Giving up pushing in dark scenes, I think....

[Helinophoto]

Pushing has always been an area of good debate.

I know the fundamentals of development and pushing and I've tried to push on various occasions.

What I've found so far is that;
- Pushing can create some interesting, higher contrast shots, which can be cool, provided that you have some light to begin with.
- Pushing when you really have to (when it's dark), seems to be pretty much a futile adventure, at least for me.

Every time I've really have had to push, usually a 400 film up to 1600, the results have simply been....dark and underexposed, even with +25% and another + 25% and one added minute for good measure, in the times I normally have used (Tri-X and hc-110B).

I've simply not found a single case where I was able to get normal'ish or good negatives from pushing a darker scene. I've seen some highlights move abnormally far, but the central things, like none-highlight skin-tones, were dull and still dark.

The reason, IMO is simple: Basic development theory state that the zones from 1 - 3 hardly move after they have finished their development. If the scene is dark, and most of your central tones lie in these zones when you shoot your 400 film at 1600 and later want to push-process, then good luck, your result will be a dark, muddy mess none the less.

I have had no better luck trough stand/semi stand either.

Am I right about my assumptions here, or am I missing something essential?

 

[Jim Noel]

Your assumptions are pretty much correct. "Pushing" film increases density in the highlights, but does little if anything below about Zone V. It certainly does nothing for deep shadows. I agree with you in that of the many thousands of negatives I have seen over the years of teaching, I have never seen a "Pushed" one which produced a decent print.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree that pushing is a compromise.

In my experience, I get the best negs when I push while diluting my developer more. For example, I used replenished Xtol for many years as my main developer. I lost about 1/2 stop speed from box speed when using this with TMax 400 film.

But, if I diluted stock Xtol developer 1:1 I got longer development times, which helps the shadows. If I simultaneously slow down agitation I have to develop even longer, because the highlights will be protected more than with straight Xtol.
I ended up with development times in the 12-13 minute range for EI 800 and longer yet for EI 1600. I was able to get very usable negatives, ones that looked a lot like Tri-X 320 in tonality using straight developer and normal exposure.

It doesn't work well with all films or all developers. But it worked well with DD-X and Xtol, and I tried really long developing times with Rodinal 1+100 dilution, agitating every 3 minutes (I seem to remember 40 minute developing times). It worked well with the films I tried it with, TMax 400, TMax 100, Fuji Acros, and Tri-X 400.

You know, for what it's worth.

But now I use a speed losing developer, so I don't even try pushing anything anymore. The closest I get to high speed emulsion is Delta 3200, which I have to shoot at about EI 500 or 640 to get full tonality out of (which is fine by me).

 

[snapguy]

Real vs. reel

I come from the "this is what works" branch of film photography, not from the "highfalooting theory" branch. As a news photographer I pushed and pulled film over a 50-year span. It got to be very routine and produced very acceptable negatives. When I photographed a Muhammad Ali heavyweight title fight in Madison Square Garden in New York, Ektachrome was pushed to ASA 1000 and my photos were used on the front pages of newspapers and covers of magazines all over the world. It works. I have a 16x20 copy of my photo of Ali striking his opponent in the 9th round, knocking him out. As you might expect, the print is a bit grainy.But a very powerful image. I suggest one should be a bit wary of sweeping generalizations. They really don't help anyone and can be very misleading.

 

[summicron1]

I come from the "this is what works" branch of film photography, not from the "highfalooting theory" branch. As a news photographer I pushed and pulled film over a 50-year span. It got to be very routine and produced very acceptable negatives. When I photographed a Muhammad Ali heavyweight title fight in Madison Square Garden in New York, Ektachrome was pushed to ASA 1000 and my photos were used on the front pages of newspapers and covers of magazines all over the world. It works. I have a 16x20 copy of my photo of Ali striking his opponent in the 9th round, knocking him out. As you might expect, the print is a bit grainy.But a very powerful image. I suggest one should be a bit wary of sweeping generalizations. They really don't help anyone and can be very misleading.

amen to this. Pleasure to hear from someone with so much experience, too. Would love to see that image (again, since I probably did see it first time around in the newspaper somewhere.)

 

[mexipike]

I used to always push trix or hp5 to about 1600. Then I finally gave up on saving the money and just started buying delta 3200. Although technically when I shoot it at 1600 I understand that I'm pushing it since it's true ISO is around 1000. I find the results a good bit better and easier to reproduce. So I guess you could say that I gave up on pushing too. This just works best for my workflow.

 

[MattKing]

You should differentiate between pushing negative film and pushing transparency film.

If you think about pushing as a technique to increase contrast, as well as moving some of the near shadows up a bit on the curve, rather than as a technique for rescuing shadow detail, it will be less disappointing.

In some cases, dark scenes are also low contrast scenes, so pushing can help.

 

[Helinophoto]

I for one is never overconfident and too generalizing, especially here, I am simply asking if there is something I am missing, since my typical scenes never gets "saved" from pushing (typical scene are indoor scenes with friends and family, and parties, usually very badly lit and low key).

Maybe HC.110 isn't all that great and maybe the answer does lie closer to XTol for example, I've read that XTol have better speed and grain in the first place.

 

[Vaughn]

You have to have something on the film to 'push'. Sounds like you just are not giving the film enough exposure...with a long enough exposure in the dark, one can get enough density to benefit from extra development. Since you are in deep reciprocity failure territory, pushing does not do anything for correcting that failure. Your film needs a certain amount of light over a period of time to excite that silver -- no matter what ISO one sets on the camera or how much development it gets.

I do not push my film, I firmly lead it by the hand to higher and greater things. Typically I develop 50% to 100% more than the recommended time/temp. This is not over-developing the film, it is developing it to the normal, proper density range for my photographic processes.

