PUSHING IT

[Sparky]

So - it seems to me - in retrospect, and after all these years developing film and exploring the wonders of sensitometry and alternative developers, etc... that the old adage 'expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights' really IS true, and strangely more valid than one would think.

I could be wrong (PLEASE TELL ME SO??) - but, it seems to me - that a film's toe position and (relative not absoulute) density is set by exposure ALONE. The toe, it seems, cannot be really significantly affected by development.

THUS - it would seem to follow that, within reason (i.e. within a 25% or so range) that development method is irrelevant in terms of coaxing information out of the film (since you'd be able to adjust for whatever was lacking in the darkroom, by increasing contrast, etc etc...)

The reason I'm asking this... is because I just shot 6 rolls of film tonight of the Los Angeles fires in the hills (pretty wild, dantesque scene it WAS, too!!) on my trusty 500c/m - and I bracketed a pretty wild amount - from 1 sec all the way up to five minutes. I suspect the shorter exposures will be more successful in capturing the flame and smoke - but I suspect they're woefully underexposed.

The only thing I could possibly think of to have improved my chances would have been to hypersensitize the film with mercury first.. though I've never done it...

 

[mcgrattan]

I took some photos of fire recently with my Salyut. They were handheld using 100 ISO slide film and my longest exposure was 1/15th. 1 sec to 5 minutes all sound like REALLY over long exposures to me.

[
Scans of the transparencies here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85361107@N00/sets/72157600015791959/
]

I've only scanned half the frames from that roll of film, and the scans look a little soft, but the actual transparencies are all sharp and well exposed.

 

[Sparky]

Thanks for the feedback on that... I noticed that you were just trying to capture the fire though... I was trying to pick up as much detail as I could from a jet-black landscape though- at the same time. It's a tough mix!! I'm sure I could have picked up the fire alone at f/4 and 1/30th (well - there were only spots of flame) but I really wanted the full on glow from the faintest of embers and also the detail from the surrounding (dark) wood and the subtle palette of smoky sky - well, thank god I was using acros -and did a lot of bracketing...

My question is probably better posed as a night photography question - considering the detail I wanted to pick up.

 

[mcgrattan]

Some of the shots capture the surrounding people, but yeah, if I wanted to pick out a lot of detail I'd have had to have had much longer exposures. It'd be hard to hold back the highlights though.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Indeed, the popular idea that you can substantially increase speed by increasing development time is false. Contrast will increase faster than speed in that scenario, and you may get something printable, but not really much in the way of speed measured as shadow detail.

You can, however, use a speed developer like Acufine or Microphen and get on the order of 1-2 stops real speed increase with normal contrast. You could also use techniques like low agitation or stand development to improve shadow detail while keeping contrast in check.

 

[Sparky]

or super low dilution, david? Like perceptol 1+3? I tried WD2D+ at half dilution - but didn't get what I was hoping for. Kind of a stupid thing to do with once-in-a-lifetime shots like that. I'm about to do my last two rolls now. The first four were with WD2D+ (the second set at normal dilution).

The other dumb thing I did was, while reaching for my acros in the dark I grabbed a pan f (also white-papered)!! ugh!!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Low dilutions sometimes produce compensating effects, particularly with low agitation. The principle is that the developer is exhausted quickly around the highlight areas and slowly around the shadows, so if you don't agitate too much, the highlight development will slow down while the shadows keep coming in at the same rate. Dilute developer can improve this effect. You might shoot a test roll and run some clips before processing the important stuff.

I usually just use Acufine or RAF pyro-metol.

 

[Sparky]

here's a sample... this was full strength WD2D - section of 2-1/4 square hassy neg... just a scan though...

 

[Paul Howell]

When pushing film, I use the term as a PJ, expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. There is no free lunch, pushing film means loss of shadow detail and increased grain. I no longer push film, I found that I get better results with TMax or Ilford 3200 pulled to 1600.

 

[Silverhead]

here's a sample... this was full strength WD2D - section of 2-1/4 square hassy neg... just a scan though...

Did you shoot that in the hills of Los Feliz during the fires?

 

[Sparky]

yes, silverhead. That was at about 10PM last night. It was really quite incredible. Kind of like looking right into the mouth of hell! I hope a print can convey something of it.. we'll see I guess...