Pushing in development, in camera, or both as a creative choice

[LisaImmarco]

<p>In regards to making creative choices for pushing film, what would be the difference between pushing film in camera and processing to just pushing in processing? And why would one choose to just push the processing alone? I have been trying to find the answer on the web, but the subject that always seems to come up is pushing film in camera for underexposure issues, then pushing with developer to 'match' the speed one used.<br>

For instance, if I shot at Tri-X at 400 and then pushed 1 stop in development, what would be the difference in results between that, and pushing Tri-X in camera to 800 and developing for same? <br>

I also understand one can increase contrast by PULLING exposure in camera, and then compensating in development? What would the difference in that? And creatively, what would be a situation in which one might choose to do that?<br>

Any links to comprehensive articles would be great, or specific photo.net postings. I have been street photographing a lot lately at Wal-Mart with a Contax T3, yellow-green filter and .70 EV compensation. Results have been good but trying to think a little more creatively with the process. What I don't want to lose is rich tonalities and I am getting somewhat good tonalities with D76. But that fluorescent lighting at Wal-Mart is so flat. On the other hand, I don't want a chalk and cinders look, like Jacob Aue Sobol's later work.<br>

Been researching developers too. My head is swimming. <br>

Thanks in advance. I know I have been asking a lot of questions lately and I thank you all for your patience. </p>

<p> </p>

[glen_h]

<p>I am not so sure what you mean by "in camera" and "in processing".</p>

<p>For Tri-X, Kodak recommends the same development time at EI400 and EI800, but increased development times at 1600 and 3200. </p>

<p>In general, longer development produces higher contrast negatives. Highlights develop faster. </p>

<p>The recommended times give an appropriate compromise between speed and contrast, in specified developers. </p>

<p>If the subject has lower contrast, you can increase development time, increase contrast, and also somewhat increase the EI. </p>

<p>If the subject has higher contrast, you can decrease development time, capture the full range of the image, though at reduced EI.</p>

<p>It is easier with sheet film, as you can develop each frame as appropriate.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>You don't have the terminology right. One only "pushes" in processing. That's done as a result of under-exposing in the camera. The two work in tandem, and you usually wouldn't do just one or the other.</p>

<p>As Glen notes, one reason is to manipulate the contrast: more development gives more contrast; less, less. Exposure has to change accordingly to keep the film density within a good zone; more development results in darker film, which must be compensated for by less exposure, and the other way around: if you develop less, for less contrast, you need to give more exposure to compensate.</p>

<p>The other reason is if one is suffering from too little light and would like to use higher shutter speeds, etc, in which case one pushes the film in developing in order to use higher shutter speeds in the camera, overdevelops to increase effective film speed, and just has to live with the resulting high contrast as an undesirable effect. For various reasons, technically this doesn't really work because shadows stay just as dark, but don't tell that to the people who do it--either they don't understand enough to know why it--isn't really working to raise film speed, or they don't care because they can live with the results: black. empty shadows. Kodak's directions about not changing developing times between 400 and 800 is acknowledging that "pushing" is really just under exposing. But if you like that effect, it will be fine.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Most pictures aren't just shadows, and pushing does help with intermediate levels, too.</p>

<p>But yes, not quite as well as we might wish it did.</p>

<p>Also, there are compensating developers like Diafine, that can help the shadows without overdeveloping the highlights. Again, probably not quite as well as we might wish.<br>

Diafine has rated Tri-X at between 1200 and 1600 over the years. The 1600 is probably a stretch, but might work some of the time.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>Then there are those of us who demand maximum shadow detail, with a minimum of blank blacks, and go in the opposite direction, over-exposing, under-developing, and dealing with the resulting contrast issues in printing.</p>

[bruce_watson1]

<p><em>For instance, if I shot at Tri-X at 400 and then pushed 1 stop in development, what would be the difference in results between that, and pushing Tri-X in camera to 800 and developing for same?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

The first difference is that you'd still get detail in the shadow areas of the one exposed at 400, and you'd loose some of that if exposed at 800. The second difference is that your highlight density would be somewhat more dense with the one exposed at 400 and "pushed" in development one stop, while the one exposed at 800 and pushed one stop would have highlight density closer to "normal".<em><br /></em></p>

<p>The bottom line here is "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" just as it has been throughout the history of B&W negative photography. The concept of "pushing" just puts a new name on the concept of under exposing and over developing.</p>

<p>If you underexpose, you loose shadow detail. Which is fine if you want that to happen. If you don't want it to happen, don't underexpose. Those are really your only choices. No amount of developing is going to change the fact that you didn't give the emulsion enough photons to create a latent image. If there's no latent image, the developer has nothing to develop. Simple, yes?</p>

