Confusion; Pushing C41 & developing normally

[markbarendt]

Okay so I'm a recovering digit and a slide shooter just so you know. Forgive my ignorance here.

I just watched a video interview of Jose Villa where he talks about "pushing" (Fuji Pro 400H in this case) then just having the lab develop it normally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKc6oTvztYE

First; My thought is that he is just underexposing for effect.

Would that be correct?

My understanding from other stuff I've read about his work is that the look he shoots for is a more pastel look. 1-2 stops (ei800-1600) of push is normal at a wedding but he will "push" as many as 3-4 stops (ei3200-6400) to get the effect depending on the subject.

Second; Fuji's pro brochures say that changing exposure within -1 to +3 stops is acceptable within the same roll. Jose is going the other way though, -4. This latitude blows me away. His work is gorgeous. http://www.josevillaphoto.com/

If one is comfortable with this pastel effect, is there really that much latitude in that particular film or C41 films in general? If Jose is right that would mean Fuji pro 800Z might be shot reasonably at ei12,500. Say goodbye to low light blur.

What are the downsides here? What would I have to watch out for?

I mean really, to be able to shoot at 800 to 1600 as a normal thing, 50 (+3) when it suits me, and 3200 to 6400 at will without even changing the roll of film is just such a wild and wonderful thought for a wedding shooter.

Tell me it's true, school me on how to make this work! What backflips do I need to do?

 

[phaedrus]

If one is comfortable with this pastel effect, is there really that much latitude in that particular film or C41 films in general?
What are the downsides here? What would I have to watch out for?
Tell me it's true, school me on how to make this work! What backflips do I need to do?

It's true.
But ...
C41 film does have a wide latitude of 10 to 12 f-stops. Underexposing it and not push-developing it, you cut off the lower end of this latitude, the high densities in the negative. You get less saturation (therefore these pastel tones) and more grain.
A high range subject will show some drowned shadows when printed from such a negative.
Essentially, you're making three creative decisions when underexposing in this way, limiting your choices in later stages.

Christoph

 

[markbarendt]

It's true.
But ...
C41 film does have a wide latitude of 10 to 12 f-stops. Underexposing it and not push-developing it, you cut off the lower end of this latitude, the high densities in the negative. You get less saturation (therefore these pastel tones) and more grain.
A high range subject will show some drowned shadows when printed from such a negative.
Essentially, you're making three creative decisions when underexposing in this way, limiting your choices in later stages.

Christoph

Christoph,

Thanks for the reply. I'm just beginning to wrap my head around this much latitude and how to manage it.

I'm comfortable with making creative choices that limit me later as long as I can reproduce it reliably.

I actually prefer getting my artistic work done in camera and I'm not looking for secondary interpretations of the negative. All I want to drop off the film after the shoot and go shooting again. This is logarithmically more true of weddings than of fine art in my head.

Making the images artsy is also more important to me than saturation and grain compliments that artsy feel.

Shadows are a distinct consideration. Sounds like it's time for some experimentation.

Thanks

 

[phaedrus]

It's true.
But ...
C41 film does have a wide latitude of 10 to 12 f-stops. Underexposing it and not push-developing it, you cut off the lower end of this latitude, the high densities in the negative.
Christoph

Sorry for the gaffe, but that should read "the LOW densities in the negative".
Mark, I can understand your choices and thoughts. It's just that I tend to keep options open for the post exposure and printing stage. I like that it is a two stage process with consecutive interpretations.

 

[markbarendt]

Christof thanks for the clarification.

So, just for clarity, basically the detail in the blacks would never be created. If so that's actually cool, means nice dark tuxes right?

 

[B&Wpositive]

Wow!

I had just watched that same video before stumbilng over here. And I was wondering the same exact thing...how does he do that? And then I clicked on your post and was like "so, I see I'm not the only one!".

I'm intrigued. I would like to know more about this technique; I've never heard of such a thing. All I've ever heard is don't ever underexpose C-41. (And most of my own underexposed images have looked poor. Even during a wet printing color photography course this past summer, a classmate underexposed some frames a few stops, and her photos didn't look pastel; they looked a bit muddy.) When I think pastel, I think washed out overexposed or even cross-processed film.

Perhaps it's all about the subject matter, the colors, and the metering/allocation of tones across the dynamic range of the negative.

But I am still scratching my head. None of the work I looked at on Joses's site looks like it was from an "underexposed" negative. :confused: In this case, 2-2 seems to add up to 4.7.

 

[phaedrus]

Christof thanks for the clarification.

So, just for clarity, basically the detail in the blacks would never be created. If so that's actually cool, means nice dark tuxes right?

True, if that's what you want. I prefer open shadows.

 

[2F/2F]

Just because you push does not mean that you have altered exposure. They are totally separate.

