push processing and aesthetics: is high contrast low brow?

[aaron_hubbard1]

<p>I am a self-taught amateur photographer, age 27, who generally shoots on 35mm Nikon FE2 or an old Nikkormat, though I also have a Mamiya RB67. I've been at it for three or four years now, and with the exception of some books (Hornstein being my favorite) and the odd cornered "expert" or "old-timer," I have been given very little direction. <br>

Making it up as I go along, by guess and by gosh, what have you, I have discovered that I really like pushing film. I like the stark contrast, and additionally, it seems to result in far fewer unusable rolls. You see, I had this problem, still do really, (at least I think it's a problem), that when I don't push the film, the results almost always look murky to me, too many midtones and not enough highlights. Sure, one could argue that the use of filters in the printing process would provide the contrast I want, but sometimes the prints still seem kind of murky, too dark. Why bother when I can use these pushed negatives with high contrast, sometimes so much that the highlights lack any detail whatsoever? I had this problem especially with the medium format camera. I suspect that the shutters are a bit off, or the second hand light meter is off. But it occurred to me today that I never pushed the medium format film. Maybe it just looked thin to me. I also almost always had this problem with 100 speed film as well, but pushed to 200, it usually looks great. <br>

Well, what I suspect and fear is that these prints that appeal to me, these punky, gritty, high contrast endeavors, would be looked upon by anyone trained as poor photography, and maybe they are. Maybe I should be striving for perfect development every time, with details in the shadows and highlights, no overexposure, making Ansel Adams proud. I want to do a photo exhibition one of these days, and this second guessing is driving me nuts. <br>

Really, it has gotten to the point where I am afraid to shoot films at regular speed, for fear of thin negatives or low contrast or just blah results, whatever the cause.<br>

I think I understand the Zone system more or less, so I don't think I am just metering everything wrong or some simple explanation like that. I am a bit sloppy sometimes (sometimes you don't have time to think too hard), and sometimes <strong>I</strong> just don't want to think that hard and trust my lightmeter to be in the ballpark of correct exposure. </p>

<p>I'm not sure what kind of response I'm looking for here, but this has been on my mind long enough that it is worth it to me to just put it out there. Sorry if this is wrong sub-forum, but this is kind of a sprawling question. Any ideas, comments?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Good conversation starter. I'm holding off for awhile before commenting but looking forward to seeing how this... develops.</p>

[russ_kerlin]

<p>Aaron,<br>

Based on your submission, I think you are closer to understanding what you want to do photographically than many folks. I read this forum a lot, and while I definitely think there there is great value in discussing (and even debating) details concerning the Zone System, contrast indices, the "perfect" developer, agitation techniques, this film versus that film, so on and so on, I think many of us (myself included) can get caught up in the technical aspects of photography versus the real objective, which is to make images that we both enjoy making and that we are satisfied with. To be sure, we need to understand how the "tools of our trade" behave and how to effectively control them, but at the end of the day, there is no right or wrong in photography (or any artistic form for that matter). So, if pushing film to achieve high contrast is your "thing", that's great!</p>

<p>Please share an example of your work.</p>

<p>P.S. Horenstein does good work. I like him too.</p>

[gary_stallsworth]

<p>I agree with Russ. Main thing is using the tools at your disposal that best match your vision. I much prefer an interesting image that has some technical issues, than a technically perfect image that is boring other than appreciating the craftsmanship. I am currently reading "Tao of Photography", by Tom Ang. It is more on the (his Tao based) philosophy of photography than the technical aspects. Matching the tools and techniques to match the situation and your vision.<br>

It's also okay to change what you like. Bill Brandt was a photojournalist in the early part of his career and "printed" low contrast as that worked better for newsprint. Later on he reprinted some of his early work with much higher contrast. He made other changes in his style. You might like to read about him or check images on line. They aren't technically perfect, but many are interesting and have good visual impact.<br>