<p>OTOH, highlight detail, overall image contrast, and graininess, are all effected by development time. </p>

<p>To learn more, consider studying the Zone System. Even if you're only using roll film, the Zone System can teach you about the relationships between the emulsion, exposure, developer, agitation, temperature, development time, etc. It's not necessarily easy or intuitive, but it all makes logical sense. And it will take some study on your part to find all the pieces and figure out how they all fit together. Well worth doing; let's you control the image in a logical and therefore predictable way. And judging from your questions, that's what you're after.</p>

[doug_armstrong]

<p>+1 for studying the Zone System. Once you really understand what it means, it will help you understand digital photography as well.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"Pushing" as the term is normally used refers to development, but it also assumes that you have exposed the film in the camera based on the Exposure Index you plan to push to.<br /><br />For example, you are shooting a 400 speed film but there isn't enough light to get the f-stop and shutter speed you want. So you set the exposure meter (either in-camera or handheld) to 1600 and expose as if it were 1600-speed film. When developing the film, you give it a two-stop "push" by extending the development time. There are differences in contrast and shadow detail, but broadly speaking the result is as if you had been shooting 1600 speed film.<br /><br />If you simply set the meter at 1600 and expose your 400 speed film as if it were 1600 but don't extend the development time, you will get images that are two stops underexposed. That's not pushing. That's simply underexposure.<br /><br />Pushing is fairly common since photographers can often encounter a situation where there's not enough light for the film they have with them. When it's done, you realize what the situation is and you plan to push the film in development. Pulling, on the other hand, is rarely done by most people. It's usually an emergency fix when you realize after the fact that you accidentally overexposed the film. For example, if you had been shooting 100 speed film and forgot to reset your meter to 400. Even then, negative film has so much tolerance for overexposure that pulling is usually not necessary. You get a denser negative, but you can "print through" the density very easily with a longer exposure time in the enlarger.<br /><br />If your concern is controlling contrast, my recommendation would that you shoot your film normally and manipulate the contrast when printing. In a traditional darkroom, you can use various contrast filters with multigrade paper, and can also do a lot with burning and dodging. With Photoshop, you have almost infinite control over the image.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Once you can see what happens when you develop film the Zone system becomes clear.

 

http://jdainis.com/zone.html

[LisaImmarco]

<p>This is giving me a lot to chew over, folks. Need to study it, and get back to you tomorrow.</p>

<p>In the meantime, this is the issue. I am starting to troll Wal-Mart a lot for street photos. You know, fluorescent lighting. Very flat. Any suggestions for what speed to shoot film and developers? So far I've been going for a grainy look (Tri-X in D76) which seems to suit the unreality of those kinds of mall-type places, but am open to suggestions. As I said before, unreality is what I am emphasizing. Wal-Mart bardo, lol.</p>

<p>Here's an example of one photo in which the lab accidentally pushed the film by .70. It actually came out better than the other rolls. Tri-X, D76, undiluted, accidentally pushed as I said.</p>

<div></div>

[LisaImmarco]

<p>That's the wrong photo, don't look! Strange, the link was attached to the right photo. Here it is an attachment from my computer:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Uhooru]

<p>I like the way it looks and it seems to suit what your doing, do you feel a need to change it?</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Since Kodak recommends the same development time for Tri-X at 400 and 800, it doesn't seem so far off to call that "pushing in the camera". Others might call it pushing your luck.</p>

<p>In the days of external meters, you meter, then make a judgement based on that as to what exposure to use. You might decide to expose one stop less than the meter reading. With automatic cameras, one way is to actually change the ISO setting on the camera. </p>

<p>But otherwise, push processing does help the shadows, just not all that much. Look at the curves on any film data sheet.</p>

<p>In addition, while we say expose for the shadows, we still don't meter for the shadows. (Most of us don't.) More usual, we meter for the midtones, and make assumptions on the rest. Pushing, either with or without extended development, is based on those assumptions. Most often, we push when the alternative is not trying at all. </p>

<p>If a grain really receives no photons, then no amount of pushing will help. But most often there are some, but not quite enough for normal development. Extending development will get some to go. Compensating developers allow one to give the shadows more time without overdoing the highlights. </p>

[LisaImmarco]

<p>Gentlemen, this is like a mini-workshop. I have been going over it again and again. Responding late, not sure if you'll get this.<br>

My last roll developed, I send out to a lab, was accidentally 'pushed' one stop. Glen, I know you say Kodak has same instructions for 400 and 800, but the contrast is higher and the shadow has lost some detail, and I like quite like it as it suits the subject. I will check and see what it is that they do.</p>

