Pushing or not pushing Ektar?

[trondsi]

I sometimes like to shoot 100 ISO film at 200. With Provia, asking the lab to push one stop has worked pretty well. But what about Ektar? I noticed some don't like to push negative film at all. What is the difference between underexposed Ektar that has been pushed, and a similarly exposed Ektar where the compensation for lack of light happens at the printing or scanning?

 

[markbarendt]

It's all about understanding the film and your printing technique. If one experiments and finds that it works for them...

Printing to RA 4 paper, pushing C41 does similar things to the printed image as to what pushing does for Provia's projection.

If you are printing via a "variable contrast" system, pushing or not-pushing makes little to no difference in the end result; the print system determines the result in this case, not the negative.

I kinda think of Ektar as Portra pushed. Kinda like Velvia might be considered Provia pushed.

 

[trondsi]

Is "variable contrast system" a setup in which the image is scanned and the contrast optimized by a computer?

 

[markbarendt]

Is "variable contrast system" a setup in which the image is scanned and the contrast optimized by a computer?

 

[markbarendt]

Actually one of the reasons I said it the way I did, is because of B&W VC paper. Maintaining the consistency of an idea.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Color film differs from B&W in that color film is designed for a rigid development process. Therefore pushing (or for that matter pulling) will result in color shifts and cross-over between the color layers. Therefore it all comes down to how much change the user can tolerate. For color negative film color shifts can be corrected during processing. However cross-over cannot be so compensated for. As with all film it is better to use a faster film than push a slower one.

 

[trondsi]

That's the thing though: there is no faster Ektar. No other negative film has the same color balance. I was actually quite happy with the push processing, so maybe I should stick to it if I shoot at 200. The only reason I ask is to check if you guys think it is worth potentially wasting a film on NOT pushing it after exposing at 200. A Google search indicates that this method increases contrast.

 

[trondsi]

Well, you said that "the system determines the result" which sounded to me like some sort of algorithm. Besides, most commercial labs do something like this these days.

 

[MattKing]

That's the thing though: there is no faster Ektar. No other negative film has the same color balance. I was actually quite happy with the push processing, so maybe I should stick to it if I shoot at 200. The only reason I ask is to check if you guys think it is worth potentially wasting a film on NOT pushing it after exposing at 200. A Google search indicates that this method increases contrast.

The problem with push processing is that the contrast increase will be different for each of the different colour layers, leading to problems with crossover.

If you simply under-expose the film (expose it an EI of 200). you will lose a little shadow detail, but as long as you ensure that the prints are made in a way that optimizes the mid-tones and highlights, you will end up with deeper shadows, and therefore the prints may appear to be more contrasty, because darker shadows tend to influence us that way.

 

[trondsi]

The problem with push processing is that the contrast increase will be different for each of the different colour layers, leading to problems with crossover.

If you simply under-expose the film (expose it an EI of 200). you will lose a little shadow detail, but as long as you ensure that the prints are made in a way that optimizes the mid-tones and highlights, you will end up with deeper shadows, and therefore the prints may appear to be more contrasty, because darker shadows tend to influence us that way.

Thanks for the clarification! Now I'm wondering if someone has ever made a comparison of underexposed normal processing and push processing of this film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Underexposing then pushing a film like this is just looking for trouble unless you want a deliberately unrealistic outcome. Matt described one
of the inherent issues. The separate color curves will not match. This would be the worst possible way to increase contrast. If you are printing
in a darkroom (versus scanning) you can make a contrast-increase mask using a double-negative procedure with a black and white film like
TMX. There are are few tricks to it, but once you've mastered it, it's pretty easy.

 

[trondsi]

Ok. Do you think pushed film will have less contrast (albeit color shift) than unpished (but underexposed) film?

btw pushing one stop works very well with Provia 100f but then that is a slide film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Color neg films are very different than chrome films. If you really want to figure out if this works for you, take some test shots of a color
chart and just do it. A full stop push with Ektar is likely to give use unrecoverable color errors; and any perceived increase in contrast will
simply be due to losing shadow values plus a color shift down there. People do all kinds of weird things with film. And I predict this will come
out weird. Ektar is not a very flexible film in this respect, and pushing is never a good idea with color neg film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Don't push it and don't pull it. Expose it from ISO 50 to ISO 200 and you will barely notice the difference. This film has the latitude to spare and thus if you just process normally, your negatives will be a tad thinner. And that will not hurt when printed. The paper has good latitude as well.

PE

 

[markbarendt]

Well, you said that "the system determines the result" which sounded to me like some sort of algorithm. Besides, most commercial labs do something like this these days.

The print system determines what is possible.