Well a couple of us jumped in so far and I expect there will be a range of opinions. I do think it will be good to continue to work on the craft side of photography so you can make the best use of the tools available to make the images you want to make.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>In my own case I used to uprate film (HP5 to 1600) as a matter of course and shoot through and orange filter to get just the effect you mention. I used to shoot old industrial sites and it suited the subject. Then about 15 years ago I decided I wanted to shoot landscape etc. with a full range of tones and luminous shadows, so I studied Adams and learnt the Zone System. Now I am in a position to use either technique as the subject demands. High contrast , grainy pictures enjoyed a certain vogue back in the late sixites and early seventies, then it largely went out of fashion. In the end, technique supports photographic vision, it is not an end in itself.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>If it makes you happy then it is right for you.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>". . . too many midtones and not enough highlights . . ."<br>

It sounds like you may be underexposing the negatives, and maybe overexposing the printing. </p>

<p>". . . these pushed negatives with high contrast, sometimes so much that the highlights lack any detail whatsoever?"<br>

When you push a film by keeping it in a developer longer, you are cutting off additional emulsion to overcome fog/film base at that speed. To catch detail, the idea is to overexpose in camera slightly (burn in those details) and to cut time (pull) during development (not cut as deep into the emulsion). </p>

<p>When you increase contrast, you will preserve only those details which are comparable to the tones rendered as normal under that scheme. Say you run the contrast way up, so that you only receive two tones: black areas on the negative (burned in highlights) and blank areas (black areas in later printing). There can be details present in the picture, but they would be details which would be either black or blank in their rendered tone. </p>

<p>You can control contrast:</p>

<ul>

<li>in camera and before the camera (lighting and filtration)</li>

<li>in negative development</li>

<li>in print projection</li>

<li>in print development</li>

</ul>

<p>In negative development contrast controls, the main contrast control is developer composition. What components were in that solution, and how did they interact with the emulsion. </p>

<p>The secondary contrast control is developer duration. This is fundamentally an exposure control, but because that exposure control affects what gets defined as black or blank (black point and white definition), it can also have a compression or expansion of contrast effect. Exposure sets the minimum and maximum limits of the contrast range. </p>

<p>How tones end up getting pushed into the different grades of gray has to do with how the emulsion reacts with the developer; it is driven by developer and emulsion composition. </p>

<p>So, what I'm getting at is that push and pull processing can affect contrast, but it's an indirect effect. It's setting contrast by defining those maximums and minimums by changing exposure. </p>

<p>When you are exposing the film to a developer's energy, it's very similar to exposing a film to light. If you were adjusting contrast through filtration, you would be using sensitivity to a wavelength to adjust the contrast. If you were adjusting developer's composition to adjust contrast (like Beer's Two Part developer in <em>The Negative</em>) then you would again be using sensitivity to adjust contrast. I think keeping contrast lined up with sensitivity and component controls is way easier than trying to adjust by duration. You can adjust by duration; most importantly, you can <em>support</em> an effective change in developer composition by adjusting duration (Developer X needs 7 minutes; Developer Y needs 9 minutes); but adjusting contrast by sensitivity is more in line with having some control over what you are doing. </p>

<p>Local color of a subject, at a given duration, sets the baseline for later contrast decisions. </p>

<p><strong>Is it low brow?</strong> Well, maybe. I love it, so that might be a sign that it's not too popular. Yet, I'll tell you this: regardless of what kind of exposure and contrast scheme you find yourself favoring, it really helps to be familiar enough with your processes so that you can stand with the subject before you and imagine, with a pretty good estimate, what you expect the end result will be. You don't have to do the thinking all the time, but if it's a lottery with every roll, something's not going right. You should get at least 80% of what you wanted. Your success rate should be above randomness. I count random as 69 out of 100. You have to be able to pull a D on the test at will.</p>

<p>I love high contrast pictures. Contrast and exposure, for me, is a part of the basics. Does that shape go in the picture or not? Exposure and contrast is usually a part of that answer. It's not as influential as pointing the camera in another direction, but they're the main controls for editing what's within the field of view. Only a mechanical decision, like field of view or focus, is going to be more effective about including or excluding than contrast. </p>

