Overexposure, underdevelopment - technique

[radiant]

I think I understand what happens when you underexpose + overdevelop (pushing) or the vice versa (pulling).

However this technique is quite strange. You overexpose the image and underdevelop it (cut the dev time in half). This way you supposely get more dynamic range? I understand it is something to do with developing the highlights but why aren't shadows affected too?

Check this video - doesn't allow embedding (start viewing at 14:26, end result at 14:40):



It looks like a voodoo to me Please explain what really happens? Should we always underdevelop then, why not?

 

[ic-racer]

... but why aren't shadows affected too?

Page 12:

https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles...en_motion_education_sensitometry_workbook.pdf

 

[koraks]

I understand it is something to do with developing the highlights but why aren't shadows affected too?

It does, but because you overexpose, what would be a deep shadow now ends up somewhere halfway the typical curve of the film if you were to develop normally. Now you also cut back development, so the shadows drop back again again little bit, but due to the reduced developments, the highlights are held back as well. And hey presto, the dynamic range of the image is compressed in the negative.

 

[Helinophoto]

I think I understand what happens when you underexpose + overdevelop (pushing) or the vice versa (pulling).

However this technique is quite strange. You overexpose the image and underdevelop it (cut the dev time in half). This way you supposely get more dynamic range? I understand it is something to do with developing the highlights but why aren't shadows affected too?

It looks like a voodoo to me Please explain what really happens? Should we always underdevelop then, why not?

No, it is not Voodoo, it is just another way of saying the age old saying when it comes to film, expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

The key here, is that the shadows always finish first, then the highlights finish later, when you develop.
If you keep developing, the highlights will end up being blocked, but the shadows hardly budge. (higher contrast)

By exposing more and developing less, you give your latent image more shadow data, and you cap the development to avoid the highlights blocking.
Thus, you have not really made a larger dynamic range.
What you have done, is that you have increased the shadow detail information during exposure and then compressed the tonal-range during development (reduced development of the highlights), to fit into the negative latitude and desired look.

You will typically use active reduced development in high-contrast situations, if you expose for the shadows.
I use it very actively when I shoot infrared film, it has an ugly tendency to be too blocked in the highlights and by giving it more exposure and less development, I have come to much better-looking results.
http://helino-photo.blogspot.com/2013/09/infrared-shooting-what-you-cant-see.html

 

[koraks]

The key here, is that the shadows always finish first, then the highlights finish later, when you develop.

To an extent. With regular development times, shadows tend not to be developed out entirely. Which makes sense as otherwise push processing would have no effect.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

To an extent. With regular development times, shadows tend not to be developed out entirely. Which makes sense as otherwise push processing would have no effect.

If your shadows are not developed to where you desire them, you are underexposing your film. Solution: shoot at a different E.I.
If your highlights are too dense to print well, you are overdeveloping. Solution: shorten development time
If your highlights are too weak, then vice-versa of the above.

All this applies to one scene with one subject brightness range (SBR) and a photographer who has a precise idea of how shadows should be rendered.

For the commonly-used "one development time fits all" approach, one must find an E.I. and a developing time that works for the great majority of photos made, allowing one to use whatever contrast adjustments are available at the printing stage to compensate for any variances.

For those who use the Zone System or something similar, having different development times for scenes with different SBRs is the norm. E.I. is typically adjusted by small amounts for changes in development time. A "Zonie" would never talk about "overexposing and underdeveloping," rather about "contraction development" and "supporting the shadows." The reduced development time for a scene with a large SBR is just SOP, and a small increase in exposure to compensate for the reduced development time is given to ensure the shadows are rendered where the photographer wants them to be.

For all of the above, it is primarily exposure (i.e., effective film speed) that determines how the shadows are reproduced; development time has a relatively small effect on film speed.

"Pushing," as the term is commonly used, is an intentional underexposure (for whatever reason: low light, etc.) and then compensatory overdevelopment to get a negative that will print better. Such a negative, by definition, has lost shadow detail and has an expanded contrast range for what's left; shadows are blank black, highlights can be gritty. It's a look that some like and intentionally strive for. Note, however, that the unexposed shadows never get somehow magically restored by extending the development time. Pushing works by sacrificing the shadows and expanding the contrast gradient for what's left.

