Development Question- What would happen?

[derelict]

This might have been asked but I cannot come up with the correct wording to get a hit. What would happen if I took, say, TMax 400 and shot it at 400 but pushed it in development a stop or two?

 

[pdeeh]

You'd increase the contrast of the negative.

 

[derelict]

Thats it? I am assuming that the grain would increase as well?

 

[480sparky]

You'd probably end up with darker negs as well. But nothing that I don't think couldn't be 'corrected' at the printing stage. Yes, your graininess would increase some as well.

 

[Rick A]

Conventional emulsion maybe, tabular grain, don't think so much.

 

[pdeeh]

Why don't you phrase your question saying what you think will happen, and ask if you're right or wrong?
Otherwise it'll get very extended as a thread.

 

[MattKing]

This might have been asked but I cannot come up with the correct wording to get a hit. What would happen if I took, say, TMax 400 and shot it at 400 but pushed it in development a stop or two?

You'd increase the contrast of the negative.

Thats it? I am assuming that the grain would increase as well?

You will have just done the same thing as the Zone System users do when they use N + 1 development.

If your highlights were already fairly dense on the normally developed negative, they would be even more dense in the N + 1 developed negative.

You may see a slight increase in grain, but with T-Max 400 already being so fine grained, whether you would notice it is questionable.

And if your response to your more contrasty negative was to print it with less contrast, there is even a possibility that the resulting print might show less apparent grain overall, because contrast has a huge effect on the appearance of grain. It would depend on what sorts of areas of even tone there are in your subject.

 

[derelict]

Thank you so much. I was looking for more contrast in negatives but without the noticeable graininess that pushing could bring. I have a lot of TMax so I think I am going to give this a try.

 

[darkroommike]

Thank you so much. I was looking for more contrast in negatives but without the noticeable graininess that pushing could bring. I have a lot of TMax so I think I am going to give this a try.

Might be better just to print on a paper with more contrast.

 

[removed account4]

Thank you so much. I was looking for more contrast in negatives but without the noticeable graininess that pushing could bring. I have a lot of TMax so I think I am going to give this a try.

it is a great film and with the right coaxing it can be grainy or contrasty or both.
i hate to suggest a film test but ...
you might consider loading a roll of film into a 35mm camera and bracket by 3 whole stops
with soft and with harsh lighting, a couple of rolls
THEN ... process normal, + 30-50% and - 30-50%
make contact prints or enlargements of the ones that
do what you like, and then shoot a whole roll like that and process at whatever it was that worked...
from what i understand no matter the format, the emulsion is the same ..
what you might also do is use a more abrasive/active developer. not sure what you use
but something like a universal developer might help you find the look too.
don't believe the hype about golf ball size grain &c i've been using
a print developer for my film off and on since the mid/late 1990s
golf ball size grain its not exactly what happens...
from what i remember reading, news photographers used to stick their film
in straight dektol, and no agitation for 3 mins stop/fix/wash and print the film wet ...
this might also be an avenue to wander down.

YMMV

 

[cliveh]

As well as increasing contrast, you will also increase density, which may make your negative more difficult to print dependent on your type of enlarger and a few hundred other factors.

 

[Bill Burk]

Among the hundred factors cliveh alludes to is... how long are you developing in the first place.

It might turn out that you are developing to a relatively low contrast in the first place, many people do when they follow the manufacturer's instructions (most of which do not tell you the contrast to expect when you follow the instructions).

So it might turn out that developing longer only really gives you negatives that print on a normal grade of paper (or that prints well on the equivalent of a number 2 multicontrast filter).

 

[esearing]

Among the hundred factors cliveh alludes to is... how long are you developing in the first place.

It might turn out that you are developing to a relatively low contrast in the first place, many people do when they follow the manufacturer's instructions (most of which do not tell you the contrast to expect when you follow the instructions).

So it might turn out that developing longer only really gives you negatives that print on a normal grade of paper (or that prints well on the equivalent of a number 2 multicontrast filter).

I agree with this! My personal preference for how the negative looks and prints has led me to longer processing times. Then you start playing with dilutions and adjustments to mid tones and micro contrast. All the "testers" will expect you to nail down your development so it is predictable, however sometimes the ah-ha moments that lead to your personal vision come from the accidents and experimentation.

