Why the mixed views on pushed film?

[miha]

I'm curious about why some people don't like the look of pushed film.

Why is achieving detail in shadows often the goal when rating and developing film? I've heard strong opinions against pushing film, yet deep black shadows with reduced detail or more pronounced grain can sometimes look best, as demonstrated by many press photographers from the film era. What are the reasons for these differing views?

 

[Don_ih]

It's a matter of taste and what one wants to get out of a photo.

For example, you may take a 300mm lens to your kid's graduation and push the 400 film you have to 1600 - hoping to get good detail on the face and hands and diploma. To at least get a photo of that moment.

You would probably not be satisfied with that same amount (lack) of detail on a landscape photo of, say, a grassy field with misty hills receding in the distance.

 

[Don_ih]

What are the reasons for these differing views?

Oh, and that's because photographers are dogmatic.

 

[koraks]

Oh, and that's because photographers are dogmatic.

Well, so are many non-photographers...

Why is achieving detail in shadows often the goal when rating and developing film?

I can see the sense in that from a technical viewpoint. The problem is, and I think this is what you're actually addressing: are photographs made from a technical viewpoint? Some are, surely. Many, on the other hand, don't exist primarily for a technical purpose.

 

[Steven Lee]

I'm curious about why some people don't like the look of pushed film.

Why is achieving detail in shadows often the goal when rating and developing film? I've heard strong opinions against pushing film, yet deep black shadows with reduced detail or more pronounced grain can sometimes look best, as demonstrated by many press photographers from the film era. What are the reasons for these differing views?

It depends what you're talking about. 95% of the Internet consists of teenagers who believe that pushing happens during exposure. They under-expose film in daylight on purpose and then go to labs and declare that their film is "pushed" because Youtube told them to. They want "deep contrast" but don't to read anything (even manuals for their own films and cameras, let alone books) and don't want to scan at home and are unaware that contrast is far easier to control in Photoshop. The pushing effect is 100% reproducible digitally, even the grain appearance.

Putting those aside, I haven't seen any objections to pushing online. Sometimes you just don't have enough light and boosting mid/high tones through extra development is helpful.

 

[cliveh]

There are shadows where you can see no detail in them. So why try and falsify in your photograph with what you can't actually see? Also you are creating a picture, not trying to be a wizard film technician. Just look at the shadows in the pictures of Atget to see how these deep blacks are used so creatively.

 

[Don_ih]

are photographs made from a technical viewpoint?

Most people would argue full tonality is an aesthetic consideration, more than a technical one. Getting full tonality is a technical concern - but most people do that by following the manufacturer's recommendation for exposure and development.

People who push film for higher contrast also do it for aesthetic reasons.

Why is achieving detail in shadows often the goal when rating and developing film?

Because you can turn that into a soot and chalk print, if you want - or a print with a full range of tones. In other words, using the film to its best advantage increases the potential for your final print.

 

[Steven Lee]

People who push film for higher contrast also do it for aesthetic reasons.

They do it due to ignorance. Contrast control happens during printing or scanning. From a technical perspective nothing beats a well-exposed negative without burned highlights or crushed shadows. This may be different for alt processes or some other exotic use of a negative, but for normal hybrid workflow and wet printing, pushing under good light makes no sense.

 

[loccdor]

To me shadow detail is less important than midtone quality. Pushing film can potentially turn your midtones into shadows, then the extra development time compensates for that, but the result is a tonal gradation less optimized for a pleasing result than the one closer to film speed. Because the film was designed to achieve a certain pleasing curve at its rated speed. There are exceptions, like the 3200 speed films, and perhaps Portra 800, which are designed to produce a pleasing tonal curve when used above their true sensitivity. It also makes base fog more apparent.

Why don't people with digital cameras underexpose by 3 stops and bring it back up in post? You can try that experiment and compare it to a properly exposed image, noting what differences you find in the histogram, and which is more pleasing to the eye subjectively. It's not exactly the same as film but there are a lot of parallels.

I actually just shot some Delta 100 processed in Rodinal that had way too much shadow detail. The development recipe was for the box speed that I shot it at, though. I applied a lot of darkness to the first 1/2 of the histogram to get it to look decent. If you have shadow detail to begin with, you can choose later on how much of it you want to use. If you don't have any, but find you need some, you're out of luck - go reshoot.

 

[Don_ih]

They do it due to ignorance.

Why bother to say that? What do you know about what they know? If I decide to take TriX and overdevelop because I want the grain clumpy and the contrast higher, because I want those qualities in my print, who are you to say that I am ignorant?

Yes, you can take a perfectly exposed and developed negative and get almost the same print, but not always directly. Sometimes, you can't get that much contrast boost from the paper.

 

[ic-racer]

Underexposed negatives? They are an avoidable pain to print.

Why create misery for oneself, unless there are special circumstances at the time of negative exposure.

 

[miha]

I'm curious about why some people don't like the look of pushed film.

To illustrate my point, consider the works of Daido Moriyama or Trent Parke.