His pix really do not seem very pastel to me, and he has too much in the dark end to be underexposing very much. My thoughts are that he is shooting anywhere from -1 to +1, and pushing anyhow. This is giving his midtones a unique contrast and saturation, and popping his high end quite significantly.

Placement and development are far more important with color than with b/w IMO, because the printing process and materials are far more limiting with color. With color, you need to have negs that are as close as possible to what you want on the print, since blanket contrast controls are nonexistent without also altering saturation, and vice versa. It used to be a little less critical, but Portra and Ultra papers are now gone entirely.

Of course, there is the option of digital printing, which is why color printing choices are extremely limited these days. For me, that is more hassle than printing analog for color, but it looks like there is really no way around it once I get through my stash of Portra and Ultra.

 

[markbarendt]

Just because you push does not mean that you have altered exposure. They are totally separate.

2F/2F,

I guess that's one of the things that confused me. What Jose and the interviewer called a "push" was in my mind just an exposure change. Pushing in my mind has always included a development change, which Jose claims not to be doing.

His pix really do not seem very pastel to me, and he has too much in the dark end to be underexposing very much. My thoughts are that he is shooting anywhere from -1 to +1, and pushing anyhow. This is giving his midtones a unique contrast and saturation, and popping his high end quite significantly.

This was also intriguing, the pastel effect is by no means overdone. For weddings Jose claims a 1 stop push is normal and that it provides "nice saturated" work and that occasionally he uses 2 stops of "push" so I believe you are judging correctly.

The wild card I see here is his metering technique. This is where I see my biggest challenge is going to be in making this technique reliable.

Placement and development are far more important with color than with b/w IMO, because the printing process and materials are far more limiting with color. With color, you need to have negs that are as close as possible to what you want on the print, since blanket contrast controls are nonexistent without also altering saturation, and vice versa. It used to be a little less critical, but Portra and Ultra papers are now gone entirely.

I've played some with developing but I'm finding very quickly that I'm not that much of a "lab rat". ;-)

Getting the shot reliably "right" for its intended purpose and handing it off for the rest is my workflow preference. That's part of the lure of C41 (and even normal E6) film; the standardized process forces me to express myself using just the camera.

Jose made an interesting comment in the video that "he'd have to hire an extra person to be able to shoot digitally." After 2-years of shooting digital portraits and weddings I understand his statement. Digital's dirty little secret is that most people trade "saving a few bucks in film and developing" for a "black-hole of post-processing time, expensive cameras, and endless upgrade costs."

(Don't get me wrong here, I am not belittling darkroom work or the incredible creativity that happens there in other people's workflows. It's just not where my creativity is.)

Of course, there is the option of digital printing, which is why color printing choices are extremely limited these days. For me, that is more hassle than printing analog for color, but it looks like there is really no way around it once I get through my stash of Portra and Ultra.

It's truly too bad that the options are shrinking.

Hate to say it but that's one of the reasons I am farming out my prints/albums. I want people/artisans who are good at printing and layout, people who actually enjoy that work, to do my printing.

 

[Claire Senft]

When increasing development time in C4 there are two issues: speed & contrast. While I personally am not in favor of pushed development I certainly do not feel that I should make any choices for others. The results that one gets from increased development are dependent upon the film being processed. Some films will only show an increase in speed, some will only show an increase in contrast, and some will show an increase in both.

I believe that in trying to make a judgement one should have decent control of the process. C41 is not unreasonably difficult. If you pick a film to "push" I would advise a test so that you have both a normal as well as a modified test and that such tests are repeatable. Once you have your test negatives then a printing test should be conducted. In addition it may well be useful to make an extreme sectional enlargement to see what if any effect there is upon "grain". It would be good if your test included some skin tones unless you avoid photographing people. Except for experimenting, it would be good to use standard processing unless you can identify what qualities the changed process is bringing to you.

Please keep in mind that the film structure is very complex and that the manufacturer has cafefully formulated the film to give optimum results when using specific processing.

 

[markbarendt]

Wow!

Perhaps it's all about the subject matter, the colors, and the metering/allocation of tones across the dynamic range of the negative.

But I am still scratching my head. None of the work I looked at on Joses's site looks like it was from an "underexposed" negative. :confused: In this case, 2-2 seems to add up to 4.7.

I'm glad to see I'm in good company in my confusion.

I think you are right about subject, color, and metering being the keys.

These are the backflips I have to learn. I would also add where he's willing to compromise.

What I mean by this is that the subjects are always well defined and appear well exposed and nicely saturated. The context/setting/background of each shot is also chosen well, but it looks as if it only provides a supporting role in most of the photos. He doesn't seem to compromise on getting the subjects best to save the back ground. It looks like he uses the huge latitude in the film to be able to, at least in part, ignore the exposure in the background. That's not to say that he's not aware of the general exposure he wants in the background, I'll bet Jose balances the background and subject exposures with fill, but that's just a guess.

