Confusion; Pushing C41 & developing normally

[donbga]

When increasing development time in C there are two issues: speed & contrast.

There is actually four issues at play when development times increase with the C-41 process. Speed and contrast as well as an large increase in density making printing times potentially much longer and color crossover almost ensuring that good color balance is impossible.

The short answer is that push development of C-41 films doesn't work well.

 

[wogster]

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."

I have spent hours trying to get the colour balance right in doing a chemical colour print,
so the time black hole belongs to both processes. Of course you can always bracket a lot hoping that out of a roll you get one good shot, which actually works better with digital.

I closed my darkroom in 1984, kinda just got things processed until 2003 when I opened a digital darkroom. I worked solely in film until 2006 when I added a digital camera to the mix. The one thing I do, is look at each image, either scanned film image or digital image, to see if it is usable enough to be worth putting darkroom time into it. If not, then I simply delete and move on. If there is, it's archived and kept, without doing any post processing to it. When I want a print or online image, then I go to the original archived image and process it, and make my print. The big time sink to either process is to want to make a perfect print of every image you take. Sometimes you need to be brutal in the initial going through of images.

 

[markbarendt]

I have spent hours trying to get the colour balance right in doing a chemical colour print, so the time black hole belongs to both processes.

Hi Wogster,

The point I believe Jose was making, and the one I was intending to make, is that "our" preference is to keep shooting and selling and have a life; we won't be doing our own processing.

Hiring a pro-lab to process C41 film in a normal manner provides consistent and predictable results, and requires no management skills, no computer, no payroll reporting, no unemployment insurance, and none of our time or thought during the process.

Hiring and training and putting up with the idiosyncrasies and needs and wants of an employee is a pain and time consuming and truly expensive by comparison.

 

[markbarendt]

There is actually four issues at play when development times increase with the C-41 process. Speed and contrast as well as an large increase in density making printing times potentially much longer and color crossover almost ensuring that good color balance is impossible.

The short answer is that push development of C-41 films doesn't work well.

Thanks Don.

Jose uses the standard C41 process, that's what I want to do too. I'm just trying to nail down how it all works so that I can get predictable results.

 

[wogster]

Hi Wogster,

The point I believe Jose was making, and the one I was intending to make, is that "our" preference is to keep shooting and selling and have a life; we won't be doing our own processing.

Hiring a pro-lab to process C41 film in a normal manner provides consistent and predictable results, and requires no management skills, no computer, no payroll reporting, no unemployment insurance, and none of our time or thought during the process.

Hiring and training and putting up with the idiosyncrasies and needs and wants of an employee is a pain and time consuming and truly expensive by comparison.

You know, it's really comes down to the photographers workflow. There are labs where you can drop off a memory card and the lab will load them in and produce a set of auto corrected prints, the next day you pick up the card and prints. If you don't want to trust the lab with the originals, burn them to a CD and give that to the lab. The film-is-easier because-you-don't-have-to-do-anything-with-it-but-with-digital-you-spend-5-hours-on-the- computer-with-every-shot argument doesn't really hold water.

One should pick between film and digital based on what the photographer is trying to achieve, if your trying to get a specific look that is easier with film, then shoot film, if the client wants to pick the photos they want before the plane leaves at 6 the next morning, then shoot digital, dump then onto photobucket or pbase with a password, and let the client email you the files they want. Send those to the lab for printing and binding, and your done,

Me, I shoot both, I'll admit, more digital now, but there are times where I want a certain effect or a focal length I don't have for the digital, then out comes the film camera. I've been shooting film for 30 years, haven't had a darkroom in nearly 25....

 

[markbarendt]

Wogster

You do realize your posting at APUG, right? :confused:

You know, it's really comes down to the photographers workflow. There are labs where you can drop off a memory card and the lab will load them in and produce a set of auto corrected prints, the next day you pick up the card and prints.

