Metering lower, pushing higher

[Dustin McAmera]

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.

I learnt to develop film when I was 17, in 1980, and our teacher spoke of pushing then. A couple of years later, photographing for the student paper, we pushed HP5 more often than we used it normally, I think, and pushing's what we called it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Definitely not the one I want.

Me neither but to be fair it's the OP whose the customer and it's he whom we are trying to satisfy with answers as to what he can do to get what he wants but yes we need to point out the drawbacks in so doing

I do often wonder why people make it harder for themselves by ever bothering with film and its processing if what they want to do is replicate what is apparently much easier via a completely digital regime

pentaxuser

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.

So my comments above notwithstanding why not consider using XP2 Super where the development time is the same for speeds from 100 to 1600

By most accounts this C41 film seems to fit your bill of needs the best, although it has to said perhaps not perfectly so but it may make the best of a bad job in terms of handling different speeds on the same roll

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I learnt to develop film when I was 17, in 1980, and our teacher spoke of pushing then. A couple of years later, photographing for the student paper, we pushed HP5 more often than we used it normally, I think, and pushing's what we called it.

The confusing part of the evolution of the lingo is that what was once a term that referred only to a change in development - a push or a pull - has become conflated with a combination of changes in exposure (decreased/under or increased/over) and a corresponding change in development.
And sometimes even worse, I've encountered people who use "push" or "pull" to refer only to under or over-exposure, and that really muddies the water.
The older terms make it a bit easier to discuss these things on the internet, because they are less vulnerable to confusion.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Well, if 'push' has changed in meaning, it did so a while ago. Here's a page from Popular Photography in August 1977, announcing HP5 (as successor to HP4). That's before the internet, and before my AE-1 was made.

The advert uses the terms 'push' and 'push processing' several times, and it's clear that they mean exposing at higher-than-box speed, combined with extra development to compensate.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’m not sure it’s really an evolution of terminology as the notion of changing film speed and development was common for all labs I’ve used in the 20th century. I am with you that folks use the same term to mean different things.

Edit: as the ad that I remember seeing when new says.

 

[MattKing]

The advert uses the terms 'push' and 'push processing' several times, and it's clear that they mean exposing at higher-than-box speed, combined with extra development to compensate.

I believe the advertisement says that the film "has the ability to respond to push processing". And that is the point - it is in the development part of the procedure that "push" happens - not the exposure part.
When we talked about "pushing" a film, we were talking about what we did after the film was unloaded from the camera.

 

[BrianShaw]

The ad, in the right column, speaks of exposing at higher ASA, and in the following sentence speaks of pushing accordingly. I don’t interpret those as independent thoughts because that’s what I was taught back then. (I never liked the technique so rarely tried it.) It’s hard to read but that’s what I’m reading.

Note: I’m assuming that when Ilford says”pushed” in that sentence they refer to processing. I can’t see shooting at 1200 and normal processing resulting in a decent or usable neg.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I certainly wouldn't take any Pop Photo article or commercial seriously, especially one with an outright lie or two in it, in bold print. I'm extremely familiar with how to expose and develop HP5 for the specific look I'm after, but don't like it in any format smaller than 8X10. However, my wife is much younger and took a photography class in her second round of college. The instructor told all the students to only shoot HP5 in 35mm cameras, and that TMax was the worst film ever invented, so don't even bother with that. Then they were supposed to go out with whatever camera they preferred, take some shots, develop them, and then print one.

My wife was comfortable with my Pentax 6X7; so we went to the redwoods on a rainy afternoon and she took some shots, then printed one of those in my darkroom. The instructor then singled it out and said it was the best student print he had ever seen, and then asked her what film she had used. "TMax". Then he went silent the rest of the season on that whole subject.

But back to that ad. Sure, a long toe film like HP5 can be underexposed then overdeveloped, and perhaps something way down there can be salvaged. But it won't have decent tonal separation or texture at all - more like indistinguishable muddiness. In the case of my wife's instructor, he liked going into Vegas casinos and so forth snap-shooting people without taking a lot of effort to properly meter each instance. He valued HP5 in a journalistic sense, just like earlier photojournalists relied on Tri-X, and wasn't all that concerned about the actual quality of shadow rendition, or even if it still held up. So in that particular sense, that old Ilford HP5 ad makes marketing sense, but not necessarily sensitometric sense. And it sure wouldn't be suitable for some Zonie seeking optimal print quality.

