Pre-Exposing Film and Push Processing

[Andrew O'Neill]

Here's a video I've been working on for the past couple of weeks. I thought I'd do it while waiting for my box of Adox CMS 20 II to arrive.
I wanted to see if pre-exposing film would help restore any shadow detail lost from push-processing HP5 film. One doughnut was murdered, but I can't speak for the crow...

 

[alanrockwood]

This is very interesting. I have been wondering about pre-exposure.

By the way, based on some theoretical considerations I would expect pre-exposure to work best with short toe films. Does anyone have information comparing pre-exposure on short-toe vs. long-toe films?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This is very interesting. I have been wondering about pre-exposure.

By the way, based on some theoretical considerations I would expect pre-exposure to work best with short toe films. Does anyone have information comparing pre-exposure on short-toe vs. long-toe films?

pre-exposure Will boost shadow detail but ,it will also loose negative contrast,which, in the case of HP5, is already very low!;midtone bliliance us lost!

 

[grain elevator]

pre-exposure Will boost shadow detail but ,it will also loose negative contrast,which, in the case of HP5, is already very low!;midtone bliliance us lost!

As evidenced in Andrew's video, it depends. If HP5 is pushed, there's no low contrast issue per se, and very moderate pre-flash hardly does anything to the midtones but worlds of difference for the shadows!
Great stuff Andrew, both the presentation and contents, this is coming from a millennial who is alienated by the preference of video over text in the least useful use cases. Reminds me I need to figure out a diffuser solution for easy pre-flash!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This is very interesting. I have been wondering about pre-exposure.

By the way, based on some theoretical considerations I would expect pre-exposure to work best with short toe films. Does anyone have information comparing pre-exposure on short-toe vs. long-toe films?

Hi Alan, I've done pre-exposure with Tri-X several years ago, and it works quite well.

pre-exposure Will boost shadow detail but ,it will also loose negative contrast,which, in the case of HP5, is already very low!;midtone bliliance us lost!

It can, especially if you go beyond the upper limit of pre-exposure. The key word is subtle. Finding the "sweet spot". Even with a loss of shadow contrast, it can be restored with applying a bit more contrast to the print.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Andrew: I employ pre-flashing + push processing regularly in B&W reversal processing. Pre-flashing allows me to shoot Kodak Double X at EI:800 with minimal loss in shadow details. I generally give a Zone II 1/2 or III pre-exposure at this EI which doesn't degrade the shadow contrast much. Couldn't have been happier about the results.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew: I employ pre-flashing + push processing regularly in B&W reversal processing. Pre-flashing allows me to shoot Kodak Double X at EI:800 with minimal loss in shadow details. I generally give a Zone II 1/2 or III pre-exposure at this EI which doesn't degrade the shadow contrast much. Couldn't have been happier about the results.

When working with Double X, did you pre-expose in the field?

 

[pentaxuser]

Andrew, as a man-in-the-street snapper who tends to judge prints on their visual impact, the biggest effect was the tree shot with pre-exposure at 3200 although this seemed to be at the expense of contrast as the print looked noticeably flatter than the 1600 one which is the one I'd choose for its print qualities

In the "temple and steps" shots the metered area's shadows didn't seem to change at all but frankly as it looked right without pre-exposure anyway I wonder if there is any advantage to me for such a print's looks and impact

First time I have seen anyone demonstrate what is possible with pre-exposure and that was very useful for my photography education so thanks for the demo

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, as a man-in-the-street snapper who tends to judge prints on their visual impact, the biggest effect was the tree shot with pre-exposure at 3200 although this seemed to be at the expense of contrast as the print looked noticeably flatter than the 1600 one which is the one I'd choose for its print qualities

In the "temple and steps" shots the metered area's shadows didn't seem to change at all but frankly as it looked right without pre-exposure anyway I wonder if there is any advantage to me for such a print's looks and impact

First time I have seen anyone demonstrate what is possible with pre-exposure and that was very useful for my photography education so thanks for the demo

pentaxuser

For the hospital building shot, the changes from one zone to the next is quite subtle. The difference is very noticeable when you look at the zone I image, and then the zone IV image. I agree that the image that received no pre-x looks good as is. In reality, I could have boosted the shadows with more exposure, and then cut back on development time to bring the whites of the columns down... but then that would effect all other images on the roll. If I had been out with the LF camera, I probably would have just given more exposure...and then cut back on dev time... Cheers and thank you for commenting!