.

 

As to sending a swatch of wedding material to the lab, I don't see how that would be

helpful, as the light source effects the color of the material, and the material is going to be

different colors under different sources, or with different flashes.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl

[greg jansen]

Thanks for all the expert advice. I'm going to have them push two in development (which they really wll do). My gut and experience tells me better to make up as much as possible in the development, as the I have seen what pushing on a Frontier (a digiatl printer) looks like.

 

As for the suggestions to shoot another few rolls as a test, that is a good idea. I would do that if it was a critical roll, which it isn't. I make mistakes. I could have done the shots at the park with the bride and groom in one careful roll. Instead, I shot 2 rolls of color, one B&W, and my assistant (who is very good), shot 2 rolls of B&W. The B&W is actually color C-41 film we have printed B&W. I have found that I get much better results than using XP2 or the Kodak chromogenic film. Also, by shooting color film and printing B&W I have the ability to go back and print those images in color if need be. That's exactly what I will do if the pushed roll doesn't turn out.

 

Basicalliy I have planned for mistakes, be it mine or my labs. I'll be fine, the client will be happy. Honestly, if the pushed roll didn't turn out at all, I still have more than enough images from that time frame.

 

I'll post the results. Who knows, maybe the increased contrast will be something I like and will end up doing it intentionally for a roll sometimes.

 

Greg