Doremus, I think you're making a broad generalization that tends to fall apart in the real world. Difference films can behave in different manners, and one cannot escape the need to be familiar with the specifics through sheer experience. And while the terms "push" or "pull" might be necessary to communicate with a lab, or Zone System lingo to much of the traditional black and white crowd, or Kodak-speak to that set, it's still not a bullseye. When I shoot I might actually label my shots for Zone-style categories of development, plus or minus, but at the time of the shot I really am visualizing the actual film curve in relation to my intended development regimen. And my film will be chosen in relation to the specific nature of the scene, or the lighting conditions I am most likely to encounter, and how I want it to print. All of this can get pretty intimidating to a beginner, who is trying to previsualize way too many variables at once. Better to stick to a single film and developer and printing style until one learns its boundaries first. With a bit of momentum, a few minutes in the darkroom with a few test strips will tell you more than four thousand pages of reading about the theory of this all. Classic old manuals like AA's "The Negative" can be a good
introduction, but something like this still assumes you want your scenes to come out like he did, even if the same films were still available.
But to some extent, it is efficient to learn the rules before deliberately breaking them.
Drew,
I agree, I am making broad generalizations and intentionally leaving out a ton of specifics and (more complicated) details. I do this to be able to draw a more distinct, if albeit somewhat inaccurate, distinction. As in all borders between things and ideas, the closer one examines something, the more blurred and complicated things become (life is a fractal).
However, what I'm really getting at, under the technical tone of my response, is the semantic and practical differences between "pushing" film as a stop-gap measure to compensate for underexposure and other intentional changes in development that are performed on negatives that have been not underexposed, i.e., with the shadow exposure that the photographer wants. Zone System parlance comes easy to me and was used in the thread, so I simply addressed the issue in those terms.
However, I guess there is an overlap in the two approaches (as Stone is pointing out). If one likes the look of "pushed" film, i.e., dark, featureless shadows and snappy, contrasty high values (no value judgment here at all! I like the look of a lot of "pushed" work), then one could argue that one was exposing the shadows as desired and developing to get the desired highlight values in just the same way a "West-Coast School" Zone System photographer would. It is only the desired result that is different.
Mostly, however, I think that a lot of "pushing" happens because the photographer is in a situation that simply exceeds the limitations of the film he/she is using and the development increase is used to salvage what can be saved from the underexposed negatives.
As for different films behaving in different manners, while this is certainly true, it is really beside the point. Of course, we should learn our tools and know how to use them properly. I'm really addressing something else: the difference between planning an image and carefully metering to get what we want (whether it be the "West Coast" look or the "Brett Weston Blank Shadow" look, or the "Rock Concert Pushed-Processed" look) and the need to sometimes make the best of a bad situation and overdevelop film that we would have liked to give more exposure to. This latter is what I call "pushing" and represents a compromise.
That said, those are just the way I use the terms in order to keep my own thinking clear and, basically, what I was trying to say with my post above.
Best,
Doremus