"Pulling," i.e., blindly overexposing and underdeveloping is a rather imprecise short-cut to try and get a better negative, especially when one works in contrasty lighting conditions. Better would be doing some tests to find a good workable personal E.I. and a development time or two that worked well. Certainly, "overexpose by a stop and cut developing time by 25%" may be a good starting point, but careful workers who are interested in excellence will refine this.

Best,

Doremus

 

[radiant]

Great explanations, now I really get it. Thanks for your time writing these explanations.

Now I also understand why people say that Zone-system is not completely working for a roll of film and why it needs separate single sheet development.

I need to try this. Since I'm not a large format shooter, maybe I could use this on 6x7 shots when/if I shoot one roll of mostly-similar-subject / lightning conditions on full film. Also maybe it would be good to try just blindly overexposing by +1 and reducing time for 25-30% just to get overall hands-on feeling what "pulling" does. I really didn't think this through and realize that we are really talking about pulling film.

Correct me if I'm wrong but while I'm mostly using the negatives for printing, the smaller lattitude would not hurt that much since paper cannot represent the same tonal range as film can? Or I'm I mixing two different things here?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... Correct me if I'm wrong but while I'm mostly using the negatives for printing, the smaller latitude would not hurt that much since paper cannot represent the same tonal range as film can? Or I'm I mixing two different things here?

A black-and-white negative has the potential to contain a whole lot more information than you can squeeze on to a piece of print paper. The trick is to get the important values in your negative to print where you want them. You can overexpose and overdevelop a negative and it will retain separation of values that end up being to far apart on the contrast gradient to print together in a straight print, even at the lowest contrast setting. Dodging and burning help make some cases like this easier, as do tricks like flashing the paper or SLIMTs.

The immediate goal for most just starting out is to find a personal E.I. that gives you shadow detail that you like and a development time or times that give you a contrast gradient that prints easily.

This is just the beginning, however... I'll often make a too-contrasty negative, knowing in advance that it's going to be a PITA to print, because I want lots of local contrast in a certain part of the print, e.g., a shaded rustic façade, with a bunch of bright clouds in the background. I'll expose and develop for the façade, which will put the clouds way too high to print well in a straight print. Then I'll burn the clouds to get detail there. In other words, I've just made a "too-contrasty" negative for the print paper, but a "just-right" negative for the contrast in the area that's important and I'm dealing with the difficulties with print manipulations. In this case, making a negative with more information in it than the print paper can represent results in a better final print (albeit a more difficult one) than tailoring the negative so everything gets represented in the print without any manipulations.

BTW, many users of MF cameras with removable film backs will keep a couple loaded and designated for "Normal" development and then "Normal +" (for flat scenes) or "Normal -" (for contrasty scenes) .

Hope that makes sense,

Doremus

 

[Richard Man]

Check out my experience with scanning films for David Wing, a Guggenheim Fellow.

https://richardman.photo/2019/10/the-negative-is-the-score/

 

[drpsilver]

A black-and-white negative has the potential to contain a whole lot more information than you can squeeze on to a piece of print paper. The trick is to get the important values in your negative to print where you want them. You can overexpose and overdevelop a negative and it will retain separation of values that end up being to far apart on the contrast gradient to print together in a straight print, even at the lowest contrast setting. Dodging and burning help make some cases like this easier, as do tricks like flashing the paper or SLIMTs.

This is just the beginning, however... I'll often make a too-contrasty negative, knowing in advance that it's going to be a PITA to print, because I want lots of local contrast in a certain part of the print, e.g., a shaded rustic façade, with a bunch of bright clouds in the background. I'll expose and develop for the façade, which will put the clouds way too high to print well in a straight print. Then I'll burn the clouds to get detail there. In other words, I've just made a "too-contrasty" negative for the print paper, but a "just-right" negative for the contrast in the area that's important and I'm dealing with the difficulties with print manipulations. In this case, making a negative with more information in it than the print paper can represent results in a better final print (albeit a more difficult one) than tailoring the negative so everything gets represented in the print without any manipulations.

