Pushing Superia 800 to 12800

[Athiril]

Thought I'd share this here too, negs were scanned on a frontier, which is very similar to how prints turn out (think fixed contrast grade, cant adjust, only density adjustments (exposure) and colour balance/filtration of a less fine degree then printing offers).

Developing method was C-41 + 600mg/L of Potassium Thiocyanate (thought this may give me extra speed) for a time of 6 minutes, followed up by a sodium carbonate bath to continue shadow development (although skip this, all it does is increase base fog, I forgot about that in C-41). You can also safely leave out the KSCN, I was experimenting.

This was also a preflashing experiment. The ideal preflash looks like 2 stops below camera middle grey reading at the rated EI of 12800. So if you set your meter to 12800, meter through whatever you're shooting your preflash with, and subtract 2 stops, you're there.

I would like to apply this to Portra 400 in the future, knowing the kind of push results I get at 1600, it may worth be trying at 6400 with preflash

These shots are all from the same roll. The metering for preflash was done through the camera meter (AE-1) through a tissue held tight over the lens, as was the exposure through the same tissue. The preflash was done prior to the scene exposure.

3200 no preflash

12800 no preflash

12800 + preflash Z1 (middle grey reading @ 12800 - 4 stops)

12800 + preflash Z2 (middle grey reading @ 12800 - 3 stops)

12800 + preflash Z3 (middle grey reading @ 12800 - 2 stops)

It doesn't matter whether printing or scanning, it should be clear the preflash method offers superior results to pushing alone, as it simply isn't about compressing shadow range to make it more printable, it helps put shadow detail onto the neg that simply doesn't exist at all, and it appears the contrast increase of the push helps alleviate scale compression from putting maximum and minimum exposure ever closer together with a preflash, so it appears a good combination.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Great work. Keep it up.

 

[clayne]

I guess that pre-flash is getting you the requisite 3-4 atoms in areas where it's just on the threshold.

 

[newcan1]

I wonder if this technique will work with ECN-2 film? I might try it with Fuji Eterna Vivid 500T, maybe try a push to 8,000 ISO.

 

[Lamar]

This is the first I've heard of preflashing. I'm always looking for a bit more speed at those night football games. I usually just shoot HP5 at 3200 because Portra just didn't look that good above 1600 to me. I'll be trying this soon. So to make sure i have this correct, If I want to preflash 2 stops I meter through my diffusion material (tissue paper plastic, etc) at the ISO setting I'm going to shoot at, say 6400, then I just cut back the exposure 2 stops? So if my shutter speed was 1/500 though the tissue paper at 6400 I'd up it to 1/2000th, expose the film to the tissue paper then rewind and shoot the film normally at ISO 6400 and develop for ISO 1600 by pushing it 2 stops? Is there any advantage to doing this same method at rated speed. Would an ISO 400 film 2 stop pre-flashed at ISO 1600 developed at normal times be any better than just pushing 2 stops?

 

[Athiril]

I decided to test this, because all I could find was all talk and 'do your own testing' with no examples given. But it is clear some level of preflash is absolutely useless, and then a small change can all of a sudden have a massive impact. So really, you do need to do your own test, but at least it's a ball park figure of what to aim for, and of course, what to look for when it is working.


Essentially.. what you're going to need is a sacrificial test roll. Just 1 will do.

Figure your desired EI speed that you need to shoot at. 6400 is probably a good choice for Portra 400. Meter through your diffusion material, and shoot scenes, no preflash.. -5 stops, -4.5 etc etc. Though it will probably also be -3 to -2 from 6400.

You also need the developer time too to make the most of it.. 6 minutes in C-41 at normal process temp (~38 celsius) is still probably about right.

That's your starting point.

This will also work for your B&W film too btw, I've seen it primarily referenced for B&W in fact, so I decided to try it on colour.




In regards to pre-flashing with no push.. I do not know. But I suspect the preflash should be less -2 stops from middle grey reading, as there is still plenty of straight line scale left.. you probably want to pre-flash it at the bottom of the linear scale. Which is -4 stops from Box speed for Portra 400 (and most others too)

But the zone 3/-2 stops @ 12800 on Superia 800.. it's -2 stops below the published straight line curve according to Fuji.

So, you will need 1 test roll. Pre-flash different amounts and shoot a test scene at the desired underexposure/EI+push/etc, and take notes. The one to use will be when you see a sudden jump in detail like the above example.

If you shoot Portra 400 normally.. you can just save 6 or so exposures at the end of a roll for that purpose etc on your next roll. I imagine it wont be as good as combined with a push.


For example. Let us say your preflash has a value of x.

If one part of the image also has an exposure of x, and another 2x, instead of being 1 stop of separation between these two points if normally recorded.. with a preflash, it's essentially 2x and 3x, or the equivalent of 0.58 stops of separation on the neg.

So the push helps stretch this contrast back out, which can be very important. Although compressed values can also be desirable.