Cool, if you happen to be a point & shooter. :rolleyes:

The problem here is that with digital "auto correct" really tries to fix the photo by making it normal. Any creative "shooting for effect" gets "fixed". Same problem with hiring somebody to do it, it becomes their vision not mine.

OTOH, C41 and E6 never auto-correct, the chemicals just don't care. If I shoot C41 or E6 films for an effect, and do my camera work properly, the normal process spits out that effect. That means it's my vision.

One should pick between film and digital based on what the photographer is trying to achieve, if your trying to get a specific look that is easier with film, then shoot film,

What I'm trying to achieve is a nice dependable "bright" look with few if any blown highlights and no post processing by me after I drop the shutter.

I have shot and processed several hundred-thousand digital images. I am so tired of having to give up the highlights with digital just to get the subject and shadows where I want them without any post-processing, that I could puke.

Switching to E6 was an improvement over digital because the transition to blown-out was so much nicer, now switching to C41 brings so much more latitude for over exposure that it makes shooting "bright" fun and dependable and detailed.

if the client wants to pick the photos they want before the plane leaves at 6 the next morning, then shoot digital, dump then onto photobucket or pbase with a password, and let the client email you the files they want.

Easier yet, if they throw enough money my way I'll just hand them the undeveloped film before I leave the shoot.

If they want digital work, that's fine; somebody else can do the work.

BTW "dumping them" on the web counts as post as far as I'm concerned.

 

[wogster]

Wogster

You do realize your posting at APUG, right? :confused:



Cool, if you happen to be a point & shooter. :rolleyes:

The problem here is that with digital "auto correct" really tries to fix the photo by making it normal. Any creative "shooting for effect" gets "fixed". Same problem with hiring somebody to do it, it becomes their vision not mine.

OTOH, C41 and E6 never auto-correct, the chemicals just don't care. If I shoot C41 or E6 films for an effect, and do my camera work properly, the normal process spits out that effect. That means it's my vision.



What I'm trying to achieve is a nice dependable "bright" look with few if any blown highlights and no post processing by me after I drop the shutter.

I have shot and processed several hundred-thousand digital images. I am so tired of having to give up the highlights with digital just to get the subject and shadows where I want them without any post-processing, that I could puke.

Switching to E6 was an improvement over digital because the transition to blown-out was so much nicer, now switching to C41 brings so much more latitude for over exposure that it makes shooting "bright" fun and dependable and detailed.



Easier yet, if they throw enough money my way I'll just hand them the undeveloped film before I leave the shoot.

If they want digital work, that's fine; somebody else can do the work.

BTW "dumping them" on the web counts as post as far as I'm concerned.

I do know I am posting on APUG, it's called being a devils advocate, perhaps you have heard that term before

It's true that E6 and C41 chemistries don't care, however, in the case of C41 that's only half the job, you need to get a print, there are two ways to get prints, you can do them yourself or get a lab to do them, if you do them yourself, it's just as big a time sink as digital, in fact probably more so, in that you need to print, process and dry the print, then with good light, examine the print and if it's not what you want, then you need to print again changing something, and continue. I have a print that I spent all day in the darkroom with, never got the colour balance the way I wanted. Scanned the negative and digitally got what I had wanted years before, in 5 minutes :rolleyes:

If you hand your negatives to a lab, these days they scan them, auto-correct and print, which is exactly what you accuse digital of doing. That's probably fine with 90% of images, if I am trying for a special effect, then I want to do the post processing myself, and send it to the lab with a note to NOT correct it. Every negative gets some post processing, mostly done by the lab.

I think the major reason that so many people spend a lot of time on digital images is that they can, it's easy to keep tweaking an image. If you look at the image, touch it up slightly and leave it alone, you can save a lot of time.

Now if your personal work flow and vision works best with colour negative film, then shoot that way. To get back to where this thread started, if I have a roll of Fuji Superia 200ASA film, and it's a day where it would be better to use 400ASA film, and I don't have any, and run that roll through at 400ASA, then inform the lab that I pushed the film a stop, do they charge anything in the FILM processing?