<p>So, I kind of feel like you need to get right with contrast and exposure more. If the whole print is coming out too dark, or the whole negative frame is coming out too soft, and this is not happening because you wanted it to; then, you're not really in the driver's seat with those materials. We have hundreds of material combinations out there to choose from; barring those first few test rolls, really, you should be able to command that exposure and contrast at will. I'm not saying you're going to get the A+ perfect negative each time; but, it needs to be better than a D (70-79% success); really, you want to be a steady B student (86-89%). </p>

<p>Is it low brow? Okay, maybe. My menu's low brow. I don't eat filet minon every day. Low brow's alright. </p>

<p>Let us have a group hug for the Low Brow Support Club! I raise a can of PBR and toast you! You don't need the gourmet all the time. But, you should be able to place your order with enough elementary accuracy to not be surprised by the flavor of what you get for your intentions. </p>

<p>Photo below. I did this at Delta 3200 exposed as 1600, cut time on development as though it were 400 and printed VCII in a homebrew developer. I like the photo. </p>

<p>Yet, I ask you: do you think this would have made the cover of BrideZilla magazine? Maybe someone would have loved it; maybe they would have hated it. This is how I build my photos. </p>

<p>Proceed with confidence. </p><div></div>

[mjferron]

<p>"PBR" :) is that brew still available? I'm sipping on a Bud light and can't see that far down the hole. )Ok Ok I ate a can of Ravioli for lunch.)</p>

<p>Anyway I like the pushed look where black is black.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>The best thing you can do is read Ansel Adams book, "The Negative". After reading this book you will know what you are doing and have the knowledge to reduce or increase the contrast of a negative. If you just keep experimenting, you will spend alot more time , effort , and money than if you simply read the book suggested. This is the shortest method of achieving your goals.</p>

[conrad_hoffman]

<p>I like that grainy high contrast pushed look- just as long as I can see some grain in the highlights of the print. IMO, white paper is a no-no, but there are many who might disagree. Comes down to what you like. I used to shoot a lot of that look, but gravitated towards slower films and lots of midtones. Maybe it's an age thing. I listen to mellower music than I used to too. Is "The Americans" by Robert Frank the look you like? Or, with somewhat more midtones, "Landscapes" by Burk Uzzle? Or, something more radical then either?</p>

[conrad_hoffman]

<p>I like that grainy high contrast pushed look- just as long as I can see some grain in the highlights of the print. IMO, white paper is a no-no, but there are many who might disagree. Comes down to what you like. I used to shoot a lot of that look, but gravitated towards slower films and lots of midtones. Maybe it's an age thing. I listen to mellower music than I used to too. Is "The Americans" by Robert Frank the look you like? Or, with somewhat more midtones, "Landscapes" by Burk Uzzle? Or, something more radical then either?</p>

[scott_paris4]

<p>Regarding whether high contrast is "good photography", that's entirely a matter of taste. But you need to have your process under control so you can do high or low or anything else on purpose, not because that's just the way it turns out. <br>

<em>"seems to result in far fewer unusable rolls."</em><br>

"<em>I never pushed the medium format film. Maybe it just looked thin to me</em>."<br>

<em>"Really, it has gotten to the point where I am afraid to shoot films at regular speed, for fear of thin negatives or low contrast</em> "<br>

Without examples it's hard to know what's going on, but if your negs are thin at normal exposures, it sounds like you're underexposing the film, and then having to over-develop to get printable results. Underexposed negatives will pretty much always result in muddy, gray prints. Just as a test, I would shoot one roll of film without changing any of your equipment or procedures, except setting your light meter for half of the rated speed of the film. That is, for instance, 200 for Tri-X, or 50 for your 100 speed films. You might even try some frames at one-quarter of the rated speed. Then develop WITHOUT pushing. If your normal negs are too thin, then these test shots should be more printable.<br>

You really need to have exposure under control before you experiment with development.<br>

Two more ideas:<br>

1. This one's easy and free: On a bright sunny day, set your meter for ISO 100, then go outside and meter an 18% gray card, or a broad expanse of grass. If the meter doesn't read very close to 1/100 at f16, then it needs adjustment. <br>

2. This one will cost a little bit of money: buy a roll of ISO 100 transparency film, like Provia or Ektachrome for your 120 camera. Set your meter at 100 and shoot the roll very carefully at the meter's suggested exposure. Have it processed. If the slides are properly exposed, with bright strong colors, then everything's OK. I'm guessing they'll be too dark. This tests your whole setup, including your meter and the shutter.<br>

