What is the difference between PUSH and N+1

[Truzi]

To avoid the flame war, I'm must specify I am referring to average consumer equipment and users who are not as awesome as some here on APUG are.

I don't have access to a _good_ scanner, but I've found that negatives that don't scan well can in fact print well. I have a few that look like crap when scanned, but was able to make better sun prints! Even when you turn off all the advanced features, the scanner firmware and software still do some thinking on your behalf - and they often assume the negatives are properly exposed. Perhaps this is not true of the better scanners.

Also, by virtue of how scanning and optical printing work, there are some problems that can be corrected better in a scan, and others with an enlarger.

BTW, I really like the photo you posted - perhaps the Pan F exposure was a fortuitous mistake.

 

[Vaughn]

Definitely

With pleasure -- just don't get too thirsty waiting for me to show up on that side of the continent -- but I'll still buy a round if you show up here in the redwoods!

 

[markbarendt]

so I would assume this would happen with printing too?

As Michael says we are talking apples and oranges. That isn't the only difference either, my metering methods are different than yours, my sensibility in printing is different, ...

My point was that exposure controls detail, development doesn't. Pushing in my book is a rescue procedure.

What you are doing by deliberate choice of targeting high contrast is actually "+" development. You don't have to change EI to use that technique.

 

[cliveh]

Pushing in my book is a rescue procedure.

+1

 

[StoneNYC]

To avoid the flame war, I'm must specify I am referring to average consumer equipment and users who are not as awesome as some here on APUG are.

I don't have access to a _good_ scanner, but I've found that negatives that don't scan well can in fact print well. I have a few that look like crap when scanned, but was able to make better sun prints! Even when you turn off all the advanced features, the scanner firmware and software still do some thinking on your behalf - and they often assume the negatives are properly exposed. Perhaps this is not true of the better scanners.

Also, by virtue of how scanning and optical printing work, there are some problems that can be corrected better in a scan, and others with an enlarger.

BTW, I really like the photo you posted - perhaps the Pan F exposure was a fortuitous mistake.

Thanks for the compliment on the image, I agree it was fortunate

The scene WAS already contrasty in nature, but this really pushed the limits.

Also proves Rodinal CAN be good at pushing which others had told me was not a good choice

Good to know that printing doesn't quite behave like scanning and either can be good for certain things.

And good to have options. I'll stick to pushing for now when I want to, and perhaps someday try not pushing ... Lol

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A scanner is a linear device, photographic paper is not, it has a curve. So the effect of how a negative is exposed and developed is different via the two forms of output.

I always thought of development expansion as a tool to increase contrast in a negative where I photographed a low contrast scene. That is N+1 or N+2 or whatever is required to yield a negative or normal average contrast. But it's a controlled form of developing where the intention and goal is still a full tone negative.

Push processing is a way of developing a negative that has been exposed in a way that isn't favorable for accomplishing the goal of a full tone negative, and therein lies the difference. You push process to bring a portion of the tones up to normal levels in the negative. You start to lose detail in the lowest shadows when you underexpose, and the more you underexpose the more you have to push to make as many of the tones as possible normal. But the more underexposure you give, the more of the shadow details are dropped.

N+1 = an enhancement to achieve a desired outcome.
Push = saving your ass as well as it's possible, but it's a compromise from a technical standpoint.

That's how I always thought about it and why I try to never underexpose and push unless I'm forced to. It's easy to tweak a print and bury shadow details in complete black using a normal negative, so for me there is no aesthetic reason to make negatives that lack shadow detail. But you can never recover shadow detail that has been lost in the process, should you need them later on.

 

[cliveh]

A scanner is a linear device, photographic paper is not, it has a curve. So the effect of how a negative is exposed and developed is different via the two forms of output.

I always thought of development expansion as a tool to increase contrast in a negative where I photographed a low contrast scene. That is N+1 or N+2 or whatever is required to yield a negative or normal average contrast. But it's a controlled form of developing where the intention and goal is still a full tone negative.