The fact is, HP5 is only a marginally 400 speed film to begin with. Therefore if someone shoots it at 1600, whether accidentally or deliberately, what they are really doing is lopping off at least 2 and a half stops of shadow content (unless it's a low contrast scene in the first place). Then that forces the hand to over-develop the film to printably salvage what remains. So that's exactly what it should be called : underexposure combined with overdevelopment, whereas expressing it as "pushing" would be ambiguous.

 

[john_s]

.... for the specific look I'm after....

That's the key phrase.

 

[BrianShaw]

I only needed the last paragraph, Drew. Good commentary on the topic at hanns!

All I learned from the rest is that you don’t believe an Ilford ad and you robbed the cradle. One of those is an admirable quality that I also subscribed to.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm all too familiar with the liberties Marketing Dept types take in advertising, and the degree to which they stretch the truth, which their own engineers might frown upon.

And just for fun, and to muddy the waters even more, I looked up Push Processing in another popular resource, the infallible instant guide to everything, Wikipedia itself : "Push processing in photography, sometimes called uprating, refers to a film developing technique that increases the sensitivity of the film being processed".

That's a new spin on the expression to even me. Then they go on to cite a number of examples of that presumed technique, none of which match their own definition of it.

 

[Oldwino]

You could always try the Ralph Gibson thing, overexposure AND overdevelopment. Gives that sort high contrast crispy look.

 

[pentaxuser]

The fact is, HP5 is only a marginally 400 speed film to begin with.

Wasn't it Sirius I think who felt that HP5+ was actually a higher speed than 400 or certainly was in terms of his use of film speed

My impression from my use and all the times I have seen it exposed at 800 in various videos it does seem to hold up remarkably well at 800 and some folk prefer it at 1600 in comparison to D3200 which would seem to be about ISO 1000 so on paper intrinsically 2.5 stops faster

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

LOL, Drew… you don’t believe Ilford marketing but you do believe Wikipedia? Hilarious!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Wickedpedia is all over the map when it comes to contributors, so one must use it with caution; and confusing pushing with pre-sensitization of some sort or another was a bit amusing. But since Wiki is often cited as "the truth" on forums by those who refuse to dig deeper than a 10 second search engine approach, I wanted to preempt that particular option.

And actually, I'm one who does sometimes overexpose as well as overdevelop HP5, namely in pyro, and for sake of optimal midtone gradation along. Just the opposite of as the Zone religion teaches. But then I precisely tame it for printing using supplementary unsharp masking. The result is an almost etched look at 2X to 3X magnification in print, yet with wonderful gradation full scale gradation. That's why I only shoot it in 8x10 format and nothing smaller.

HP5 can be adapted for all kinds of purposes, using any number of tricks. But it's native characteristic curve compared to other films makes it perfectly apparent that once you get above 400 speed, or even 320 in most instances, you're skating on thin ice.

 

[pentaxuser]

LOL, Drew… you don’t believe Ilford marketing but you do believe Wikipedia? Hilarious!

Yes and it looks as if this advert was for the former HP5 not the latest HP5 Plus and this comes from the "old Ilford" marketing talking about an old Ilford product . That old Ilford is long since dead and buried, isn't it so has nothing to do with the new Ilford marketing? What Ilford Photo would say if it were to launch HP5 today might be totally different

I'd like to think that everything about film marketing is much more honest and upfront these days. Then again I'd like to think all sorts of things are more honest and upfront these days

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes and it looks as if this advert was for the former HP5 not the latest HP5 Plus and this comes from the "old Ilford" marketing talking about an old Ilford product . That old Ilford is long since dead and buried, isn't it so has nothing to do with the new Ilford marketing? What Ilford Photo would say if it were to launch HP5 today might be totally different

I'd like to think that everything about film marketing is much more honest and upfront these days. Then again I'd like to think all sorts of things are more honest and upfront these days

pentaxuser

Well... we know what Ilford/Harman marketing says about the current HP-5+:

Nominally rated at ISO 400, HP5 PLUS produces negatives of outstanding sharpness and fine grain under all lighting conditions. It has been formulated to respond well to push-processing and can be rated up to El 3200/36°.

