Why the mixed views on pushed film?

[MattKing]

The technique - pushed film - often forces one into the aesthetic.
But most or all of the aesthetic is generally available using printing or post-processing techniques, if one has at hand normally exposed and developed film.
So is the question a philosophical one - is there and advantage to forcing oneself into the aesthetic by intentionally under-exposing film when it is not necessary?

 

[MattKing]

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.

I associate under-exposure and excess contrast with less experienced photographers because I've observed that tendency in less experienced photographers for decades - from long before the advent of digital.
They are far from universal characteristics, but I think less experienced photographers are often overly optimistic about the results available with low light, and motivated more by that which is dramatic in the print or screen than that which is subtle.
I expect the demands of trying to stand out on the internet reinforces that desire for drama.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

I'm not associating the practice with any age group (though it has been said before that those who chase this aesthetic do so out of inexperience and naivety, so that supposition may actually have some basis in fact - I don't know and don't care).

If there's a criticism to be made of this exposure/development technique, it's that it locks you into ONE way of interpreting the resulting negatives, with little (if any) wiggle room to render the result any other way but "graphic/editorial". After 50 years of working with film, I have come to believe that it's useful for me to create negatives that allow me the most leeway to interpret the image in as many ways as possible, should I change my mind after months (or years) about how it should look.

 

[miha]

Below I'm sharing two examples of pushed film: the first for aesthetic reasons (a scan of a print), and the second out of necessity (a film scan). Does anyone object to them solely because of the lack of shadow?

 

[Don_ih]

Below I'm sharing two examples of pushed film:

Your first example does not look pushed.
Your second example does.
In your first example, there is no loss of detail anywhere that matters - so it kinda looks like it was exposed properly. I'd not guess it was pushed.

 

[warden]

For me pushing is just a matter of convenience, like when I have only 400 speed film and I'll be using it indoors in the evening without a flash. rate the exposure at 1600 for handholding and adjust development to get the mid-tones and highlights, and hope the lack of shadow detail doesn't look weird. Usually it looks a-ok.

 

[Chan Tran]

Below I'm sharing two examples of pushed film: the first for aesthetic reasons (a scan of a print), and the second out of necessity (a film scan). Does anyone object to them solely because of the lack of shadow?

View attachment 378386

View attachment 378387

The second example is the kind of photo I now use digital for.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Pushing film is a tool—one of many—to get the result you need, and/or the result you want.

You're shooting musicians in a jazz bar, you push film because it's how you get the result you need. There isn't a single photojournalist, from Gene Smith and HCB on, who hasn't done it.

You're Daido Moriyama, you push film because it's how you get the result you want. There are many photographers who do it intentionally for that reason.

To not understand this and judge the photograph by the "look" instead of the result—two very different things!—is to be either ignorant or, as Don aptly put it, dogmatic.

 

[MattKing]

I would suggest though that it isn't useful to categorize or judge a photo because of a chosen technique.
Outside of something like the Edgerton motion studies, where the technique revealed so much that was otherwise hidden.

 

[pentaxuser]

miha, you asked what to me seemed like a straight forward question in #29 and a straightforward answer from me without needing to comment on or describe what you actually did(in fact you have told us what you did) is No I don't object to either

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

Below I'm sharing two examples of pushed film: the first for aesthetic reasons (a scan of a print), and the second out of necessity (a film scan). Does anyone object to them solely because of the lack of shadow?

View attachment 378386

View attachment 378387

No, but I'm starting to object to your insistence that for some reason, we come to the same conclusions as you.
We all choose how we make our art. A photographers technical choices shouldn't matter to anyone but the photographer making those choices. Either you like the photograph, or you don't - either it works, or it doesn't. Whether or not the photographer "pushed" his/her film is completely irrelevant.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

miha, you asked what to me seemed like a straight forward question in #29 and a straightforward answer from me without needing to comment on or describe what you actually did(in fact you have told us what you did) is No I don't object to either

+1

Either you like the photograph, or you don't - either it works, or it doesn't. Whether or not the photographer "pushed" his/her film is completely irrelevant.

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is a matter of taste and background; what is acceptable for one may not be acceptable to someone else. We are not required to agree with each other on the outcome of pushed film.

 

[rcphoto]

I take photographs for my enjoyment. I Liked pushing PX when it was available.

