Determining when to push process?

[Mr_Rocketkiller]

Hi all...newbie here. Just starting off my black and white photo hobby...so to speak. I was wondering...when does one determine when it's appropriate to push process film? I understand instances of mistaken ISO settings on the camera, poor lighting for the film that's loaded, etc. Is push processing also used to achieve an "artistic effect"?

For example, I plan on shooting my friend's band in their studio later on this week. I'm not certain of the lighting conditions, and the fastest film I currently have is 400TX. So, if my TTL meter shows that I can consistantly shoot 1 to 2 stops down, is it as simple as then pushing to 800 or 1600? Otherwise, pushing would probably result in a contrasty/grainy print?

I apologize if this is a redundant post...

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

That's pretty much it. If you underexpose by 1 stop, then the general rule of thumb would be to add about 25% to the development time, and for two stops, 50% and so on. However, most people question just how much you really can push film - usually one stop is okay, but for two stops, then you are really pushing it (pun intended). Some people question it from a quality point of view because of the contrast and grain issues.

 

[Neal]

Dear Mr Rocketkiller,

Download the Tri-X data sheet http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf and spend some time on the charts showing how the characteristic curve changes for different developing times. A search in this forum will probably yield a wealth of information on how to glean information from these curves. In addition, try here: www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/zone_system.shtml

Neal Wydra

 

[timeUnit]

Tri-X pushed two stops looks surprisingly good, especially in a developer intended for that type of treatment. XTOL would be a good choice. I've gotten OK results with D76, too. A less apparent choice would be dilute Rodinal, say 1+100 or 1+50 with minimal agitation. Using Rodinal will certainly result in a lot of grain, but it can be very pleasing grain. You will get grainy prints either way. It's matter of taste.

Tri-X @ 1600 is a classic used by famous photographers from all over the world.

You could also try Diafine, which according to what I've heard, gives a speed of 1600 ISO with Tri-X.

 

[thefizz]

I have been told that TriX pushed two stops in Tmax developer is great but I have yet to try it.

Peter

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, it will be contrastier & grainier than non-pushed. If the lighting is flat, the contrast may not matter. If the lighting is at all contrasty (as band lighting usually is) even 800 may be too far.

Cheers,

Roger (you might care to take a look at the free 'ISO Speeds' module in The Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Paul Howell]

I have pushed film for well over 30 years, TriX to 800. But after extensive testing I now shoot either Tmax or Delta 3200 at 1600, I treat ISO 3200 as a push. I usually shoot Tmax at 1600 develop in DDX 1:5 (not 1:4) for 11 mints, Tmax at 3200 DDX 1:5 for 16mints. All though it seems almost counter intuitive I also found that Tmax in Mircordol X at 13 mints works well with nice tight gain.

 

[Mr_Rocketkiller]

Thanks for the helpful info everyone...I will certainly give it a "shot" and see what "develops"! Jeez...that was a horrible pun...thanks again

 

[fhovie]

I push TRI-X to 1600 for half the film I shoot. (MF - not 35mm) In low light, contrast is usually poor - At ASA1600 - I get an expansion of contrast that gives a snap as well as enabling reasonable DOF.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Years ago people used to push process Tri-X because there just wasn't anything else. With todays faster films with ISO speeds greater than 1000 push processing really isn't necessary or desirable. A pushed film will always produce poorer results than using a faster film.

 

[fhovie]

Years ago people used to push process Tri-X because there just wasn't anything else. With todays faster films with ISO speeds greater than 1000 push processing really isn't necessary or desirable. A pushed film will always produce poorer results than using a faster film.

I don't think I would agree with this. The results will be different. In XTOL - no noticable change in grain up to 16x20 for a 2 stop push. The real difference is the increase in contrast - N+2 - which is a good thing for TRI-X - Tri-x normally will capture 9 or 10 stops in a dr of 1.2 - when pushed 2 stops - it captures 5 to 7 stops - makes a snappier print for indoors. Delta 3200 at 1600 has a long contrast range. The grain will not be smoother than tri-x and the print will be flatter - maybe a good thing for stage lighting.

 

[Paul Howell]

. In XTOL - no noticable change in grain up to 16x20 for a 2 stop push. The real difference is the increase in contrast - N+2 - which is a good thing for TRI-X - Tri-x normally will capture 9 or 10 stops in a dr of 1.2 - when pushed 2 stops - it captures 5 to 7 stops - makes a snappier print for indoors.

The loss of 2 stops means loss of shadow detail, that might be a desired look in which case TRI-X may work, but Geralds comment about higher contrast is true, and there are times when I push or use high speed film outdoors with long lens for Redoes and the like in which cases compressing the contrast is very problematic. I stopped using XTOL when Kodak stopped making it the quart size so I cant comment about grain in print to 16X20.

 

[m_liddell]

I push TRI-X to 1600 for half the film I shoot. (MF - not 35mm) In low light, contrast is usually poor - At ASA1600 - I get an expansion of contrast that gives a snap as well as enabling reasonable DOF.

That is some pretty serious grain. I use tri-x @ 1250 in diafine and the grain isn't far off what it is when shot at 400.