Pushing film - rate film stop higher or underexpose at suggested rating??

[Alex Newstead]

Hi,

Just a quick one really.

I've been rating Portra 400 as 800, using settings that ensure the in camera meter is centralised, and then pushing 1-stop when developing; but what's the difference with doing that or just rating it as 400, exposing frames a stop under (by looking at the in camera meter) then pushing a stop as usual?

Surley your still underexposing the film by a stop then pushing it?


Many thanks in advance for any replies.

Alex

 

[ME Super]

There's no difference. If you rate a 400 speed film at 800, you're exposing it as if it were an 800 speed film, therefore you're underexposing 1 stop. If you rate a 400 speed film at 400, but underexpose 1 stop, the film is still underexposed 1 stop.

Allegedly the pushing doesn't get you any more shadow detail (for E-6 you do get a little speed increase, IMHO), it increases the contrast (the slope of the curve) so you get a bit more contrast in the shadows, making it look more normal. This of course means that the midtones get a contrast boost too. There are tradeoffs when pushing, for sure. But if underexposing and pushing means you get the shot vs. shooting normally means you don't get the shot, then by all means underexpose and push. Having the shot is better than not having it.

 

[Carriage]

It's the same thing. It's just easier to remember/use the meter if you pretend it's the faster speed.

 

[Alex Newstead]

Thanks for the reply....So if I understand this correctly, however I decide to push a film (expose for higher rated film or just rate as boxed and underexpose a stop - same thing) it's simply the faster shutter speed I'd be able to use (could be smaller f-stop also) and the asthetics created from a pushed film that are the adavantages?

Just for my interst when you make your exposures do you take much notice of the cameras meter? It's just I usually prefer exposures that I know were being recorded (in camera) as being 1/3 - 1/2 stop underexposed (and developed as nomal). Certainly with digital photography if I expose with the meter in the center the highlights are usually too much and colours not as rich. Whenever I set up a camera with the sunny 16 rule in mind the meter usually shows me it'll be 1/3 stop under. Is this something you've noticed or do you recommend trying to keep the exposure meters in camera pretty central? I'm using Canon EOS 5 and Olympus Om2n for film and 5dmk i/ii for digital.

I know it's preference really but just wanted to know how closely people would try and keep in camera meters central, even when using exposure comp either way?

Thanks again

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why don't you just buy Kodak Portra 800?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[gzhuang]

If you can read DX codes, I think +/- 1 stop is absolutely not a problem for Portra at all.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to APUG.

This is going to sound familiar to those who read my posts on the subject.....

"Pushing" refers only to the development. It is a label that is often associated with under-exposure, because it is a development technique that can partially improve the results from under-exposed film, but it does not actually refer to the exposure itself.

And be careful bringing your experience with exposing digital into the film world. If you are shooting transparency film, where over-exposure is much more damging than under-exposure, the "protect the highlights" approach used with digital (slightly reduced exposure) is an equally valid approach.

However with negative film, slight to moderate over-exposure is often the best approach, because the results can be made to look better and more saturated just by printing darker, and because an under-exposed negative may mean that the shadows are rendered without detail.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Welcome to APUG.

This is going to sound familiar to those who read my posts on the subject.....

"Pushing" refers only to the development. It is a label that is often associated with under-exposure, because it is a development technique that can partially improve the results from under-exposed film, but it does not actually refer to the exposure itself.

And be careful bringing your experience with exposing digital into the film world. If you are shooting transparency film, where over-exposure is much more damaging than under-exposure, the "protect the highlights" approach used with digital (slightly reduced exposure) is an equally valid approach.

However with negative film, slight to moderate over-exposure is often the best approach, because the results can be made to look better and more saturated just by printing darker, and because an under-exposed negative may mean that the shadows are rendered without detail.

