Little dilemma: to pull or not to pull?

[pumpkinsoup]

Hey guys,

I am a fresh new user here! I have a little dilemma and would really appreciate your experience in this regard.
I've loaded an Agfa Vista 400 but realized too late the camera ISO was set to 200 the whole time. So basically all the pictures have been shot according to a light-meter for 200 ISO.
I went to a camera shop today to ask if it was possible to pull the film to 200 during developing in order to compensate, but they said it would do more damage than to develop it as normal at 400, because one stop is not that big of a deal anyways.
I have done pulling before, from 200 to 100, and yes, the colors were a bit weird, but overall I wasn't dissatisfied with the results. In this case though I am a bit afraid to pull from 400 to 200 because I really care for the colors and also afraid to develop at 400, since the pictures will probably be very very bright.

What do you think? What's the best way to go, in your opinion?

Cheers

 

[Anon Ymous]

Develop normally, a 1 stop overexposure isn't bad at all. It might even give better results. Generally speaking, colour films require tight temperature and development time control, in order to give normal results. Keep in mind that they're made of 3 emulsions that need to be developed to the same contrast and this happens only when development is what it should be. In any other case the result will be different. It may not be catastrophically different, but this case doesn't demand pull processing your film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Develop normally because it is still in the range of the latitude of the film.

 

[bdial]

The shop gave you good advice (along with Anon, and Sirius).

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to APUG.
Why do you expect the pictures to be "very bright"?
The negatives will be just one stop more dense - well within the latitude of the film. Scans or optical prints can easily be adjusted to take that into account. If the film is developed normally, the contrast and colour balance will be close to optimum - unlike what you would obtain with a "pull" development.
The reason to use a "pull" is not to adjust for over-exposure, it is to adjust for excess contrast in the exposure conditions.
The situation is a bit different for slide film.
Every exposure choice involves some sort of compromise. Increasing the exposure by one stop favours the shadow detail in the shadow detail vs. highlight rendition conversation.

 

[Arklatexian]

Develop normally, a 1 stop overexposure isn't bad at all. It might even give better results. Generally speaking, colour films require tight temperature and development time control, in order to give normal results. Keep in mind that they're made of 3 emulsions that need to be developed to the same contrast and this happens only when development is what it should be. In any other case the result will be different. It may not be catastrophically different, but this case doesn't demand pull processing your film.

While doing some "custom" B&W processing for a camera store, I was given a roll of TriX 120 to develop and make a proof. I took it home and developed for the normal time for the normal 400 film speed. I remember thinking when I saw the film hanging while drying, "what a nice looking roll of negatives" and when I proofed the roll the following day, it proofed with no problems. I took the order to the store and the store manager immediately asked if I had developed that roll and when I said yes, he asked how I developed it normally. His face went ashen. The customer had forgotten to tell us that he had doubled the film speed. The manager asked how the developed film looked. I answered "great". The outcome was, the customer was elated, ordered some 8x10 prints and the manager was happy. The point of this tome, develop your film normally rather than "overthink" it......Regard!

 

[pumpkinsoup]

Thanks everybody, I was happy to read your feedback.
Today I have submitted the film and expect good results, as you guys have suggested. I still have a lot to learn about analog photography and your answers have inspired me to broaden my knowledge. This forum is a precious source.
If you are curious to see how it ended, I will post a picture here after I have scanned the roll. It will take more than a week but it's a good example if somebody finds this thread and has my same doubt.

Cheers

 

[summicron1]

For what it is worth, kodak's many zillions of point and shoot cameras were all designed to overexpose a stop or more -- the thinking was the film latitude could handle it just fine, and the overexposure guaranteed printable negs in the many weird situations casual shooters got in to.

be at peace. Your prints will be fine.

 

[voceumana]

Until maybe the mid 1960's Kodak's black and white film speed ratings (with a very few exceptions) included a safety margin that amounted to 1 stop overexposure. That is, Tri-X was given a 200 speed rating even though it was a 400 speed film.

 

[MattKing]

Until maybe the mid 1960's Kodak's black and white film speed ratings (with a very few exceptions) included a safety margin that amounted to 1 stop overexposure. That is, Tri-X was given a 200 speed rating even though it was a 400 speed film.

Not just Kodak - all negative films that reported speeds according to the ASA standards. Then in the 1960s those standards were revised in order to reflect technological changes and evolution of "best print" expectations in a commercial photofinishing environment.
So a film that was evaluated as ASA 200 under the old system, would be evaluated as ASA 400 under the (then) new system.
The newer system better reflected the needs of everyday consumers and the systems and output of commercial photo-finishing labs. The old system gave a number closer to the preferences of people who might use the Zone System and/or do their own darkroom printing.
The latter ASA numbers are functionally the same as the current ISO numbers.