 

[2F/2F]

I just saw the video. He processes normal, but consistently uses the word "push". Looking at his pix, however, they would not be printable to look the way they look if they were one to two stops under and normally processed. I am almost certain that he is simply using the wrong terminology, and what he is doing is overexposing the film, which lowers contrast and saturation. This means he is shooting his Pro 400H at 200 or sometimes 100, which easily explains the look of his pictures. The word "push" should be "overexpose" if this is the case.

It is a common practice in my experience. No fewer than three wedding photographers I have assisted and shot for have informed me that they always half rate their film.

Just goes to show that you can be quite far from technically aware and 1. make a living, 2. graduate from a school that teaches nothing but photography.

 

[markbarendt]

True, if that's what you want. I prefer open shadows.

Christof,

I'm not suggesting blocking the shadows up everywhere in my shooting. This technique is just a tool, something that needs to be understood and used wisely.

Part of what amazes me is that I can have so much control over the saturation and shadow detail I want, as compared to slides or digital.

If I want more shadow detail and saturation I can slide up to 800Z and/or just not "push" the exposure or I can purposefully "pull" my exposure some if I want to pump the color and detail up some.

 

[B&Wpositive]

I just saw the video. He processes normal, but consistently uses the word "push". Looking at his pix, however, they would not be printable to look the way they look if they were one to two stops under and normally processed. I think what he is doing is overexposing the film, which lowers contrast and saturation. This means he is shooting his Pro 400H at 200 or sometimes 100. The word "push" should be "overexpose" if this is the case.

Just goes to show that you can be quite far from technically aware and 1. make a living, 2. graduate from a school that teaches nothing but photography.

I was actually wondering the same as I fell asleep last night. Perhaps he means overexpose! If you wrap your head around it, this seems to make the most sense, especially when you consider his results.

The interviewer didn't seem to catch this though, and Jose didn't seem to pick up on the interviewer's misinterpretation either.

Say you overexpose one stop and then you compensate for it (by giving added light exposure to the paper to burn it in more) but you overcompensate by 2 stops instead of one...this would produce a pseudo push process effect, while still retaining the mid-tone details, would it not? But in this case, the paper is what is being "pushed" (in that you're darkening it), not the film! The film is actually being pulled ("overexposed" but not pull-processed!) I have a feeling after losing some sleep that this is what he is really doing. Anyone else have a feeling this could work?

I use quotes around words like "overexposed" because we still don't knw Jose's metering/tone placement habits.

I have a feeling I've solved this...but who knows, I could be wrong still.

It is, however, still unclear whether the lab is using optical printing or digital scanning and printing. (Not that it would change everything of course.)

 

[Photo Engineer]

I would like to clarify a few problems here.

1. Push in this context properly refers only to the process of C-41, in this case by extending development time.

2. There are a lot of changes or potential changes by increasing development time such as speed, fog, contrast, grain and crossover, not just the ones mentioned here so far.

3. Color negative films do not have 10 stops in latitude with a normal process. I have posted pictures here done on Portra 160 at 25, 50, 100, 160, 200, 400 and 800. This is 5 stops and of that ony 3 of them were useful. A push would at best render the other 2 stops and maybe 3 usable.

4. Even with a good push for an underexposure you are still shooting on a very soft toe that has been sharpened, so I agree that a lot of detail and overall image quality would be lost. Underexposure with pushing is the worst possible case of analog data compression.

Just some thoughts.

PE

 

[2F/2F]

If you do that you simply get an overexposed piece of paper. Nothing is pushed or pulled unless it is over or under developed, respectively. Exposure is separate from the act of pushing or pulling, and rerating your film does not push or pull it. It just exposes it a certain way. You use exposure and development together to get the desired result.

His metering technique is likely an incident meter, or an in-camera meter on the Canon. I can't see him doing anything else given his working conditions and his seeming lack of technical concern/understanding. I am sure Brooks at least taught him to use an incident meter, but he may not even do that, and just rely on the Contax's meter for the medium format (which would explain why he gets better results half rating his film). He is just relying on a blanket trick to get him the results he wants. I might too, if I was working day in and day out for others.

...and whoever said color neg. film has a 10-12 stop latitude must have meant to say dynamic range.

Lots of bad information going around in this post, likely because of the nature of the video and the misinformation within'. At any rate, all you have to do to understand it is read a ten-minute section from "The Negative". It is a simple concept, but ought to be understood fairly well before continuing to assume things.