[Hijack Warning]

Matt,
We usually agree on most everything, but I'm going to argue semantics here with you a little if you'll indulge me

As a Zone System user and advocate, I often use extended development to get more overall contrast on a negative from a relatively flat scene. This, in the ZS nomenclature, is called "expansion," or "expanded development." The opposite of this (reducing development to reduce contrast) is "contraction," or "contracted development." In both cases the film is (or should be) exposed "correctly," that is, to render the shadow details the photographer wants.

"Pushing" film is traditionally used when the one encounters an extreme low-light situation and has to compromise by sacrificing desired shadow detail for a printable negative by intentionally (albeit reluctantly) underexposing the film, then compensating by finding an extended development time that at least gets the highlight values to where they should be in order to print well. Shadows are usually black and detailless. Extending this, some like the look of "pushing" and do it intentionally even when not absolutely necessary, to obtain the goal of featureless shadows and extra contrast. I'll call both of these "pushing."

However, for exposing fully and extending development time to increase overall negative contrast, I'll stick with "expansion."

Transparency film is another beast - and exposures and any development adjustments need to be based on highlights, as you say. "Pushing" here, again however, is compensating for underexposure by adjusting development time. Therefore, the (intentional or unintentional) underexposure of the film is a crucial component of the procedure.

I guess that's the crux of what I'm saying here: "Pushing" is simply compensating for underexposure by adjusting development time. Adjusting development time to control overall negative density range when not underexposing is either "expansion" or "contraction." I find this terminology to be much clearer.

Best,

Doremus

 

[benjiboy]

Why don't you just buy Kodak Portra 800?

Don't be silly Steve, that would be too easy.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the reply....So if I understand this correctly, however I decide to push a film (expose for higher rated film or just rate as boxed and underexpose a stop - same thing) it's simply the faster shutter speed I'd be able to use (could be smaller f-stop also) and the asthetics created from a pushed film that are the adavantages?

[Hijack Warning]

Matt,
We usually agree on most everything, but I'm going to argue semantics here with you a little if you'll indulge me

"Pushing" film is traditionally used when the one encounters an extreme low-light situation and has to compromise by sacrificing desired shadow detail for a printable negative by intentionally (albeit reluctantly) underexposing the film, then compensating by finding an extended development time that at least gets the highlight values to where they should be in order to print well. Shadows are usually black and detailless. Extending this, some like the look of "pushing" and do it intentionally even when not absolutely necessary, to obtain the goal of featureless shadows and extra contrast. I'll call both of these "pushing."

I guess that's the crux of what I'm saying here: "Pushing" is simply compensating for underexposure by adjusting development time. Adjusting development time to control overall negative density range when not underexposing is either "expansion" or "contraction." I find this terminology to be much clearer.

Best,

Doremus

Hi Doremus:

I think we are even (mostly) agreeing on the semantics!

In my post, I was reacting to the quoted portion of the OP's post, where he/she seemed to be equating "pushing" with under-exposure by itself - metering at a higher EI without any reference to a change in development.

I guess in a perfect, anally retentive world, we would always refer to expansion development instead, and discuss it as a technique that can also be used to help partially rehabilitate under-exposed negatives.

 

[Alex Newstead]

I use 400 over 800 for the finer grain/sharper images I've been assuming I've been getting.

I understand that pushing/pulling refers to the development prossess. I wanted to clarify whether rating a film higher then pushing it is mainly to gain the extra stops of shutter speed, for example, or whther people do it simply because they like the look, (otherwise why wouldn't people just use 800?). Taste is obviously subjective but for example many people seem to like the look of Portra 400 rated at 320 and developed as 'normal'. Probably because the thicker neg holds detail in the shadows and the latitude of the film ensures highlights would be preserved if only overexposed a touch.

I went on to ask people's opinion on how they meter because I have found that when I 'underexpose' Porta by around 1/3 stop on my camera meter, the images seem to come out really well. Whenever I shoot a roll with the meter centralised the highlights are invariably a little too much and colours lack punch. For example I shot the image, on Portra 400, of the two girls playing vollyball (can be seen on my website - alexnewstead.com) with the sunny 16 rule in mind - my camera's meter said it would be 1/3 stop underexposed, but it looks pretty even to me.