 

[markbarendt]

I do know I am posting on APUG, it's called being a devils advocate, perhaps you have heard that term before

It could also be called trolling.

Now if your personal work flow and vision works best with colour negative film, then shoot that way.

Thank you it does. I may sneak in some E6 too.

To get back to where this thread started, if I have a roll of Fuji Superia 200ASA film, and it's a day where it would be better to use 400ASA film, and I don't have any, and run that roll through at 400ASA, then inform the lab that I pushed the film a stop, do they charge anything in the FILM processing?

I don't know about Superia but Fuji says their Pro films should be processed normally with that small a change in ei. So technically speaking no, I should not pay more, because there should be no need to push.

This is actually a great point about C41 film, lots of latitude compared to other ways of catching light.

For Pro films Fuji actually advertises that film exposed anywhere from -1 to +3 stops should be processed normally. That means I can shoot all those ei's on the same roll, if I so please. Ilford advertises the same for their XP2 super.

Given the latitude of these films; if all I ever carried was Pro 400H and/or XP2 Super in my bag, I could technically shoot from ei50 to 800 with no change in processing. It's going to be pretty easy to stay inside these films advertised range.

 

[wogster]

It could also be called trolling.

Thank you it does. I may sneak in some E6 too.

I don't know about Superia but Fuji says their Pro films should be processed normally with that small a change in ei. So technically speaking no, I should not pay more, because there should be no need to push.

This is actually a great point about C41 film, lots of latitude compared to other ways of catching light.

For Pro films Fuji actually advertises that film exposed anywhere from -1 to +3 stops should be processed normally. That means I can shoot all those ei's on the same roll, if I so please. Ilford advertises the same for their XP2 super.

Given the latitude of these films; if all I ever carried was Pro 400H and/or XP2 Super in my bag, I could technically shoot from ei50 to 800 with no change in processing. It's going to be pretty easy to stay inside these films advertised range.

I tried XP2, didn't really like it, which is strange because I always preferred Ilford films, just checked the local price on 400H, it's pretty normal for higher end films, although I can get the Superia for about half the price.

I think in my 30 years of shooting I shot one roll of Kodachrome and maybe 3 rolls of E6 process film, and most of it was in the late 1970's. Kinda shocking to think E6 has been around for over 30 years now.... Never did slide shows, and scanning didn't come into vogue until a few years ago. Did do some Cibachrome prints years ago, came across one a couple of weeks ago, you know it's as clear and perfect as the day I made it, but the slide has faded into almost nothing. I still have some colour prints, don't remember what process it was, sometimes the colour balancing was hard though. I did C41 processing and B&W processing, never did E6.

 

[markbarendt]

We have family photos on a lot of Kodachrome and Ectachrome (probably why I started back into film with E6). The Kodachrome from the 60's and 70's is still gorgeous, the Ektachrome, not so nice.

From what I've seen of XP2 it does very nicely at capturing what the shooter wants but it doesn't have the great grain of the non-C41 B&W films. This is just my impression so far.

The other thing I see with B&W, is not as much need for C41. B&W films already have lots of latitude and there are good labs who can do nice repeatable work. That opens up many other artsy options.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I don't like the term "push" when all you are doing is underexposing the negative. It is only "push" if you do the combination of underexpose film and extend development.

 

[wogster]

I don't like the term "push" when all you are doing is underexposing the negative. It is only "push" if you do the combination of underexpose film and extend development.

I always thought that pushing was the act of changing processing to make a film appear to have a higher EI then it's ISO rated speed. If I am trying for a special effect, I may intentionally under expose a negative, but not change the processing, and that is simply under exposing a negative. In B&W there are actually 3 ways of pushing, you can extend development time, increase the processing temperature or use a more active developer. I am not sure how you would do that in C41, but it should work the same way with E6. I guess the issue with C41 is to be able to push it without affecting the colour balance.

 

[donbga]

then inform the lab that I pushed the film a stop, do they charge anything in the FILM processing?

