Metering lower, pushing higher

[hiroh]

Can someone explain the differences I should expect if I meter lower and push higher? For instance, if I have a 400 speed film and I meter it for 800 but push it to 1600 during development, how would that compare to metering the same film at 1600 and pushing it to 1600?

I haven't much pushed film, and when I have, I always metered it at the speed to which I was pushing during development.

 

[_T_]

The more you increase development the more contrast and grain you’ll get. The more you underexpose the less information you’ll have in the shadows.

You can only produce an image where there is sufficient exposure no matter how much you push the film. No amount of development will make an image appear where none was recorded. So if you under expose a dimly lit scene by two stops you can expect that much of the scene will not appear in the picture.

 

[hiroh]

_T_ thanks for the clarification. Would it be silly if I meter at one speed during a day, and another at night, with the same roll, and then push it? For example Tri-x 400, metered at 400-800 during a day and 1600 inside or at night?

 

[Dustin McAmera]

On the other hand, if you see a good scene, but it's dark and ISO 400 film is what you have, your choice may be to push some film or not take the picture. The OP didn't ask whether we think pushing film is a good idea.

Within the limitations of pushed film then, you will have 'over-exposed' your film by a stop (or rather, over-developed too much, by one stop). Subjects that are normally lit, relatively bright in your picture, may be over-developed. I don't think it will be enough to spoil a lot of your photos.

When I have pushed film, it's usually for hand-held photos taken on the street in the evening. In those scenes, there is always going to be some impenetrable shadow, and I let myself relax about exactly where that shadow starts, and concentrate on framing, and reacting fast enough.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I wouldn't vary the speed you meter at, within the same roll.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Off topic a bit: when I pushed colour neg film, I was surprised how little extra development time my kit recommended for a one or even two stop push. My developing tanks take a while to pour solutions in and out, and the extra time for a one-stop push is quite comparable to the error I might introduce in that pouring time.

 

[L Gebhardt]

The more you increase development the more contrast and grain you’ll get. The more you underexpose the less information you’ll have in the shadows.

You can only produce an image where there is sufficient exposure no matter how much you push the film. No amount of development will make an image appear where none was recorded. So if you under expose a dimly lit scene by two stops you can expect that much of the scene will not appear in the picture.

The more you increase development the more shadow detail you will record, to a point.

If you put all that together and push 2 stops, 400 to 1600, you will get a very contrasty negative with a bit more apparent speed. It will require a lower contrast printing, either lower paper grade or filtration. Because the film and the paper are not perfectly inversely matched throughout there curves the print will look different than a normally exposed and printed negative.

 

[hiroh]

Thanks, Dustin. I won't meter differently within the same roll.

I actually like photos with slightly more contrast and grain. Take, for example, Matt Black's photographs. They all appear to be correctly exposed, but they're very contrasty and quite grainy. I had the opportunity to view his large prints in a gallery, and the grain is noticeably large. I suspect they might be pushed significantly. Yes, most have a contrast in the content of the photograph (such as bright light and shadows). Some dodging and burning might have been done, but at this stage, I'm wondering if they've been pushed or not.

 

[L Gebhardt]

You should consider doing some minor testing of the process to see for yourself what your results will be. With 35mm it’s easy to shoot a half dozen frames metered at various speeds and develop normally. Don’t rewind all the way, or unload in the darkroom. Then repeat and add extra development time for the push. Then print or scan them to see how far you can take it.

The push processed night look has a certain appeal all of it’s own, and maybe you like the extremes or a bit less. You need to figure out what your goals are and where to make compromises.

 

[hiroh]

You should consider doing some minor testing of the process to see for yourself what your results will be. With 35mm it’s easy to shoot a half dozen frames metered at various speeds and develop normally. Don’t rewind all the way, or unload in the darkroom. Then repeat and add extra development time for the push. Then print or scan them to see how far you can take it.

The push processed night look has a certain appeal all of it’s own, and maybe you like the extremes or a bit less. You need to figure out what your goals are and where to make compromises.

I have shot around 100 rolls in my life, 97% of which are b&w. However, I usually play it safe, shooting and developing at box speed. I've pushed a few times at the same rate I metered. But all my shots look... normal... correctly exposed, and that's it. I'd like to introduce some drama and am eager to experiment more, but I'm not exactly sure where to start. Should I push it even more?

At this point, I don't have access to a darkroom, so I can't print or experiment with dodging and burning. I scan my negatives and edit them in Photoshop. Yes, I can manipulate them as I wish in Photoshop, but I'm more interested in what I can achieve in-camera.

