New Kodak Portra 400 pushed to 3200 in 35mm. Wanna see?

[Tim Gray]

That guy is me No pushing involved though. Just over/under exposure.

 

[John Meyer]

Thanks Tim that was fun. I like the +1.5 the best..
Can you try some push and pull?
John

 

[Hops]

Looking at Tim's results, I wonder if I might get better highlight detail if I were to underexpose by three stops (shoot at EI 3200) and then push by just two.

Does that make sense?

 

[hrst]

Looking at Tim's results, I wonder if I might get better highlight detail if I were to underexpose by three stops (shoot at EI 3200) and then push by just two.

Does that make sense?

No, it does not make sense. It would make sense if it was chrome film or d*g*tal.

There's never point in underexposing neg film to get more "highlight detail". If you lack highlight detail, something is wrong in your printing process, not in the negs, or you severely overdevelop the film, in which case you should shorten the development time, and INCREASE exposure a little bit if something; not decrease it.

 

[markbarendt]

Looking at Tim's results, I wonder if I might get better highlight detail if I were to underexpose by three stops (shoot at EI 3200) and then push by just two.

Does that make sense?

No.

Underexposure is a cardinal sin with negative films.

 

[Hops]

Let me rephrase the question. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

I want to shoot in low light situations. Most of the time, I'm going to be shooting as slow a shutter as I can hold, and with a lens close to wide open.

I know that some people just underexpose their film and it comes out fine, even without push processing.

So my question is: What would give better results: Shoot at EI 3200 and push three stops, or shoot at EI 3200 and only push two?

I noticed in my negatives that the whites tend to block up. If I only push two stops, can I keep more highlight detail, and would it mean less shadow detail?

 

[Athiril]

3 stop push.
Even better would be EI 2500 and 3 stop push.

At +5 stops overexposed I haven't lost highlight detail. I would suggest that losing highlight detail would be more to do with your reproduction method, rather than the actual negative.

 

[Hops]

Thanks Athiril! I haven't physically got the negatives back yet. I just have the scans I downloaded from Richard Photo Lab. I'll have a look at them on the light table when they get here.

 

[Athiril]

Ah yeah, you got to decide what the white point on negs is going to be, you can extend it out to include everything, but you'll get very flat contrast looking negs, though you can have both good contrast and the entire neg range, it's just a little more work than a straight scan or print.

 

[Hops]

I'm not too worried. It seems that the compression of highlights is only happening in the very tippy top of the curve. The white protest signs the guy in the candy dress is holding, for example.