Doremus

03 Nov 2019

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is/are "SLIMTs"? Is it a different way of bleaching prints or negs? What makes it different from ferricyanide/bromide beach solution?

I have also followed what Doremus outlines above (in the second paragraph) with good results, even though some of the negs are a PITA to print. I agree that applying Zone System principles a is much easier in large format.

Regards,
Darwin

 

[Bill Burk]

Darwin,

SLIMPT is done to “bleach” the latent image before you develop.

So it’s wildly different than reducing silver after it’s already been developed.

 

[drpsilver]

Darwin,

SLIMPT is done to “bleach” the latent image before you develop.

So it’s wildly different than reducing silver after it’s already been developed.

04 Nov 2019

Bill:

Thank you for this clarification. In other words this is what I have known as "latent image bleaching". I have heard of this technique, but have yet to try it on any prints.

Regards,
Darwin

 

[Doremus Scudder]

03 Nov 2019

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is/are "SLIMTs"? Is it a different way of bleaching prints or negs? What makes it different from ferricyanide/bromide beach solution?

I have also followed what Doremus outlines above (in the second paragraph) with good results, even though some of the negs are a PITA to print. I agree that applying Zone System principles a is much easier in large format.

Regards,
Darwin

Bill beat me to it... SLIMT = Selective Latent Image Manipulation Technique (Moniker from David Kachel, who researched and defined the technique). It uses a very weak ferricyaninde/bromide bleach to alter the latent image before development. Rather great changes in contrast can be achieved this way. Google on David Kachel and SLIMT for more info.

I use it primarily on negatives for contraction development. Using SLIMT I can get a good N-4 or more without the usual loss of film speed. I haven't used it on prints, since I have enough contrast controls printing as it is. For those contact printing on Lodima or Lupex, SLIMT may be an important part of the printing process, allowing contrast control with just one grade of paper.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I worked for a photographer that used these principals to "build" the negative to print on graded paper. These old photographers hated MG paper. Some of them tried it out didn't like the look because of split tones and never went back. But these old guys would checked the contrast range of the scene then exposed and developed accordingly.

 

[radiant]

In this case, making a negative with more information in it than the print paper can represent results in a better final print (albeit a more difficult one) than tailoring the negative so everything gets represented in the print without any manipulations.

This sounds to me like juggling with five balls I just wonder how you can manage so many skills at once. I barely manage to get an interesting photo in general..

BTW, many users of MF cameras with removable film backs will keep a couple loaded and designated for "Normal" development and then "Normal +" (for flat scenes) or "Normal -" (for contrasty scenes) .

Ha! Another great excuse to get more gear. New back for RB67, maybe new body for my SLR just to switch films on the fly

Check out my experience with scanning films for David Wing, a Guggenheim Fellow.

https://richardman.photo/2019/10/the-negative-is-the-score/

This is just awesome. Without knowing what media that is shot on, I would have said it's some expensive digital camera image.

Now I start to understand how this kind of images are even possible.

But these old guys would checked the contrast range of the scene then exposed and developed accordingly.

But of course they would.. :O I actually tried to implement a contrast range measurement for my iOS app. I've been poking with it around to understand how much there is contrast in different scenarios.

I really would like to try overexposing / under-developing but the weather in Finland is so bad right now. 100% cloud coverage, low light, rain etc. I cannot come up with any ideas to shoot with this technique.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

But of course they would.. :O I actually tried to implement a contrast range measurement for my iOS app. I've been poking with it around to understand how much there is contrast in different scenarios.

I really would like to try overexposing / under-developing but the weather in Finland is so bad right now. 100% cloud coverage, low light, rain etc. I cannot come up with any ideas to shoot with this technique.

You don't need an app. Any book on the Zone System has the rule "expose for shadows and develop for highlights". But before you use it, you have to do some boring testing. The Zone System isn't about exposure and development, but it allows you to pre-visualize your scene with the information you get from your meter. It's placing your shadows where you want them and know where your highlights fall with different development times. Pre-visualizing also lets you know what the film sees. Our eyes have much better dynamic range than film. I use the Zone System, but not slavishly.