I mostly use Tri-X, and sometimes HP5+ when I run out of Tri-X. I find HP5+ to be slightly more faded for my taste, and I want to add even more contrast to Tri-X.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I never pushed film to change the scene I was looking at; I just used it to let me photograph at all in the dark. These days, I confess I do this with equipment that I may not discuss in this 'analogue' forum. But I would say it's the scene that should bring the drama. Seek out interesting dark places that offer their own drama.

To add contrast in daylight, have you tried yellow, orange and red filters?

 

[hiroh]

Dustin, you're right. It's usually the scene that creates drama, not technicalities like pushing film. I have shots taken with T-max 100 that appear more contrasty than pushed Tri-x, simply because the scene was contrasty.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I have shot around 100 rolls in my life, 97% of which are b&w. However, I usually play it safe, shooting and developing at box speed. I've pushed a few times at the same rate I metered. But all my shots look... normal... correctly exposed, and that's it. I'd like to introduce some drama and am eager to experiment more, but I'm not exactly sure where to start. Should I push it even more?

At this point, I don't have access to a darkroom, so I can't print or experiment with dodging and burning. I scan my negatives and edit them in Photoshop. Yes, I can manipulate them as I wish in Photoshop, but I'm more interested in what I can achieve in-camera.

I mostly use Tri-X, and sometimes HP5+ when I run out of Tri-X. I find HP5+ to be slightly more faded for my taste, and I want to add even more contrast to Tri-X.

Part of looking normal despite the push is that with digital it’s easy to manipulate the tones back to normal.

Given that you’re using photoshop I’d do some experimenting in there to see if you can figure out what you want. To see what less shadow detail will look like add a curves layer to slighted clip the extreme shadows and drag down the lower shadows that are left. To simulate more development add a point to the highlights and raise them.

If you send your film out for development I’d ask for more of a push and shoot it metered at a few higher speeds. The push just means extra development and doesn’t need to match with how much less exposure you gave the film. See what comes back and make informed decisions based on that for the next roll. Remember less exposure means more pure black areas. More development means more mid tone and highlight contrast.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tried a lot of methods, but the one that I found worked the best:

• Meter at box speed and without the sky in the light meter's field of view, this works for slides and prints, both black & white and color.
• If more shadow details are wanted either use a spot meter and the Zone System metering OR open up the lens one or two f/stops.

 

[ic-racer]

Can someone explain the differences I should expect if I meter lower and push higher? For instance, if I have a 400 speed film and I meter it for 800 but push it to 1600 during development, how would that compare to metering the same film at 1600 and pushing it to 1600?

I haven't much pushed film, and when I have, I always metered it at the speed to which I was pushing during development.

Rating a film higher results in under-exposure which removes shadow detail. Developing longer increases contrast. There is a particular aesthetic to it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rating a film higher results in under-exposure which removes shadow detail. Developing longer increases contrast. There is a particular aesthetic to it.

Definitely not the one I want.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Hiroh,

It sounds to me like you're coming from a digital photography background. You need to know that film speed ISO is not flexible like the response from a sensor in digital cameras. A film's speed is pretty much baked into it at the time of manufacturer.

"Pushing" and "pulling" are ways of dealing with less-than-ideal or non-normal contrast and exposure situations.

Pushing is just underexposing your film and then developing it more that normal to compensate a bit. You'll never get the shadow detail you lost by underexposing, but you can get a usable image. Many even like the look of pushed film; inky blacks with no detail and more than normal separation between tones, because pushing was used in a lot of low-light situations (think rock concerts) and many of those images have become iconic.

Pulling is overexposing and underdeveloping, or just underdeveloping. It is used to deal with subjects with higher than normal contrast. The underdevelopment keeps the highlights from blocking up; the overexposure compensates for the tendency of averaging meters to underexpose high-contrast scenes.

Unless you need to push for low-light situations (or unless you like the look), there's no need to.

However, if you're just curious about the effects, it's pretty simple. Underexposing means the lowest illuminated parts of the image won't be recorded on the film. The more you underexpose, the more low values you lose. Pushing two or three stops loses lots of the image.

Changing development time changes the overall contrast of the film. We develop more when we push because the film is underexposed (the highlights too). Although the shadows are lost forever, the higher values can be boosted in contrast so an acceptable image can be made. Pulling just reduces the overall contrast of the negative. It's used when the subject contrast is too high for rendering an image without blocking up highlights or shadows.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

 

[DREW WILEY]

I hate it when people use the terms "push" and "pull" analogously to lab color processing tweaks because it's misleading. I never even heard of it in any black and white context until I joined APUG. There are better terms for that when referencing personal black and white film development, like under-developing or over-developing, or in Zonie lingo, Plus or Minus developing.