Finally, I'm not exactly sure why you're unwilling to use your polycontrast filters for printing. They're a pretty standard part of black and white printing, although they will not produce a good print from an underexposed negative. If they don't give the results you want, then there's some other problem happening. Old developer?? Old paper??</p>

<p> </p>

[aaron_hubbard1]

<p> Thanks for all the responses guys. Unfortunately, I am so old school (read poor) that I don't have anything online or in digital format. I'll work on that.<br>

As for influences, Robert Frank is great, also Giacomelli and some Japaneese guy from the late sixties whose name I can't remember, but the most famous picture I've seen is that of a girl running from the camera down an alley or grotto in some post-apocalyptic wasteland. <br>

As for the critical (in the best way) responses, those that argue that you need to nail down your technique before you start to experiment, I couldn't agree more. Posting this querry has forced me to go back in time to try to trace the serpentine path that has led to my present methods. Scott, those are good suggestions, thanks. </p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Can't add much to what's already been said. I'm a push processing fool and love the look of contrasty, grainy prints. But I'm not fond of the chalk and soot look, especially with "dirty" looking mid tones in photos of people.</p>

<p>On the other hand, with age I've begun to have more appreciation for the full tonal range of a "correctly" exposed and developed negative. When I look at the style of previous decades I enjoy the look of skin tones in more conventionally prepared photos. Perhaps I'm suffering from retro-hipsterism. Lately I've been getting the urge to make contact prints from medium format negs that resemble the stuff I did as a kid when I first started during the '60s. No contrast filters, no dodging or burning. The tricky part is getting paper that works well with contact printing, and mimicking those scalloped edges and date markings on the borders.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Aaron -- Your post is a refreshing one. All too often I see people looking for the "right" answer when they haven't even begun to explore the medium. There are lots of excellent responses here, and my only comment is that everyone has their own path, and if you like your results, and they convey what you are striving for, stay with it. On the other hand, as the repsones suggest, it won't hurt to find that exposure range that results in a "normal" negative and easily printed positive. From there, you will find out where to tweak things to give you what you want in the end result. Lastly, I also like the fact that you are reading up on things, looking at other photographer's works, and so on. A lot of younger people seem to missing that reading these things in a book is important, thinking that the internet will solve all problems as they arise. <br>

Keep up the shooting and yes, post some results when you get a chance.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Who Pushes MF film and how far? I have experimented with using an Arax 60 and a Pentacon 66 up to 6400 for night shots...</p>

[harry_pluta5]

<p>Aaron,</p>

<p>I began my photographic journey along with my best friend with his grandmother's Yashicamat during the "Summer of Love", I was a battelion photographer in the Army, and still I was way older then you before I began seriously thinking about my "style". As others have said you are way in front of that curve! I am at a point where I can appreciate an Ansel Adams print, and I have read all his books and have the notepads that spell out the different EI's I have for various films and formats. That is all good. My Dad used to say you have to know the rules to really be able to break them.</p>

<p>However, the last 5 years have found me going through my body of work and the photographs I like the best are not the ones that are techinically proficiant, but rather the ones where I was trying to "say" something with my work. After a lot of years shooting digital I have just gone back to film and the first thing I did was find 30 rolls of the old Tri-X, ( bless you Mr. Nistico! ) I know what I want to shoot ( and what it needs to "say" ) and I already know what I want it to look like and I know that the older Tri-X emulsion will get me there. I am so energized by it that it is not even funny.</p>

<p>Not long ago a friend of mine put together a series of shots of the interiors of public bathrooms at a famous amusment park in Florida. He started it as a lark, yet the images are strangely compelling. To me that is the heart of photography. And if your high contrast images help you tell the story you want then they are the correct images.</p>

<p>Ok this is pretty long. To answer your original question. To me the label Low Brow is used by people trying to justify the time they have spent learning something. If your images support your vision, and that vision represents a heart felt response to life, then they are as valid as an Ansel Adams or Imogen Cunnignham print.</p>

<p>Good light to you, -H</p>