Comparing HP5+ at ISO 400 and pushed to ISO 1600

[markbarendt]

There are several things that should be understood.

Pushing doesn't change the sensitivity of a film. Push development doesn't "fix" an underexposure.

The film exposure placement, say 200 or 1600, is normally almost irrelevant to the print. We need to remember that negatives aren't the final output, whether they look thin or thick is irrelevant, the second exposure settings (the exposure of the paper or digital process settings) and the paper grade are what really sets the look of the final output.

What we typically lose first with under exposure negatives is our ability to dodge for more detail.

Camera exposure controls the low detail point on negative, but that's not always relevant to the output, there is no absolute connection to the print because the printing exposure (or digital settings) is (are) fully adjustable. The fact that we can regularly/normally dodge a print exposure to improve shadow detail is proof of this.

Pushing, IMO, and I would suggest in-fact, is simply an alternative to using a harder paper; nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't create detail where none exists on the film, it only changes how the contrast looks on "normal" paper.

There is a lot of myth about photography.

People want to believe that what they do with camera exposure directly affects the print.

They want to believe that there is such a thing as perfect exposure.

They want to believe that somehow certain films are magic all by themselves.

They are not.

Don't mistake the latitude of the system for magic.

 

[Xmas]

Good point, I did not think of it too much but it make sense that I am probably drying it wrong. The way I do it is that I just hang the film in my bathroom after a last rinse which contains a drop of PhotoFlow. I do not do any form of squeegeeing at mostly because I am afraid to scratch the film. The water I use has almost no minerals so it does not leave marks on the film. I do not measure the humidity in my bathroom but it is typically not very dry and the temperature probably around 20°C. The film is typically dry in about 2 hours. Do you do any squeegeeing of your Tri-x? How long does it take for it to dry?

Cheers,

Franck

I live 2 miles away from two chalk streams 198 others in planet... Faucet water has particles from turbulence.
15c 80-90 RH
Rinse/soak in surfant
Shake reel dry
Hang plastic cloths peg/pin 'weight' at bottom
Film squeegee see chalk stream above
Dry to touch 4 hours but free water still on pin/peg normally leave 12 hours before filing

Suggest you run shower hot for five mins and hang to dry in shower cubical immediately as an experiment or/and turn off heating tell ladies in house hold to don more clothing.

Or try HP5+ and Delta 400 if that fails might help

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There are several things that should be understood.

Pushing doesn't change the sensitivity of a film. Push development doesn't "fix" an underexposure.

The film exposure placement, say 200 or 1600, is normally almost irrelevant to the print. We need to remember that negatives aren't the final output, whether they look thin or thick is irrelevant, the second exposure settings (the exposure of the paper or digital process settings) and the paper grade are what really sets the look of the final output.

What we typically lose first with under exposure negatives is our ability to dodge for more detail.

Camera exposure controls the low detail point on negative, but that's not always relevant to the output, there is no absolute connection to the print because the printing exposure (or digital settings) is (are) fully adjustable. The fact that we can regularly/normally dodge a print exposure to improve shadow detail is proof of this.

Pushing, IMO, and I would suggest in-fact, is simply an alternative to using a harder paper; nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't create detail where none exists on the film, it only changes how the contrast looks on "normal" paper.

There is a lot of myth about photography.

People want to believe that what they do with camera exposure directly affects the print.

They want to believe that there is such a thing as perfect exposure.

They want to believe that somehow certain films are magic all by themselves.

They are not.

Don't mistake the latitude of the system for magic.

Well said.

 

[franck]

A film has only one ISO rating and that is determined by the manufacturer. If you shoot at a different speed then that is called an exposure index, EI not an ISO. A small point but it makes any discussion easier if one sticks with standard terminology.

Thanks, that make sense and it is always good to use the right words! Franck.

 

[franck]

Pushing doesn't change the sensitivity of a film. Push development doesn't "fix" an underexposure.

Yep, that is definitely what comes out of the small experiments I have posted too.

The film exposure placement, say 200 or 1600, is normally almost irrelevant to the print. We need to remember that negatives aren't the final output, whether they look thin or thick is irrelevant, the second exposure settings (the exposure of the paper or digital process settings) and the paper grade are what really sets the look of the final output.

What we typically lose first with under exposure negatives is our ability to dodge for more detail.

Camera exposure controls the low detail point on negative, but that's not always relevant to the output, there is no absolute connection to the print because the printing exposure (or digital settings) is (are) fully adjustable. The fact that we can regularly/normally dodge a print exposure to improve shadow detail is proof of this.

Pushing, IMO, and I would suggest in-fact, is simply an alternative to using a harder paper; nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't create detail where none exists on the film, it only changes how the contrast looks on "normal" paper.

That is interesting, I am typically scanning my film so changing the exposure of the scanner and adjusting curves and contrast is absolutely no problem (equivalent to printing exposure and grade of the paper but even easier. What you are saying suggests that these two scenario would yield the same image for a picture shot at EI 1600:

a/ developing at box speed (400 in the case of HP5+) and adjusting the exposure/contrast while scanning or printing.
b/ push processing the film 2 stops and scanning or printing "normally".

I have been doing b/ assuming that it was giving better results in terms of shadow details, tonal range (i.e. a broader spectrum of tones than what a/ could achieve) and grain. However, a/ has the great advantage that the EI can be adjusted individually for each picture of the roll. That is a big plus if it provides an images quality which is on par with pushing the film.

I'd love to hear if some people have actually compared those two scenario in practice to see what are the trade-offs at play. I imagine that there will probably be some differences but if they are negligible as you suggest, I should not bother with pushing my films at all and enjoy selecting my preferred EI for each shot.

There is a lot of myth about photography.

Indeed

Cheers,

Franck

 

[markbarendt]

What you are saying suggests that these two scenario would yield the same image for a picture shot at EI 1600:

a/ developing at box speed (400 in the case of HP5+) and adjusting the exposure/contrast while scanning or printing.
b/ push processing the film 2 stops and scanning or printing "normally".

Yes.

Much of the myth comes from the times before high quality variable-grade paper.

For example during most of Ansel Adams career, and for his predecessors, and for his peers, they had to use single grade print materials, that's all there was. In that world it really made sense to adjust the negative (push/pull, +/-) to fit the print media, that was the easy way to do things.

Today, not so much. Throwing a different filter in the enlarger (or adjusting digitally) is much easier than adjusting development.