If you DIY C-41, I'd recommend just using 6 minutes @ 38c or so.. no additives needed.

 

[Athiril]

I wonder if this technique will work with ECN-2 film? I might try it with Fuji Eterna Vivid 500T, maybe try a push to 8,000 ISO.

It should work with any film, though with reversal/slide, I imagine you will severely limit dMax, unless you make a custom first dev for it.

 

[removed account4]

hi athiril

great results !

have you tried pre flashing, and "hypering" with hydrogen peroxide & al.
and seen which gives you a better rendering ?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

keep up the cool experiments !
john

 

[Helge]

It should work with any film, though with reversal/slide, I imagine you will severely limit dMax, unless you make a custom first dev for it.

Did you continue experiments? And did you ever try it with Portra 400?
Your original images are insanely impressive!

I don’t see why it didn’t raise a storm in film circles‽
It would revolutionize low light shooting (which is really one of the only real “problems” with film), if this was formalized and approximate tables for different films at different ratings where made.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is a real shame that the pics are no longer available for the appreciation of those who may have seen them and forgotten(me) and newcomers who may never have seen them

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

1. Superia 800 @ 3200 no preflash:
2. Superia 800 @ 12800 no preflash
3. Superia 800 @ 12800 preflashed two stops under 18% grey.

There will no doubt be naysayers. Saying that the quality of the below is not acceptable and you should either use a digital camera, or that there are colour shifts, or you should use flash or longer exposure times.
But:
1. This is putting a point on it. You could do the same with less extreme pushing and get less grain and still not get crushed blacks.
This illustrates the effect clearly, without needing further explanation.
2. The above hypothetical criticism is really missing the point. Even heavily pushed film still has characteristics digitial with its current paradigm (CMOS, Bayerfilter, analog gain amp etc.) will never recreate.
Flash and long exposures are often underrated and underutilized measures, but are not always possible or desirable.

 

[koraks]

I once did some experiments pushing Superia 200 to higher speeds; I think I went up to about 1600 and extending development substantially. At 800, the negatives became virtually unprintable.
While this extreme pushing approach may yield acceptable results (which is very subjective indeed) for scanning, in my experience it is not feasible for optical printing.

 

[Helge]

I once did some experiments pushing Superia 200 to higher speeds; I think I went up to about 1600 and extending development substantially. At 800, the negatives became virtually unprintable.
While this extreme pushing approach may yield acceptable results (which is very subjective indeed) for scanning, in my experience it is not feasible for optical printing.

You seemingly completely didn’t get the point, as predicted.
This is not about extreme pushing, not even necessarily about pushing.
This is about hypering with biasing light to get anything in the shadows in very underlit scenes, and to also reduce grain in these same scenes.

 

[koraks]

Oh i do get the point alright. I was referring to the non-preflashed (which is not hypering, as that refers to a chemical pretreatment), which are already quite optimistic from an ra4 printer's perspective. My point is that your approach is certainly interesting, but mostly for those of us who acan their film instead of printing it optically. I'm not so sure your quite decent results will translate to enlarger printed paper.

 

[pentaxuser]

1. Superia 800 @ 3200 no preflash:
2. Superia 800 @ 12800 no preflash
3. Superia 800 @ 12800 preflashed two stops under 18% grey.

There will no doubt be naysayers. Saying that the quality of the below is not acceptable and you should either use a digital camera, or that there are colour shifts, or you should use flash or longer exposure times.
But:
1. This is putting a point on it. You could do the same with less extreme pushing and get less grain and still not get crushed blacks.
This illustrates the effect clearly, without needing further explanation.
2. The above hypothetical criticism is really missing the point. Even heavily pushed film still has characteristics digitial with its current paradigm (CMOS, Bayerfilter, analog gain amp etc.) will never recreate.
Flash and long exposures are often underrated and underutilized measures, but are not always possible or desirable.

Thanks for the post and illustrations. Are these the same ones that the OP Athiril showed back in 2013? They look familiar.

Can I clarify the order of the three pictures?. The top left is exposed at 3200( two stops y underexposure). The top right is exposed at 12800( 4 stops ) and the bottom left is exposed at 12800 and preflashed two stops under 18% grey

Were these all developed for normal times i.e. 3 minutes 15 seconds so except for preflashing for the third exposure, all were given normal development with nothing added? You did none of the things that the OP did in his experiment and while these are scans of negatives reversed to show as prints did you do anything when scanning that might make a similar optical print appear inferior?

Sorry to be asking what you may consider to be obvious in your post but I find that sometimes clarification of the obvious can help

If my assumptions are correct then it indicates that a two stop underexposure with Superia 800 is very acceptable without any other changes. So in the event of the kind of "normal" low light in which most photographers would try to take a picture, you simply underexpose by two stops and can expect to get a good print. Can I take it that all other colour negative 800 films would produce an equally good result?