 

[ic-racer]

Shadow detail can be removed in the printing process.

 

[MattKing]

Most people are unaware of the 1st part of your statement, which invalidates the 2nd. It's not a philosophical question, it's about education. 99% of people who push film do this due to ignorance. When I say "people" I mean people online, because that's the scope defined by the OP. They use labs. They have zero control over their results, but they want to experiment. Youtube tells them to "push film by turning the ISO dial". They think that dial is contrast control. There's nothing philosophical about it. Pushing is what happens when someone doesn't read and doesn't think. It belongs to the same category of behaviors as eating Tide packets.

While you may very well be statistically correct about the percentages, I'm very uncomfortable with using a moderately common - and quite likely currently more common - misuse and misunderstanding of a term to re-define that term.
Using a "push" development intentionally, and for well defined purposes and to satisfy well understood needs, has decades and decades of history in both the still film and motion picture worlds.
I'd rather put my efforts into the education side.
And I do believe that for the many who understand what "pushing" film actually means, the choice can indeed be a philosophical one.

 

[Steven Lee]

@MattKing I was only trying to answer the OP's question. The reason there are "mixed views" is because vast majority of "pushing" is pointless butchering of perfectly good film due to ignorance. If you subtract the morons, there are no "mixed views", it's just a technique with use cases, like any other.

 

[MattKing]

@Steven Lee 's observations are interesting to me.
For various reasons, I interpreted @miha 's original question as coming from the perspective of someone who had informed knowledge about what was involved in "pushing". And I also took the enquiry as being in relation to more informed and experienced "views" - "views" that may very well be long outstanding..
But I take it that others interpret the question as being about very current opinions from newer photographers, and reflect current tendencies to confuse simple under-exposure with the more accurate and traditional meaning of "pushing".
Perhaps @miha could clarify the question?

 

[Steven Lee]

Maybe I spend way too much time on Instagram and Reddit?

 

[MattKing]

Maybe I spend way too much time on Instagram and Reddit?

The first step is to acknowledge the problem .
I work very hard to keep all of that severely compartmentalized. Mostly, I only go there when referred to specific posts, and my refusal to register on most social media helps me avoid most of it.
But I acknowledge that this form of self-limiting has downsides as well.

 

[AnselMortensen]

There are "mixed views" about all sorts of photography-related topics:

Film vs. D*****l.
Stand development.
Monobath development.
Use of stop bath.
Wetting agent vs. dish soap.
Caffenol.
"What is the best _________".


Push-processing is just another one.

 

[brbo]

I must say I never detected the "hate for pushed look".

Or maybe I did? Since everybody (ok, not everybody, but @Steven Lee will provide us with the exact percentage) will now tell you that film looks best at half the box speed and that is almost the opposite of pushing so there is an implicit hate for pushed look...

 

[Don_ih]

I must say I never detected the "hate for pushed look".

It's mostly the hate of black, empty shadows and clumpy grain.

The love of it can be found in such things as the marketing of Aviphot 200 at iso320.

And a lot of "the film look" lots of people love so much seems to be derived from exposure and development "mistakes" (they're not mistakes if you mean to do them).

 

[koraks]

The love of it can be found in such things as the marketing of Aviphot 200 at iso320.

I always get a little giddy whenever people praise the "deep velvety blacks" that film X gives them.

 

[retina_restoration]

I will freely admit that some of the finest editorial photographs have been made from underexposed/overdeveloped negatives, produced under extremely challenging conditions (W. Eugene Smith's photo from the 1971 Minamata series, "Tomoko Uemura in her Bath" immediately comes to mind), but intentionally underexposing film and overdeveloping it by "pushing" film to the limits of its ability, just for the sake of emulating this hard editorial style of imagery seems like the perfect way to torture yourself, crafting difficult negatives that require extraordinary effort to squeeze a usable image out of.
You can always apply post processing/printing techniques to create a similar look, using well exposed negatives that have not been compromised by overdevelopment. Intentionally creating poor negatives to obtain the effect is self-defeating, for no good reason. You can print a good negative to deliver "deep velvety blacks" (was there ever a better term to put joyful spin on a shitty negative with no shadow information??) without locking yourself in to a single, narrow aesthetic.

So, in asking "Why the mixed views on pushed film?", do the responses satisfy you?