Michael Kenna seems to be able to handle low light. Here are his suggestions (from a workshop years and years ago!):

Please note that with the RF corrections made, one gives conventional film less development -- not more development (no development change for TMax).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think maybe the term 'pushing' is a bit misleading. I often think that many photographers think of pushing as a combination of under-exposure and over-development, while in my mind it just means to 'push the contrast' when processing, meaning to develop the film longer than normal, or over-develop.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, my thinking is one can expose film normally and still push process for a negative of higher than usual contrast. The reason for doing so is entirely personal and aesthetic.

At least I think it is clearer to think of the two terms as separate events as it alleviates ambiguity. Under-expose, normal exposure, and over-expose, versus under-develop (pull processing), normal developing, and over-develop (push processing). Does that make sense?

 

[Vaughn]

I think maybe the term 'pushing' is a bit misleading.

I think we should just get rid of the "over and under" terms when choosing a development time...and leave those terms to be used only when accidently shortening or extending one's planned development time (or when accidently changing the temp or agitation method to give a different level of development than planned).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think we should just get rid of the "over and under" terms when choosing a development time...and leave those terms to be used only when accidently shortening or extending one's planned development time (or when accidently changing the temp or agitation method to give a different level of development than planned).

Perhaps. To me there is only 'correct' or 'incorrect' developing time, and it has to do with what our process needs. The end.

Good call. Simpler is better.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thomas's advice to use Delta 3200 is a good one in my opinion! snapguy you would have shot 3200 films if they were available back in the day... As it were, you got the most out of the fastest film available to you in the day.

Vaughn's crib notes from Michael Kenna are worth carrying around in your pocket. I do.

My contribution to this discussion will be the curve family I have for TMAX 100. On the X-axis film gets less and less light as you move to the left. Y-axis is density. Logarithmic scale 3.00 means there is a 3.0 density patch over the light... at that point, you can see no amount of development (in D-76 stock (not diluted) up to 48 minutes) will give any density (at best there will be less than 0.04 density) above base and fog. (All my densities are density minus base and fog).

The less exposure you give, the further to the left you land. If you push yourself into zero density territory, you have pushed too far.

 

[David Allen]

The only way to push film is with your finger along a table top. When people say that they ‘push’ film what they really mean is “that, to meet the needs of a certain situation / my own personal preferences I will accept underexposure of the shadows and compensate for the reduced tonal scale by increasing the development.” Of course there are some small variations in how different developers effect effective film speed but these are minimal if working towards the very highest quality.

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[mooseontheloose]

Pushing has always been an area of good debate.

I know the fundamentals of development and pushing and I've tried to push on various occasions.

What I've found so far is that;
- Pushing can create some interesting, higher contrast shots, which can be cool, provided that you have some light to begin with.
- Pushing when you really have to (when it's dark), seems to be pretty much a futile adventure, at least for me.

Every time I've really have had to push, usually a 400 film up to 1600, the results have simply been....dark and underexposed, even with +25% and another + 25% and one added minute for good measure, in the times I normally have used (Tri-X and hc-110B).

I've simply not found a single case where I was able to get normal'ish or good negatives from pushing a darker scene. I've seen some highlights move abnormally far, but the central things, like none-highlight skin-tones, were dull and still dark.

The reason, IMO is simple: Basic development theory state that the zones from 1 - 3 hardly move after they have finished their development. If the scene is dark, and most of your central tones lie in these zones when you shoot your 400 film at 1600 and later want to push-process, then good luck, your result will be a dark, muddy mess none the less.

I have had no better luck trough stand/semi stand either.

Am I right about my assumptions here, or am I missing something essential?

I've come to this exact same conclusion, having tried "pushing" various films (Tri-X, HP5+, Delta 3200) to speeds of 1600 and 3200 and trying them in different developers at different dilutions. I mostly push film in places where a tripod is impractical or impossible to use (festivals that take place at night, or indoor locations). To be honest, I never really got anything good out of any of them. Luckily I have some images because I also shot with my iPhone and a digital camera I bought specifically for these types of situations. Interestingly enough, I found the slide film I shot with (Provia 400X) had a lot more detail that even the black and white film I shot at 400 in similar light. I've come to the realisation that in these types of situations the only thing I can do is either push the Provia (maybe to 800) or shoot digitally. If I want black and white, the only thing I can do is use flash, which is something I will have to spend more time on -- especially for medium format, which seems unwieldy in these types of situations.

 

[Helinophoto]

Ok, so it seems that I've been below a certain threshold, to be able to "drag" my tones up in any degree.

On my way to a pub-setting now, brought my new zorki1 and a roll of neopan 1600 (I have some in stock ^^ ). Going to shoot it at 1600, even though the film is rated lower in most developers.

Nothing wrong with shadows, as long as the whole film doesn't end up like mud.

 

[Dali]

Yes, you might be below the minimum threshold to get enough exposure on the film. With your Zorki, what lens do you plan to use? The regular Industar-22 (f/3.5 max) or something faster (Jup-8 or 3)?

Too, most of indoor scenes are very contrasty because of the light spots. So, I would avoid "pushing" the developement to increase the contrast of something already contrasty. At the opposite, I would be conservative and use a compensating developer (Diafine comes to my mind) to keep contrast under control.

 

[Helinophoto]

I have the industar-22 indeed, developing now, lets hope, shot most of it at f3.5-f4 at 1/20s and 1/40s and even then it's probably dark as hell. ^^

Used the times for B (7min), times two (15) and diluted to H, 1 slow inversions every two minutes, then I let the whole thing stand 5 more minutes, to see how it copes with that (slowing down those highlights in the final phase and see if I am able to pull a little more from the shadows with this particular film). ^^

This is off-topic of this thread though, so I can make a new post about the results. =)