 

[MattKing]

If I decide to take TriX and overdevelop because I want the grain clumpy and the contrast higher, because I want those qualities in my print, who are you to say that I am ignorant?

Technically, over-development alone isn't "pushing", it is "expansion development" - you don't need to under-expose most films in most circumstances in order to get your clumpy grain and higher contrast.
Under some circumstances, of course, if one wishes to employ expansion development it is necessary to reduce the exposure as well, if the subject luminance range is large, and both high contrast and retention of highlight detail are important.
I expect though most people are using push development to try to salvage photos taken in low light, and use the term then.

 

[cerber0s]

I’ll happily underexpose and over-develop if the alternative is not to take any photos at all.

I’ve shot HP5 at 3200 with good results. Heck, I made a whole thread about shooting HP5 at 6400. That was a fun one…

 

[koraks]

Most people would argue full tonality is an aesthetic consideration, more than a technical one.

I agree, but "full tonality" in the print doesn't impose any demands on where the black point is. Whether you want to lop off the shadows in the dark corner of the street into black nothingness or whether you want it to meander through zones I-III is indeed a personal choice - and it will also allow one photographer to shoot the scene at 1/60 @ f/8 while another needs to shoot it at 1/15th. Which will come out 'best'?

 

[Don_ih]

Technically, over-development alone isn't "pushing"

I was talking about increasing contrast in that post, as an example, not specifically about pushing.

"full tonality" in the print doesn't impose any demands on where the black point is.

No - that is an aesthetic consideration. You execute it technically. If you're getting what you want, you're getting what you want (i.e., success).

 

[Chan Tran]

Back in the days I had to sometimes push film because either that or no photos but I was never like the result. I don't like the grain. Today when I shoot film I use the low speed film and never push. If I need speed there is digital.

 

[Paul Howell]

When in college in the 60s working part time as freelancer for local papers I pushed a lot of film. TriX to 600 and 800 was common. Working in poor lighting, at night, under lights, flashes were often too weak. My motto was expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall were they may. The highlight was the main subject of shot. Some editors liked the gritty look of pushed film and had the darkroom burn a print around the edges to emphasize the subject. Working for the wires we pushed when needed. I also used Diafine and Acufine, with Diafine TriX at 2400.

In terms of aesthetic, Ansel Adams disliked dark shadows he wanted open shadows with details. He made a print of an older woman in a sunroom in Utah, TriX, there is bight patch of sunlight zone VIII or maybe even IX, no details. He stated he would have a blocked highlight rather than a zone II shadow. Andre Feininger who was commercial photographer and photojournalist who worked for Life dislike Adams' approach and felt that dark shadows can give drama to an image. In Light and Lighting page 34 he provides an example of a cityscape in which shadow makes the print dramatic.

So, some do, some don't, one size does not fit all.

 

[pentaxuser]

In terms of aesthetic, Ansel Adams disliked dark shadows he wanted open shadows with details. He made a print of an older woman in a sunroom in Utah, TriX, there is bight patch of sunlight zone VIII or maybe even IX, no details. He stated he would have a blocked highlight rather than a zone II shadow.

Is that entirely true of AA's philosophy? In another thread I think on AA or concerning him a lot there is a picture of him with 3 versions of Moonlight, Hernandez. As I said in that thread I wasn't there but from the way he describes the scene on of the pics certainly seems to have quite open shadows and yet the print he is famous for has much less open shadows and higher contrast

So even he doesn't appear favour open shadows all the time

My point isn't to try nitpick what may be what he did with shadows most of the time but to say that some photographers likes or dislikes with regard to shadows or other aspects of exposing negatives can vary with what they believe represents the best shot "artistically"

pentaxuser

 

[Pioneer]

So, some do, some don't, one size does not fit all.

Yep. I always thought it was about the picture I wanted to get, not the one you thought I should get. Unless you are my wife you don't get an opinion.

 

[cliveh]

Never push, never pull, box speed is never dull.

 

[Don_ih]

Clive wins. He has more demonstrative examples than anyone else.

 

[retina_restoration]

To illustrate my point, consider the works of Daido Moriyama or Trent Parke.

It's always going to be like this - either people like that kind of aesthetic, or they hate it. You ask us why some people dislike the look of pushed film and point to Daido Moriyama as a style you like. There's no point in asking people to justify their likes and dislikes when it comes to style and aesthetics.
I believe that if the style you apply to your work enhances the look and contributes to the message and the visual vocabulary you want to craft, then it's a viable choice. If you apply an aesthetic to your work without purpose, then you're just mimicking other people's visual vocabulary, without purpose.

 

[miha]

It's always going to be like this - either people like that kind of aesthetic, or they hate it. You ask us why some people dislike the look of pushed film and point to Daido Moriyama as a style you like.

I don’t necessarily like his style, but I’m curious why some people are critical of pushing the film and associate it with a younger, less experienced crowd.

 

[miha]

Clive wins. He has more demonstrative examples than anyone else.

Hard to refute!