Marketing material:

HP5 PLUS 35mm

35mm, ISO 400, medium contrast, all-purpose black & white film. Ideal for action, documentary and available light photography. High speed ISO 400 Great results in varied lighting conditions Wide exposure latitude 35mm, 120 Roll & Sheet Film available

www.ilfordphoto.com

HP-5+ technical data sheet

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1903/product/691/

Ilford Processing chart:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1953/product/691/

 

[MattKing]

It isn't really about honesty.
It is about nomenclature.
And how clear/confusing its usage might be.

 

[BrianShaw]

It isn't really about honesty.
It is about nomenclature.
And how clear/confusing its usage might be.

Yep. In the current Ilford case, I put a link in post 42 to their processing recommendations; processing time and EI seems to be quite dependent.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... 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.

I think Ansel Adam's original Zone System, complete with "New Lingo," was introduced in his five Basic Photo series books, first published in 1948. The concepts were around, complete with the evolving "new lingo" for decades before. Adams, along with Fred Archer, developed the Zone System (itself a simplification and practical application of photographic science) to make things easier for practicing photographers. They invented a method that tied development time to the subject contrast range and based exposure on the lower values in the scene, thus guarding against underexposure. The adage, "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights," however, had been around long before that.

It's actually "pushing" and "pulling" that are the newer terms. They are, simply, a more incomplete and inexact simplification of more complicated and meticulous practices based in scientific research, like the Zone System (or if you like, a dumbed-down even-dumber version of photographic theory for those who didn't want or need to understand the principles involved more completely).

The concepts of adjusting negative contrast by changing development time is key to understanding what's going on here. More development = more overall negative contrast and vice versa. Understand this, and the fact that a film's speed is determined at manufacture (not really flexible at all, as many would like to think) and you'll have a start.

Now, when film is underexposed, the lower values (shadows) just aren't recorded on the film (remember, we really can't change the film's speed!) and, as a result, the mid-tones and highlights that do get recorded end up being recorded as shadows and mid-tones. A scene with a seven-stop brightness range that is underexposed by two stops (i.e., rating your film two stops faster than it really is) ends up losing the bottom two of those seven steps. Step 3 is now the darkest shadow (which should have been a mid-tone) and step 7, which should be white, ends up being step 5, a middle gray.

What to do? Develop more so that we can raise that step 7 exposure to a density similar to what it would have been had the film been exposed and developed normally. This ends up giving you a negative with only 5 steps, stretched out between black and white, but maybe an acceptable image, especially if there were no other way to get the shot in a low-light situation. This began to be called "pushing" sometime in the mid-20th century (or maybe earlier). The term, however, is just an amateurish shorthand for overdeveloping in order to save an underexposed image. That underexposure might be intentional, as in low-light situations where there is no other choice, or not.

Pulling is the opposite and usually just refers to developing less in contrasty situations. Whereas the Zone System and other exposure/development systems are rather precise about how much less to develop for contrasty scenes, "pulling" is a rather imprecise approach to get the overall negative contrast somewhere in the printable range without having to worry about metering the scene carefully having done a lot of tests to determine just how much less development is optimum for a particular scene. Again, it's newer and less precise than what came before.

For photographers just coming to film, the more recent and less-precise terms are perhaps more readily available and approachable. Do know, however, that there is a whole world of more-precise practice out there waiting to be discovered.

FWIW, many of us dislike the terms "push" and "pull," just because they are so inaccurate and express an imcomplete understanding of the basics of film photography. Manufacturers do tend to use them, however, just because their target consumers are often amateurs and beginners; they feel that more complex or technical descriptions might put-off people from using their products and that the simplification makes them more appealing. They are likely correct.

Best,

Doremus

 

[cerber0s]

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.

My dad told me about pushing and pulling, using those exact words, when I first picked up a camera and started showing interest in photography. That was in 1988.

 

[pentaxuser]

Your # 45 explains it well, Doremus, if I may say so

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

1988 was yesterday as far as I'm concerned. The science of sensitometry had already been well established for decade before that,
along with specific terminology which is still valid. But was what your father said in reference to color film (where pushing and pulling were routine options), or in relation to black and white film processing? I never ever heard it in relation to the latter until encountering in this this forum; and I was friends with the owners of three of the biggest labs on the US West Coast. They would respond to "contrast gradient" and "gamma" talk, or sometimes if necessary, default to common Zone System lingo, or most likely simply accept black and white film assigned to "longer development", or "shorter development' that usual, with a modest surcharge.

I suspect, however, that the ambiguous terminology which has caught on in recent years is due to the popularization of digital photography and the dicey notion, "just shoot it; it can always be corrected afterwards".