RA-4 has one grade of paper, so for C-41, push (+) or pull (-) or choosing a different film are your contrast controls. I find very few times with color that a push or pull would provide benefit, burn and dodge fixes most any issue for me.

With variable contrast print systems the person who sets up the print parameters determines the result.

 

[mnemosyne]

That's the thing though: there is no faster Ektar. No other negative film has the same color balance. I was actually quite happy with the push processing, so maybe I should stick to it if I shoot at 200. The only reason I ask is to check if you guys think it is worth potentially wasting a film on NOT pushing it after exposing at 200. A Google search indicates that this method increases contrast.

As has been already stated by some very knowledgeable people here, the basic problem of pushing/pulling CN film is color shift. This is less of a problem in a hybrid workflow (recoverable through picture editing software) and rather problematic (not recoverable) in a pure analog workflow. But how much that matters to you, is a different thing. A color shift that is unacceptable to one person might be quite tolerable in someone else's eyes or he/she might even prefer the results. This is why we cannot answer this question for you. You will have to spend the money for two rolls of film plus development and find out yourself. Shoot two rolls at EI200, have one developed normally and one pushed and then evaluate the results.

 

[trondsi]

Ok, thanks for the suggestions folks! Next time I feel like exposing it at 200 I will leave it unpushed. I already have some pushed film to compare to, so I will let you know.

 

[trythis]

With your next role make a few notecards with 25, 50, 100, 200, 400 and take five pictures of the same scene with the same light at the respective EI. Print them out and see what you think.
I accidentally shot a roll of Ektar 120 at EI 400 and the results look fine to me with standard processing.

Sent with typotalk

 

[Photo Engineer]

As I said before, you will hardly see an over or under. You won't need a pull or push.

Here is Portra shot in an RZ using 120 film, at 50, 100 and 200 and then normalized to the same density when printed or scanned. I have both.

PE

 

[Truzi]

I really don't worry about this with color film, as the latitude is generally more than enough for my purposes. I've considered toying with the idea of pushing and pulling, just to see first-hand what happens, but I'm funny that way. Once I did have a pro-shop push (or pull, I forget - it was a while ago) an half stop for an accidentally incorrectly exposed roll of film, but upon seeing the results, I don't think regular processing would have been bad.

Regarding PE's example, I have used consumer color film at different EIs (based on his postings), and just as he has demonstrated, I did not notice a significant difference. One stop over showed softer, almost pastel, colors, but those were minilab scans, and I'm sure I'll be able to make everything fine when I get to printing my own (or digitally). One stop under was barely noticeable, and gave me more shutter-speed freedom.

Do what people have suggested here... sacrifice a roll bracketing just to see how it will work out, I think you'll be surprized. Do the same with a push and see what happens. It's really the only way to tell if you will like the results; if they will work for you. Learning the "hard way" is actually the best way, just don't make it an important roll of photos.

 

[MartinP]

There was also an interesting attempt at pre-flashing C41 colour film explored in this forum, some time ago. It should be findable with a search.

 

[Pioneer]

I have done these types of tests for several color films over the years and have found practically no discernible differences in the colors of the color charts.

The color charts are always placed in the light though, so if your subject matter is always in the light there is nothing to be worried about. The difference becomes more obvious is you set up some additional color charts in the shadow.

I do love Ektar and use quite a bit of it. But I have found that the Portra films are far more forgiving. As a result I typically try to stay pretty close to the manufacturer's ISO for Ektar, or if shadow tones are important to the photograph, then I will sometimes underexpose just a bit, but rarely as much as a full stop. I treat it a lot like color slide film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why bother to push Kodak Ektar when Kodak Portra 160, 400 and 800 are available.

 

[trondsi]

For the record, I have tried Portra 160 and 400, and I was not that happy with many of the shots, except for (surprise surprise) the portraits. Ektar (and Provia) has usually served me better. This is all a matter of taste of course.

I think Pioneer has a point here: I compared a roll of Ektar 100 that I shot at ISO 160 (unpushed) with one that was shot at ISO 200 (pushed one stop). Both were shot in very contrasty light, but otherwise the environments were very different, and with very different cameras. This was not a formal test in other words, just what I have at hand, but the pushed film looks better balanced between shadow and light detail. The unpushed film has some detail disappearing in shadows. According to some info I found online, pushing two stops appears to give Ektar a blue cast, but I can't see this in the one stop push, and the reds and greens are vivid. I will do a more proper test later.

 

[Pioneer]

Why bother to push Kodak Ektar when Kodak Portra 160, 400 and 800 are available.

Maybe they are bored?

Actually I find the Portra color rendering a bit more subdued than Ektar.

One thing I've noted is a digital trend to push contrast and color to extremes even more than film. I think there are some who want Ektar even more contrasty then it already is.