Push processing is a way of developing a negative that has been exposed in a way that isn't favorable for accomplishing the goal of a full tone negative, and therein lies the difference. You push process to bring a portion of the tones up to normal levels in the negative. You start to lose detail in the lowest shadows when you underexpose, and the more you underexpose the more you have to push to make as many of the tones as possible normal. But the more underexposure you give, the more of the shadow details are dropped.

N+1 = an enhancement to achieve a desired outcome.
Push = saving your ass as well as it's possible, but it's a compromise from a technical standpoint.

That's how I always thought about it and why I try to never underexpose and push unless I'm forced to. It's easy to tweak a print and bury shadow details in complete black using a normal negative, so for me there is no aesthetic reason to make negatives that lack shadow detail. But you can never recover shadow detail that has been lost in the process, should you need them later on.

Thomas, well said, but some treat pushing and pulling film as though it is an elastic band. Don't do it and observe integrity of process.

 

[StoneNYC]

A scanner is a linear device, photographic paper is not, it has a curve. So the effect of how a negative is exposed and developed is different via the two forms of output.

I always thought of development expansion as a tool to increase contrast in a negative where I photographed a low contrast scene. That is N+1 or N+2 or whatever is required to yield a negative or normal average contrast. But it's a controlled form of developing where the intention and goal is still a full tone negative.

Push processing is a way of developing a negative that has been exposed in a way that isn't favorable for accomplishing the goal of a full tone negative, and therein lies the difference. You push process to bring a portion of the tones up to normal levels in the negative. You start to lose detail in the lowest shadows when you underexpose, and the more you underexpose the more you have to push to make as many of the tones as possible normal. But the more underexposure you give, the more of the shadow details are dropped.

N+1 = an enhancement to achieve a desired outcome.
Push = saving your ass as well as it's possible, but it's a compromise from a technical standpoint.

That's how I always thought about it and why I try to never underexpose and push unless I'm forced to. It's easy to tweak a print and bury shadow details in complete black using a normal negative, so for me there is no aesthetic reason to make negatives that lack shadow detail. But you can never recover shadow detail that has been lost in the process, should you need them later on.

So then what do you do for a high contrast scene that you want to make lower, whats your process there?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So then what do you do for a high contrast scene that you want to make lower, whats your process there?

You meter for the shadows, and expose your film to get detail where you want it.

Then you develop the film to the contrast you want it. That may be normal development time, or you can develop shorter time. It completely depends on how you want your negatives to look.

The important piece is that's it's in your control.

 

[markbarendt]

So then what do you do for a high contrast scene that you want to make lower, whats your process there?

N-, you reduce development.

The interesting thought here is that dark scenes (where someone may feel a need to push) are by their very nature high contrast.

 

[cliveh]

So then what do you do for a high contrast scene that you want to make lower, whats your process there?

You don't, because if the original scene is high contrast you record it as that. If you lower the contrast you are destroying the integrity of what you are actually seeing.

 

[StoneNYC]

You meter for the shadows, and expose your film to get detail where you want it.

Then you develop the film to the contrast you want it. That may be normal development time, or you can develop shorter time. It completely depends on how you want your negatives to look.

The important piece is that's it's in your control.

So essentially you OVER expose the film and then PULL in development... to me that's the same thing, just a different way to think about it... it's about the way you THINK about the process you use to get to the result you want, but essentially it's the same process physically, it's just how you think about it that's different.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So essentially you OVER expose the film and then PULL in development... to me that's the same thing, just a different way to think about it... it's about the way you THINK about the process you use to get to the result you want, but essentially it's the same process physically, it's just how you think about it that's different.

I don't think it's the same thing. It's the exact opposite. But whatever works for you is fine by me.

There are two variables, exposure and development, and you control them both. The same materials are available to us all, so it's an exercise in what you do with them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

When you under-develop ("pull" or N- whatever) to reduce contrast, you need to over-expose most films to get adequate shadow exposure.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Or I should have technically said, adequate shadow density. Stone had it correct.