<p>I studied the zone system a little, a long time ago, and thought I knew it. I do know it in a way better than some people. but as an artist: I had to make over 1000 paint chips in college as an art major. But I see now I only know it in the most rudimentary of ways in terms of photography. I found a fantastic discussion on this, in which you also participated, Glen, on Photo.net in which processing is discussed regarding the zone system, and pushing. It blew my mind:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00dWhx?start=20</p>

<p>By James Daimis:</p>

<p>"... Use of the Zone system should help you to be more precise. To increase contrast in the first photo of the van that you show, here is what you do or should have done. The lightest part of the scene would be the top of the wall as seen outside of the side van door. That would be zone 9. Place it on zone 7 by reducing exposure two stops. Then give the film 50% more development time. This would bring the zone 7 back up to zone 9. The lower zones, 1, 2, 3, 4 would change very little. Zones 5, 6, 7 would change to about zones 6.5, 7.75 and 9. This would result in a greater increase in over all contrast.<br>

In your photo of the van, the right hand wall in the sun in your photo looks like it is made up of zones 4 to 8. The reduction of exposure of two stops would make that zones 2 to 6. The 50% increased film development would make that zones 2 to ~ 8, decidedly more contrasty.<br>

Increased development does not affect the lower zones only the upper zones. Knowing that is the key to obtaining increased contrast while maintaining the same tonal range, zones 1 to 9..."</p>

<p>If anyone knows any books that go into detail like this with the zone system, with actual examples, I would love to hear of them. I have Ansel Adams book, "The Negative." I see more and more that control over the medium gives me more control over the message. Not being a techie, it is taking me longer.</p>

<p>Please excuse my late responses. A lot to chew over. Thanks, Lisa</p>

<p> </p>

[LisaImmarco]

<p>Also, I would have liked a little more contrast in the photo I posted. Fluorescent lighting at Wal-Mart, and somewhat flat. I will have to learn to compensate, burn, dodge, contras, etc., in PS.</p>

[AJG]

<p>The discussion so far has been about film exposure and processing, which are certainly crucial to results. The other variable is the flat lighting you find in stores, etc. which is designed to provide even, bright illumination as cheaply as possible. This is a tough one, and I think you are right to concentrate on the film/processing end of things since you can control this. I have found the Zone system to be very helpful as a way of knowing how to practically deal with the situation you are forced to work with, and another book I would recommend is the <em>Zone VI Workshop</em> by Fred Picker. He was very opinionated, but had a gift for clearly explaining things. The book is very dated in some ways (referring to products no longer made, etc.) but it is the most efficient way I know of to learn the basics. </p>

[glen_h]

<p>You can increase contrast in printing or scanning. <br>

Much of the zone system is for sheet film, where you can process each individually.</p>

<p>For high contrast subjects, you might have more zones that the film can hold with recommended development time and box speed. The zone system will decrease contrast (and EI) with decreased development. Film data sheets should have graphs of contrast vs. development time.</p>

[bruce_watson1]

<p><em>Also, I would have liked a little more contrast in the photo I posted. Fluorescent lighting at Wal-Mart, and somewhat flat. I will have to learn to compensate, burn, dodge, contrast, etc., in PS.</em></p>

<p>In lighting that flat, increasing contrast is problematic. This is considerably more about lighting than it is about exposure (and processing). That is, it's about the quality of the light, not the quantity. Said another way, raising the contrast on a section of flat tonality generally results in a section of only slightly more contrast, because all you're doing is increasing micro-contrast. What you want is more general contrast, and that's hard to do in all-enveloping flat light that's intended to make merchandise packaging easy to see and read. It's light that all about reducing shadows to near non-existence; that's what you're fighting.</p>

<p>This is a major problem with "street photography". Two big things. You don't have time to setup, it's spontaneous by definition. Second, if you had the time you still couldn't do it because the act of setting up even a simple gobo (aka cutter) to add some negative fill and therefore give you some shadows on the side of the face, would in fact change the scene so much that it wouldn't be street photography any more.</p>

<p>That's not to say that you can't take advantage of some lighting tricks in street photography. But to take advantage of what's there, you have to have a pretty good knowledge of light. And you can get that in concentrated form from "Light Science & Magic" by Hunter and Fuqua.</p>

<p>Don't be thrown by the title. If you want to know how to use light to control the tonality of an image, this book is the one. Covers it all. I'm a natural light landscape photographer (large format), and this book really helped me make better photographs. Just sayin'.</p>