 

[hiroh]

I hate it when people use the terms "push" and "pull" analogously to lab color processing tweaks because it's misleading. I never even heard of it in any black and white context until I joined APUG. There are better terms for that when referencing personal black and white film development, like under-developing or over-developing, or in Zonie lingo, Plus or Minus developing.

You must have been shooting film much longer than me. I started about 3-4 years ago, and I keep hearing about push and pull. I only know the lingo used on blogs, forums, YouTube, and similar resources where I'm learning about film photography.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pros and labs never expressed it that way. But they probably have to now, especially since so many people have picked up web jargon, don't process black and white films themselves, and turn it over to labs with automated and semi-automated processors capable of handling b&w roll films. But it really implies something different than in color film shooting, and is apt to get confusing among those shooting both color and black and white film, or on discussions like the present one.

Keep in mind the old adage, "Expose for the shadows, Develop for the highlights," with reference to black and white film. If you try that with color film instead, you have a potential disaster on your hands.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Proper term is push development and pull development. I've tried it mainly with HP5 and got decent results at EI 800, and acceptable results at 1600... When the appropriate "push" time is given. I would never shoot at so many varying EI's, because what development time would you use? Normal time for box speed would work for 400, but if the time were given for 1600, the 1600 exposure would be ok, and 400 ones would be over developed. Pick one EI and develop accordingly.

 

[hiroh]

Pros and labs never expressed it that way. But they probably have to now, especially since so many people have picked up web jargon, don't process black and white films themselves, and turn it over to labs with automated and semi-automated processors capable of handling b&w roll films. But it really implies something different than in color film shooting, and is apt to get confusing among those shooting both color and black and white film, or on discussions like the present one.

Keep in mind the old adage, "Expose for the shadows, Develop for the highlights," with reference to black and white film. If you try that with color film instead, you have a potential disaster on your hands.

Things are changing. New generations like mine are picking up film for the first time. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I develop 90% of my black & white rolls, having learned through the aforementioned resources. So, if someone mentions push or pull, I'll completely understand. Plus or minus? Not so much. : )But hey, I'm open to learning the old lingo. It wouldn't hurt. It's just that most of the people I interact with, primarily online, tend to use the newer terminology, so we understand each other perfectly.

 

[hiroh]

Proper term is push development and pull development. I've tried it mainly with HP5 and got decent results at EI 800, and acceptable results at 1600... When the appropriate "push" time is given. I would never shoot at so many varying EI's, because what development time would you use? Normal time for box speed would work for 400, but if the time were given for 1600, the 1600 exposure would be ok, and 400 ones would be over developed. Pick one EI and develop accordingly.

I loaded a new roll of Tri-X today and am metering it at 1600. I'll push it by two stops in development. This is something I've done several times in the past. For the next roll, I plan to meter it at 800 and also push it two stops in development to see the difference.

One of the reasons I'm metering at 1600 is because I shoot half a roll, if not more, indoors. It gives me greater flexibility compared to the box speed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

hiroh - Semantics do evolve, but not necessarily smoothly. So if you decide to experiment with any Zone System model of exposure and development, which many do practice, it will be helpful to use a common denominator vocabulary. Same if you try to study sensitometry texts.

But no - most of you don't understand one another perfectly at all, because you don't even understand certain basic principles yet. That is evident by so many mis-matched questions. Any initial learning curve can be clumsy, so it's perfectly understandable and worth sorting out all this. One step at a time. Nothing wrong with that.

And my gosh, Larry, don't bring digital into this and further muddy the waters. There are great benefits to learning how to make film behave well on its own without trying to otherwise salvage poor exposures. That's mainly what "push and pull" has always implied
(despite Andrew's comment) - minor processing tweaks in color film to salvage an exposure error or perhaps give it a little more latitude at the expense of hue accuracy, or else a little more contrast and color saturation the other direction.

Black and white film, on the other hand, is often capable of very significant contrast adjustments on its own, since it's all about grayscale without any color hue connotations. Even if the film is going to be scanned, there are still huge advantages to learning how to make the most out of the film by itself in the first place. And some people who do scan and review images in that manner actually do so in with hopes of later having their own darkroom, and printing way. And I personally know some of them who had a rude awakening when what looked good on a screen turned out to be miserable to try to print in a real darkroom.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I loaded a new roll of Tri-X today and am metering it at 1600. I'll push it by two stops in development. This is something I've done several times in the past. For the next roll, I plan to meter it at 800 and also push it two stops in development to see the difference.

One of the reasons I'm metering at 1600 is because I shoot half a roll, if not more, indoors. It gives me greater flexibility compared to the box speed.

It's all good if shadows are not important. I have a video on my YouTube channel, where I played around with pushed HP5. I got interesting results. Bit of an eye opener.