 

[markbarendt]

I just saw the video. He processes normal, but consistently uses the word "push". Looking at his pix, however, they would not be printable to look the way they look if they were one to two stops under. I think what he is doing is overexposing the film, which lowers contrast and saturation. This means he is shooting his Pro 400H at 200 or sometimes 100. The word "push" should be "overexpose" if this is the case.

Just goes to show that you can be quite far from technically aware and 1. make a living, 2. graduate from college.

That's cute! I feel the same way at work many days.

Okay, so now I'm really and truly confused.

I thought push meant under-expose (and then of course over-develop) and pull meant over-expose (and then under-develop). What you are saying sounds opposite of that.

I also thought read somewhere that increasing exposure for color negatives (within the limits of the film curve) increased density, therefore increased saturation.

I am all mixed up and the local film pushers are closed for the day, dang!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Push has NOTHING to do with exposure. PUSH is a term used to define the development conditions.

In fact, normally exposed film can be pushed to get some special desired effect such as increased contrast.

PE

 

[2F/2F]

That's cute! I feel the same way at work many days.

Okay, so now I'm really and truly confused.

I thought push meant under-expose (and then of course over-develop) and pull meant over-expose (and then under-develop). What you are saying sounds opposite of that.

I also thought read somewhere that increasing exposure for color negatives (within the limits of the film curve) increased density, therefore increased saturation.

I am all mixed up and the local film pushers are closed for the day, dang!

Push means to overdevelop. You can expose however you want and still push. I think this is the fourth or fifth time this has been written in this thread.

What I am saying is not the opposite of what you think. I am saying that the guy in the video is using the wrong terminology. He is overexposing the film, and neither pushing nor pulling.

Usually in "normal" full-ranged conditions, underexposing just a little bit appears to increase saturation, while overexposing does the opposite.

Saturation truly means purity of color, not intensity or brightness. In the proper sense of the word, it refers to the color response of the film, not lightness or darkness. A high saturation film has a narrower color palette. It wants to shove mixed colors one way or the other to make them more pure. This is why the most highly saturated films are usually not the most color-accurate choices. If you could apply the concept of contrast index to color theory, saturation would kind of be like that. You are right that is affected by tonality, but it is tied to contrast more than raw density; contrast in this usage meaning the shape of the curve where that section of the composition falls. Therefore, overexposing only increases saturation until the shoulder is reached. In a flat scene, overexposure would increase saturation. In a full ranged ("normal") scene, it would reduce it. Underexposure would do the opposite. In a full ranged scene, it would pull some high tones down off of the shoulder and increase their saturation, at the sacrifice of some shadow detail on the low end. In a flat scene, underexposure would reduce the saturation of the higher toned areas by pushing them further up the shoulder. If all three color layers had exactly the same response to light, and all had perfectly straight-line curves (theoretical, of course), exposure would not affect saturation at all, in the true sense of the term.

This is why his darker areas appear more saturated while his lighter areas are more subtle.

My advice: shoot at rated speed, develop normally, stop watching lousy Internet videos, read a few books, and take lots of pictures. Most of all, stop worrying so much about what other photographers do. You have to just do it.

 

[markbarendt]

Okay, more info.

I had it all backward because of the video and the use of the word push in the video.

http://filmimpressions.blogspot.com/2008/06/jose-villa-joins-film.html

This link leads to an article where Jose specifically says he over-exposes for the effect.

 

[markbarendt]

BTW just FYI you guys are great, I learned something.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mark;

I always over expose ISO 160 film at 100 and ISO 400 film at 320. This gives a bit more density to the negatives, but then it also gives a bit finer grain and sharpness not to mention a tad more color. I don't do this with the newer VC films though.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Uh, pushing does have someting to do with exposure...

As I define these terms,
Pushing and Pulling has no meaning outside of more or less clearly defined "normal" exposure and "normal" development parameters.

You "push" to obtain "acceptable" prints with less exposure than is considered standard, and the way you do this is by increasing development by some means.

Any other time, the proper term would probably be "develop", "develop longer" or "increased development".

Ray Rogers

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well Ray, we often used push to merely mean overdevelopment. The words push and pull are shorter and easier to spell as well as being unambiguous. You see, a 1 stop push is equal in time for a film whether it is under exposed or normally exposed. For example, a 100 speed film exposed at 100 and pushed 1 stop gives about a stop worth of extra density (with all of the normal faults expected) while a 100 speed exposed as 200 and pushed 1 stop gives roughly the expected density for normally exposed film, but with most of the same faults. In other words, a one stop push is a one stop push in either speed or density.

We therefore use overexposure and underexposure to distinguish the film's condition and push or pull to define the process condition. We use a combination of both words to define the final condition of film + process. Misuse of those words led to the confusion here in the first place.

PE

 

[analogsnob]

Beware photographers spouting jargon!