 

[StoneNYC]

Or I should have technically said, adequate shadow density. Stone had it correct.

There's a first time for everything...

Or as my step father likes to say "even a blind squirrel gets a nut every once in a while... "

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There's a first time for everything...

Or as my step father likes to say "even a blind squirrel gets a nut every once in a while... "

Good thing. I don't think of photography in terms of right or wrong. Only different.
You find a way of doing things that you like, and if you do it well, and you're willing to share, maybe others can learn from it.

Our materials are fairly flexible, and two different photographers can get completely different results using the exact same materials, and both are 'right'. It's art after all.

 

[StoneNYC]

Good thing. I don't think of photography in terms of right or wrong. Only different.
You find a way of doing things that you like, and if you do it well, and you're willing to share, maybe others can learn from it.

Our materials are fairly flexible, and two different photographers can get completely different results using the exact same materials, and both are 'right'. It's art after all.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

The primary difference in "pushing" film and N+1 development is the purpose behind the procedures. The aesthetic and practical goals of the two techniques is very different.

With N+1 (or any Zone System expansion) the exposure is based on desired shadow values in the final print and development is increased in order to increase the contrast of a low-contrast scene so that highlight values print closer to white in the final print. This yields a print with a full tonal range and good shadow detail. The exposure of the film is "correct" in the sense that visible shadows are rendered with detail in the negative and the final print

"Pushing" film is used to compensate for an intentional (or sometimes accidental) underexposure of the film; intentionally sacrificing shadow detail and letting many of the lower values in the scene "go to black". The usual reason for this are low-light photography, where there is simply not enough exposure available for the shutter speed needed to get the desired image. Exposure is usually based on mid-tones or highlights and the film is rated at an artificially high speed. This results in a negative with no shadow detail and mid and high values that would be very low on the film curve if developed "normally."

In order to get more separation between the remaining values on the negative, development is increased. This increases negative contrast and separation between the values that were recorded on the negative, but will not "save" the shadows. This yields a print in which the shadow values are jet black and the mid-tones very dark. The highlights, however, have been expanded enough to be real high values in the print.

These two scenarios have very different looks. The "pushed" look is contrasty, gritty, with no shadow detail; sometimes almost literally "black and white" with few mid tones. The N+1 look is, on the other hand, rich in mid-tones and mid-tone separation with both rich blacks and glowing highlights.

I find the term “pushing” somehow deceptive. If we understand it as “underexposure and overdevelopment to save the image,” or even, "I want the "pushed look," then fine, but in reality all we are “pushing” are the limits of the medium: we “push” information out of the negative on the low end, “push” the contrast up on the high end and “push” the grain up to larger size.

N+1 on the other hand is simply developing a negative individually for the luminance range of the scene in order to render the low and high values closer to the desired print values. The fact that the amount of development is a more than "Normal" is simply because the scene has a lower-than-normal luminance range. Shadow detail is not "lost" or rendered flat black in the print.

Best,

Doremus

 

[StoneNYC]

The primary difference in "pushing" film and N+1 development is the purpose behind the procedures. The aesthetic and practical goals of the two techniques is very different.

With N+1 (or any Zone System expansion) the exposure is based on desired shadow values in the final print and development is increased in order to increase the contrast of a low-contrast scene so that highlight values print closer to white in the final print. This yields a print with a full tonal range and good shadow detail. The exposure of the film is "correct" in the sense that visible shadows are rendered with detail in the negative and the final print

"Pushing" film is used to compensate for an intentional (or sometimes accidental) underexposure of the film; intentionally sacrificing shadow detail and letting many of the lower values in the scene "go to black". The usual reason for this are low-light photography, where there is simply not enough exposure available for the shutter speed needed to get the desired image. Exposure is usually based on mid-tones or highlights and the film is rated at an artificially high speed. This results in a negative with no shadow detail and mid and high values that would be very low on the film curve if developed "normally."

In order to get more separation between the remaining values on the negative, development is increased. This increases negative contrast and separation between the values that were recorded on the negative, but will not "save" the shadows. This yields a print in which the shadow values are jet black and the mid-tones very dark. The highlights, however, have been expanded enough to be real high values in the print.