Are you asking "'Do they charge'" or "'Do they change'" - anything in the film processing?

You post seems to be replete with generalizations and contradictions I don't think folks follow your point(s).

 

[wogster]

Are you asking "'Do they charge'" or "'Do they change'" - anything in the film processing?

You post seems to be replete with generalizations and contradictions I don't think folks follow your point(s).

I meant change, sometimes the fingers and brain lose synchronization when typing

I am still getting familiar with the software used here, didn't realise I could change it....

 

[donbga]

I meant change, sometimes the fingers and brain lose synchronization when typing

I am still getting familiar with the software used here, didn't realise I could change it....

If the lab processing the film can offer push processing then the development time will need to be increased.

 

[wogster]

If the lab processing the film can offer push processing then the development time will need to be increased.

Which raises a question for those of us who, like me, don't know, how some of this stuff works. I did some C41, 30 years ago, but never stopped to see how it worked, what I remember though is you had to be careful with time and temperature, because if your time or temperature were not within a very narrow range that it affects colour balance. So how do you push process it, without ending up with the colour balance looking like you spent the morning dropping acid?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Paul;

A push for any color film is just marginal in a lot of cases.

PE

 

[donbga]

Which raises a question for those of us who, like me, don't know, how some of this stuff works. I did some C41, 30 years ago, but never stopped to see how it worked, what I remember though is you had to be careful with time and temperature, because if your time or temperature were not within a very narrow range that it affects colour balance. So how do you push process it, without ending up with the colour balance looking like you spent the morning dropping acid?

Paul,

As PE suggests pushing color negative film won't reult in great increases in speed. And color balance will be shot all to hell.

I know of no labs that will push C-41 emulsions.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Basically, C-41 push raises dmin and contrast. The three layers can get out of synch and also can get bumps in them leading to crossover. It works, and some great photos have been made but C-41 is designed to be close to the best speed possible with latitude of several stops either way. That is best as nothing changes then except grain and sharpness.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

BTW, a reversal push reduces dmax by increasing fog. This gives the mistaken impression that camera speed goes up, and it does, but so does contrast and latitude goes down. Kodak only made one reversal print for push. It was intended for journalism.

PE

 

[wogster]

Paul,

As PE suggests pushing color negative film won't reult in great increases in speed. And color balance will be shot all to hell.

I know of no labs that will push C-41 emulsions.

So in other words, you don't gain much, and the results look like you spent the day, uh far out, man........:rolleyes:

 

[markbarendt]

Okay,

So I'm going to try and summarize what I've learned here (and elsewhere).

First, my intent in most of my shooting is centered on people; weddings, events, portraits, and the like. The backgrounds in these shots are important but hold a truly a secondary, supporting, role even if it's a majestic landscape. The backgrounds simply provide context and mood, they should never distract and are rarely the subject. Clouds for example should have recognizable form and texture but there is little need for sharpness.

Second, my intent for processing is to have a reliable, standardized, hands-off, process for developing and printing my work.

1 - C41 processing is best when done in the standard manner. No color or fog issues introduced. Personally I don't see a benefit in increased development unless you want to skew things on purpose.

2 - C41 does have great tolerance for overexposure. 1-2 stops up is very doable on a normal basis while still maintaining highlight detail and normal/believable color balance. 3 stops up is, in general, starting to reach the limits. 4+ the highlight detail will be seriously affected.

3 - C41 has some tolerance for underexposure but as with most things photographic, things work better when plenty of light is allowed into the box.

4 - Overexposure moves the colors up the curve and opens up the shadows. Color can become more saturated depending on where it starts on the curve. Color will, in general, move from a normal color pallet up the brightness scale toward a more pastel color pallet. Skin becomes softer/creamier as the exposure increases.

5 - Printing is the wild card. To make this process bullet proof I need a lab that will listen and print within limits I prescribe.

Does all this make sense?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes Mark, it makes sense.

PE

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks PE