Thanks in anticipation of your further clarification to my questions

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

Oh i do get the point alright. I was referring to the non-preflashed (which is not hypering, as that refers to a chemical pretreatment), which are already quite optimistic from an ra4 printer's perspective. My point is that your approach is certainly interesting, but mostly for those of us who acan their film instead of printing it optically. I'm not so sure your quite decent results will translate to enlarger printed paper.

I don’t see why it wouldn’t print well?
Print has the same basic requirements as scanning. IE the exposure not being impenetrable or whispery thin. That’s exactly what this aims at getting.
I’m getting into RA4, so I’m completely sympathetic to your thinking.
And hypering is also pre, or concurrent biasing exposure if you read the literature.
Not sure about latensification though, as the film is technically not anything special while the exposure is happening.
It’s actually somewhat like amping and/or raising the signal on a sensor, or even biasing signal on good old magnetic tape: You trade dynamic range and noise floor for a cleaner signal and overcome the hysteresis of the medium.

 

[Helge]

Thanks for the post and illustrations. Are these the same ones that the OP Athiril showed back in 2013? They look familiar.

Can I clarify the order of the three pictures?. The top left is exposed at 3200( two stops y underexposure). The top right is exposed at 12800( 4 stops ) and the bottom left is exposed at 12800 and preflashed two stops under 18% grey

Were these all developed for normal times i.e. 3 minutes 15 seconds so except for preflashing for the third exposure, all were given normal development with nothing added? You did none of the things that the OP did in his experiment and while these are scans of negatives reversed to show as prints did you do anything when scanning that might make a similar optical print appear inferior?

Sorry to be asking what you may consider to be obvious in your post but I find that sometimes clarification of the obvious can help

If my assumptions are correct then it indicates that a two stop underexposure with Superia 800 is very acceptable without any other changes. So in the event of the kind of "normal" low light in which most photographers would try to take a picture, you simply underexpose by two stops and can expect to get a good print. Can I take it that all other colour negative 800 films would produce an equally good result?

Thanks in anticipation of your further clarification to my questions

pentaxuser

It’s the exact same images, just taken from his Flickr account to rectify the missing ones here. Look, let me do the googling for you
https://www.google.dk/search?client......0....1.........30i10j35i304i39.713UbuVEKQU

He explains thoroughly about development and process in general in the comments to the images.

 

[koraks]

Print has the same basic requirements as scanning.

At a very general level, yes. But the contrast requirements of ra4 paper are quite strict, whereas a scanner will be satisfied with a rather broad range of densities with a lot of room for flexibility. My concern is that these high speed negatives are likely rather thin judging by how the scans look and that an optical print of them will essentially come out as a few gradations of black.
But do give it a try if you're planning to pick up ra4 printing! This is certainly one of the cases where I'd love to be proven completely wrong.

 

[Helge]

At a very general level, yes. But the contrast requirements of ra4 paper are quite strict, whereas a scanner will be satisfied with a rather broad range of densities with a lot of room for flexibility. My concern is that these high speed negatives are likely rather thin judging by how the scans look and that an optical print of them will essentially come out as a few gradations of black.
But do give it a try if you're planning to pick up ra4 printing! This is certainly one of the cases where I'd love to be proven completely wrong.

This is quite an old idea, that has been around in many incarnations, but somehow mostly got lost as a curio for certain niche applications (astronomy, X-rays and slide duping and Gerry Turpins LightFlex comes mind), or entirely forgotten, even though it is very useful and broadly applicable (perhaps due to patents for certain implementations).
Never have I seen complaints that it was hard to dupe or print a negative of this kind.
It’s basically just pushed or normally developed film with a broad extra bias.

 

[koraks]

The pre-exposure/fogging exposure won't expand contrast in the midtones and highlights and i suspect that's going to be a problem when trying to print these.
Most cases of hypering I've read about were on b&w film where there are quite some possibilities for intensification of negatives or otherwise manipulating contrast. With color materials, the options are a bit more limited. But give it a try, who knows?

 

[Helge]

The problem with pushing is exactly that you are only skewing the curve. With biasing you are lifting the bottom up as well

 

[pentaxuser]

It’s the exact same images, just taken from his Flickr account to rectify the missing ones here. Look, let me do the googling for you

He explains thoroughly about development and process in general in the comments to the images.

Thanks. Yes he also explains his process at the beginning of the thread but my apparently obvious questions about the process were there because I wasn't sure after 6 years and thousands of posts that I read that these were Athiril's pictures and process.

I hope that you did not feel that I was being deliberately stupid in order to annoy you

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

No worries.

 

[koraks]

The problem with pushing is exactly that you are only skewing the curve. With biasing you are lifting the bottom up as well

Keep in mind that exposure is exponential. The bit of exposure you add as a preexposure is significant at the bottom of the curve, but it is insignificant at the top. So the fogging exposure will lift the shadows, but leave the highlights almost untouched. You'll need to combine it with push processing to get the required highlight contrast in the negative if you underexpose by this much.

 

[Helge]

Naturally!