These two scenarios have very different looks. The "pushed" look is contrasty, gritty, with no shadow detail; sometimes almost literally "black and white" with few mid tones. The N+1 look is, on the other hand, rich in mid-tones and mid-tone separation with both rich blacks and glowing highlights.

I find the term “pushing” somehow deceptive. If we understand it as “underexposure and overdevelopment to save the image,” or even, "I want the "pushed look," then fine, but in reality all we are “pushing” are the limits of the medium: we “push” information out of the negative on the low end, “push” the contrast up on the high end and “push” the grain up to larger size.

N+1 on the other hand is simply developing a negative individually for the luminance range of the scene in order to render the low and high values closer to the desired print values. The fact that the amount of development is a more than "Normal" is simply because the scene has a lower-than-normal luminance range. Shadow detail is not "lost" or rendered flat black in the print.

Best,

Doremus

Okay I'm not going to argue about the differences anymore, it's clear we have different views on that, however, question to you is what if I am exposing properly for the scene, and then increase my development time in order to increase the highlights, purposefully, just because I like that look? I'm not doing it for the shadow detail, I'm doing it to increase the highlights, by your description, I'm exposing properly for the scene and extending times, but not for show/midtones so is that N+1/+2 or pushing 1-2 stops?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Okay I'm not going to argue about the differences anymore, it's clear we have different views on that, however, question to you is what if I am exposing properly for the scene, and then increase my development time in order to increase the highlights, purposefully, just because I like that look? I'm not doing it for the shadow detail, I'm doing it to increase the highlights, by your description, I'm exposing properly for the scene and extending times, but not for show/midtones so is that N+1/+2 or pushing 1-2 stops?

N+1

It isn't pushing until you try to recover something in your exposure. Basically, a 'properly' exposed (technically) negative that you extend development on, but you have full shadow detail, is simply expansion, or N+X. You're modifying tones in a technically well exposed negative by expanding the contrast.
If you try to recover tones where you used inadequate (again, technically) exposure and left out an amount shadow detail, then you have compromised the film's built in capability. But it isn't just the shadows, the ENTIRE tone scale has been compromised, and in processing you must raise all of the tones up by developing longer, in order to get those tones printable normally. You 'push' the tones back up to their proper place on the film curve. Except you will not recover the shadow detail you lost because of your choices in exposure.

You do N+X because you would like more contrast in a normally exposed negative. The result is a higher contrast negative with full shadow detail.
You do push processing because you MUST compensate for inadequate exposure. The result is a normal contrast, or high contrast negative (depending on how far you develop the tones), but with some extent of lost shadow detail.

It's called push 'processing' for a reason.

 

[markbarendt]

Okay I'm not going to argue about the differences anymore, it's clear we have different views on that, however, question to you is what if I am exposing properly for the scene, and then increase my development time in order to increase the highlights, purposefully, just because I like that look? I'm not doing it for the shadow detail, I'm doing it to increase the highlights, by your description, I'm exposing properly for the scene and extending times, but not for show/midtones so is that N+1/+2 or pushing 1-2 stops?

N+

You are shooting and developing to get "exactly what you want". In this sense you are using Ansel Adams ideas well just not applying it the same way.

It isn't the look of the "West Coast Style" that Doremus seems to describe but this fits the technical definition of a full range of tones that Doremus and Adams are talking about.

The thing that must always be remembered though is that this is a dance between film and paper, or in your case a digital backend. The characteristics of one are matched to the other. Changing one without considering the effect on the other is meaningless.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ok, thanks guys for putting up with me

 

[StoneNYC]

Cliveh: All photographs are illusions.

Does that mean all captured souls are illusions? :munch:

 

[MattKing]

The other practical difference is that the counter-person at a lot of labs will understand what you mean if you ask for a one stop push, but may look uncomprehending and confused if you ask for a one zone expansion.

Not all labs, but certainly some.