I brought digital into the equation as I have noticed the same thing. Images (especially in well lit sun) look way better straight out of camera underexposed, sometimes more than a stop. I get you tend to expose for highlights with digital to not blow out highlights but I'm finding it difficult to get my head around exposing for shadows with film, as photos seem to coming out great when camera thinks 1/3 to 1/2 stop under. The shot on my website of the boy looking at the helicopter on the beach was metered in evaluative on the same roll of Portra as the two girls mentioned above, in much darker, flatter light. This was also 1/3 under in camera. It was developed at local lab and not pulled/pushed at all.

So do any of you pay any attention to your in camera meters or meter from experience? (Prob use external light meters - I'd like to try one)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why don't you just buy Kodak Portra 800?

Don't be silly Steve, that would be too easy.

Life is only as hard as one makes it.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I use 400 over 800 for the finer grain/sharper images I've been assuming I've been getting.

I understand that pushing/pulling refers to the development prossess. I wanted to clarify whether rating a film higher then pushing it is mainly to gain the extra stops of shutter speed, for example, or whther people do it simply because they like the look, (otherwise why wouldn't people just use 800?). Taste is obviously subjective but for example many people seem to like the look of Portra 400 rated at 320 and developed as 'normal'. Probably because the thicker neg holds detail in the shadows and the latitude of the film ensures highlights would be preserved if only overexposed a touch.

Yes, yes and yes; those are all reasons why people overexpose color neg film a bit.

I went on to ask people's opinion on how they meter because I have found that when I 'underexpose' Porta by around 1/3 stop on my camera meter, the images seem to come out really well. Whenever I shoot a roll with the meter centralised the highlights are invariably a little too much and colours lack punch. For example I shot the image, on Portra 400, of the two girls playing vollyball (can be seen on my website - alexnewstead.com) with the sunny 16 rule in mind - my camera's meter said it would be 1/3 stop underexposed, but it looks pretty even to me.

Meters are easily fooled. Lots of highlights in a scene make them underexpose. Conversely, lots of dark in a scene will make them overexpose. A smart photographer takes this into account. Some selectively meter certain areas of the scene, some just compensate by adjusting exposure, etc., etc.

I brought digital into the equation as I have noticed the same thing. Images (especially in well lit sun) look way better straight out of camera underexposed, sometimes more than a stop. I get you tend to expose for highlights with digital to not blow out highlights but I'm finding it difficult to get my head around exposing for shadows with film, as photos seem to coming out great when camera thinks 1/3 to 1/2 stop under. The shot on my website of the boy looking at the helicopter on the beach was metered in evaluative on the same roll of Portra as the two girls mentioned above, in much darker, flatter light. This was also 1/3 under in camera. It was developed at local lab and not pulled/pushed at all.

At the risk of breaking the rules Digital has a fixed and limited dynamic range. It behaves much more like shooting transparency film and, therefore, you key to the highlights. Underexposing contrasty scenes saves the highlights, but at the expense of some shadow detail. Most find this more pleasing than the other way around.

So do any of you pay any attention to your in camera meters or meter from experience? (Prob use external light meters - I'd like to try one)

Yes, all of that. I use external meters for cameras that don't have built-in ones (i.e., large format). When I shoot smaller formats, I like to use the built in meter (heck, if I wanted to take all that time fussing with the meter, I'd use a larger camera). You have to figure out how to meter with any meter, in-camera or external. The meter is a dumb tool; we need our brains and experience to interpret to get the right exposure out of it.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Xmas]

Welcome to forum.

Even a Weston meter is only a light meter the exposure meter is about a foot away from the light meter.

If you are shooting E6 Weston incident dome on subjects nose.