And when labs did offer E6 and C41 push and pull options, that was based on center-point out correction for exposure errors or creative tweaks, and in rather small increments, generally only for sake of half stop or so. Now you never know what somebody means by their casual use of those terms. I don't think they know either most of the time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ilford obviously needs to attract new users most likely to try HP5 in 35mm version, and who aren't as fussy with exposure as people like me who shot it almost entirely in 8x10 with high expectations in print outcome. That bifurcation in usage is analogous to the marketing strategy of Kodak when it came to the distinction between professional color films and something very tolerant of amateur errors like Kodacolor Gold.

Kodak had their extremely tolerant high-speed Recording Film for use by detectives, police, and nighttime newspaper photographers, which was designed to render at least something discernible under unpredictable lighting circumstances, and it didn't matter a bit if the image was downright ugly or not. The cheating husband got caught, and the wife got her alimony awarded. That's all that mattered. So if someone wants to turn HP5 into the same kind of thing, it can be done.

The same applies to wildly underexposed shots of HP5 shot at much higher than box speed. You might be able to retrieve most of the image with this or that processing tweak, but a lot of the otherwise native tonal range will likely be shipwrecked. And in this case of their own recommended developers for this or that outcome, lot's of us use developers which aren't even on their tech sheets. And commercial labs tend to stick to just one or two routine options.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think Ansel Adam's original Zone System, complete with "New Lingo," was introduced in his five Basic Photo series books, first published in 1948. The concepts were around, complete with the evolving "new lingo" for decades before. Adams, along with Fred Archer, developed the Zone System (itself a simplification and practical application of photographic science) to make things easier for practicing photographers. They invented a method that tied development time to the subject contrast range and based exposure on the lower values in the scene, thus guarding against underexposure. The adage, "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights," however, had been around long before that.

It's actually "pushing" and "pulling" that are the newer terms. They are, simply, a more incomplete and inexact simplification of more complicated and meticulous practices based in scientific research, like the Zone System (or if you like, a dumbed-down even-dumber version of photographic theory for those who didn't want or need to understand the principles involved more completely).

The concepts of adjusting negative contrast by changing development time is key to understanding what's going on here. More development = more overall negative contrast and vice versa. Understand this, and the fact that a film's speed is determined at manufacture (not really flexible at all, as many would like to think) and you'll have a start.

Now, when film is underexposed, the lower values (shadows) just aren't recorded on the film (remember, we really can't change the film's speed!) and, as a result, the mid-tones and highlights that do get recorded end up being recorded as shadows and mid-tones. A scene with a seven-stop brightness range that is underexposed by two stops (i.e., rating your film two stops faster than it really is) ends up losing the bottom two of those seven steps. Step 3 is now the darkest shadow (which should have been a mid-tone) and step 7, which should be white, ends up being step 5, a middle gray.

What to do? Develop more so that we can raise that step 7 exposure to a density similar to what it would have been had the film been exposed and developed normally. This ends up giving you a negative with only 5 steps, stretched out between black and white, but maybe an acceptable image, especially if there were no other way to get the shot in a low-light situation. This began to be called "pushing" sometime in the mid-20th century (or maybe earlier). The term, however, is just an amateurish shorthand for overdeveloping in order to save an underexposed image. That underexposure might be intentional, as in low-light situations where there is no other choice, or not.

Pulling is the opposite and usually just refers to developing less in contrasty situations. Whereas the Zone System and other exposure/development systems are rather precise about how much less to develop for contrasty scenes, "pulling" is a rather imprecise approach to get the overall negative contrast somewhere in the printable range without having to worry about metering the scene carefully having done a lot of tests to determine just how much less development is optimum for a particular scene. Again, it's newer and less precise than what came before.

For photographers just coming to film, the more recent and less-precise terms are perhaps more readily available and approachable. Do know, however, that there is a whole world of more-precise practice out there waiting to be discovered.

FWIW, many of us dislike the terms "push" and "pull," just because they are so inaccurate and express an imcomplete understanding of the basics of film photography. Manufacturers do tend to use them, however, just because their target consumers are often amateurs and beginners; they feel that more complex or technical descriptions might put-off people from using their products and that the simplification makes them more appealing. They are likely correct.

Best,

Doremus

Ansel early on talked about exposure expansion and compression and later used push and pull.