 

[removed account4]

I agree with this! My personal preference for how the negative looks and prints has led me to longer processing times. Then you start playing with dilutions and adjustments to mid tones and micro contrast. All the "testers" will expect you to nail down your development so it is predictable, however sometimes the ah-ha moments that lead to your personal vision come from the accidents and experimentation.

i know ..

my ahah moment was processing sheet film in moonlight in caffenol for 18 minutes with my fatherinlaw tellingme the time. the film came out so dense you couldn't see through it
even with a flashlight, but it printed like no other film i have ever printed. now i do my best to make most of my personal negatives as bulletproof as i can.
things looked at to be mistakes by some often times lead to great successes for others.

 

[ic-racer]

This might have been asked but I cannot come up with the correct wording to get a hit. What would happen if I took, say, TMax 400 and shot it at 400 but pushed it in development a stop or two?

Increased development time increases negative contrast. Search for "H&D Film Curve Family"

 

[markbarendt]

This might have been asked but I cannot come up with the correct wording to get a hit. What would happen if I took, say, TMax 400 and shot it at 400 but pushed it in development a stop or two?

So the others have explained the direct effect.

IMO when shooting negatives though it is helpful to think all the way through to the print.

If nothing else is changed from end to end, pushing the film (extra development) makes a snappier, more contrasty print. Mid tones move up, become brighter. Highlights move up/get brighter and some highlight detail will start to fall outside the printable range of the paper.

It is not typical for everything else to remain the same, instead a variety of things may change. Many times people also intentionally underexposed when they plan to push, most people will adjust print exposure to move the highlights and mid tones back down a bit.

The point I'm getting at is that the intent of pushing film should be considered as a print adjustment, as John suggests the look of the negative (thick v thin) isn't necessarily important.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I was looking for more contrast in negatives

I think that most people would develop normally and just print on the equivalent of a harder paper. This would prevent any increase in grain.

 

[David Lyga]

Unfortunately, the harder the paper the more grain is accentuated. Thus, there is no safe area regarding this. If you have soft negatives, a harder grade of paper will increase the negative's lower grain. If you have harder negatives, a softer paper will lessen the negative's increased grain. Result: usually the same amount of grain. - David Lyga

 

[pentaxuser]

Unfortunately, the harder the paper the more grain is accentuated. Thus, there is no safe area regarding this. If you have soft negatives, a harder grade of paper will increase the negative's lower grain. If you have harder negatives, a softer paper will lessen the negative's increased grain. Result: usually the same amount of grain. - David Lyga

Your comment suggests a kind of neutral effect but I feel sure I read somewhere that it is easier/better to print on a harder grade from a softer negative than it is to print softer from a harder negative. This may have no relevance to your point, of course but I cannot recall the reasons why a harder print from a softer neg is the better way round, assuming it is. It may also be that having read a million posts on APUG since about 2005 my memory may be faulty

Anyone enlighten me?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

I may be able to enlighten you (re northern hemisphere), as I would suggest that 80%+ negatives require higher contrast/magenta filtration. So the norm is to print for higher contrast. This is mainly due to flat lighting conditions and in some cases under development of film.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This might have been asked but I cannot come up with the correct wording to get a hit. What would happen if I took, say, TMax 400 and shot it at 400 but pushed it in development a stop or two?

you'll get a contrasty negative with poor shadows and increased grain but you will get images you may not get otherwise.You'll be better off using3200 film and exposing it at ISO1000.

 

[derelict]

you'll get a contrasty negative with poor shadows and increased grain but you will get images you may not get otherwise.You'll be better off using3200 film and exposing it at ISO1000.

I have a few rolls of that. I am assuming that you say to shoot it at 1000 and develop it normally for the box speed?

 

[Steve Smith]

Why not try it and see if you like the results?


Steve.

 

[M Carter]

This is one of those (many, many) questions where the appropriate answer is "test it yourself".

"...I was looking for more contrast in negatives but without the noticeable graininess that pushing could bring..."

But the OP's idea of "more" contrast, or what grain is "noticeable" are pretty subjective, and can vary widely from process and materials.

I really advocate testing whenever possible - I find you tend to learn more than you set out to.

 

[derelict]

Why not try it and see if you like the results?


Steve.

I am going to. I just finished up a roll of TMax and will be sending it out for development to see what happens. I just wanted to see if anyone had done it so I had a general idea before I did it.