Why the mixed views on pushed film?

[Doremus Scudder]

It seems to me that many beginning film photographers who come from digital photography don't (at least at first) understand the say film works. Some think that they can adjust the ISO of the film by simply choosing a different setting on the dial, not realizing that film speed doesn't work like that. Some think that "pushing" equates to underexposing without realizing that a development compensation has to be made as well. Etc., etc.

Pushing, as I understand it, is underexposing your film and sacrificing the shadow detail intentionally, for whatever purpose, practical or aesthetic, and then developing appropriately longer to get the mid-tones and highlights to a point where they will print more easily. This stretches the tonal range and has a characteristic look that many like.

Underexposing without the accompanying development compensation is not pushing, just simply underexposing. Nothing has been done to make the resulting negative easier to print. Prints from such negatives are often (if not usually) unsatisfactory.

Exposing enough for the shadow detail you desire and developing to achieve a range of tones in the negative that print easily on an intermediate contrast grade of paper is the Zone System mantra. Note, however, that this does not exclude "pushing," if that is the look you desire. (It also includes all that other stuff about N+, N-, fully-detailed shadows, etc.)

Expecting to get good results without knowing how to achieve them and blindly misunderstanding the capabilities and limitation of the film-photographic medium is an exercise in futility. We should really distinguish between this type of "pushing" (i.e., done in ignorance of what's actually going on) and the type of pushing experienced photographers do either out of necessity or for aesthetic reasons.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Sirius Glass]

When discussing the common misuse of pushing film, those people have expectations of "pushed film" which does not exist. I do not know where this feature comes from, but probably it is wholly imagined.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ho hum. Here we go again. I think a lot of webbish jargon is off the mark. People speak of "pushing" film in various unrelated ways. But it generally implies underexposure, whether deliberate or accidental, and then some means to try and salvage the shot in a meaningful manner. As long as one knows their medium they can intelligently "break the rules" any direction they want. A good craftsman knows how to use their tools. Therefore there is NO DISCREPANCY between thoughtful technique and desired esthetic outcome. Otherwise, you're just rolling the dice and depending on luck.

A high contrast print with bold blacks is not necessarily a "pushed" one. There are numerous ways to do that in the darkroom. If you have digital methods in mind, please explain them on another section of the forum instead. There have even been previous threads trying to untangle where this term, "push" came from. I remember it in relation to an optional lab tweak for sake of underexposed color film processing. Therefore, if you mean, "overdevelop", just say so, and avoid all the "push" terminological ambiguity.

"Pushing" lingo seems to have particularly caught on with this newer generation of film shooters who don't develop even their own b&w film, but consign it to automated labs. There's nothing wrong with doing it that way if it's more realistic for you. But the term "push" itself potentially becomes ambiguous in relation to other methods.

I've done plenty of deliberately underexposed and overdeveloped shots. I've also counterintuitively done overexposed and overdeveloped images, then tailored the result through supplemental masking. Less often do it make overexposed, underdeveloped negatives, ala Zone System "minus" development. But it's all fair game. As far as I'm concerned, the more tools you have in your tool box, the better. Just try to label and describe them a little more specifically.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I still have these from The New Lab (SF), c. 1990.
I'm ready for when they decide to go back in business.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No wonder they went out of business - they got tired of everyone pushing them around. Push/shove, push/shove, "wait your place in the line".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

Pushing film means tricking it into believing it is of higher sensitivity, thereby underexposing the film and trying to compensate for the resulting loss of shadow detail by overdevelopment. Understanding the basics of sensitometry and development shows that this does not work. If there wasn't enough exposure to begin with, extending development cannot create sufficient density in the negative, and overrating film sensitivity is doomed for failure. Underrating the film by 1/3 stop followed by normal development is typically the better approach. This gives sufficient exposure to the shadows and develops into clear shadow detail. pushing film is wishful thinking.

 

[cerber0s]

pushing film is wishful thinking

Sometimes it’s also the alternative to not photographing at all that day (or night probably).

 

[Don_ih]

Pushing film means tricking it into believing it is of higher sensitivity, thereby underexposing the film and trying to compensate for the resulting loss of shadow detail by overdevelopment.

That's generally not the goal of pushing film. You push film to get a sufficiently high shutter speed to capture the midtones and higher without motion blur. You are not trying to capture the shadows - you're dropping them - they fall into the oblivion below the film's sensitivity. The midtones take their place, essentially, which would make for very thin film if developed normally, so you overdevelop to add density to whatever it is you got.

It's not compensating for loss of shadow detail. The shadows are disregarded completely. It makes that lovely velvety black.... And a crappy negative.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

That's generally not the goal of pushing film. You push film to get a sufficiently high shutter speed to capture the midtones and higher without motion blur. You are not trying to capture the shadows - you're dropping them - they fall into the oblivion below the film's sensitivity. The midtones take their place, essentially, which would make for very thin film if developed normally, so you overdevelop to add density to whatever it is you got.

It's not compensating for loss of shadow detail. The shadows are disregarded completely. It makes that lovely velvety black.... And a crappy negative.

This sums it up nicely. There's no loss of shadow detail if there is no expectation of, or desire for, shadow detail—and unless I missed a memo, presence of shadow detail is not a prerequisite for realizing a great photograph.

I wouldn't say it give crappy negatives, though. They are challenging, and force you to be creative with solutions, but that's not crappy. The danger when pushing is always blown highlights—happens a lot in concert photography when no flash is allowed. Special care must be given at the development stage.

 

[Don_ih]

I wouldn't say it give crappy negatives, though.

It's a matter of degrees, like with everything. In general, though, the more you push, the worse the negative. As a negative gets closer to lithographic-levels of contrast, it limits the things you can do with it when enlarging. But the image itself might be great - might be just what you want. But the negative is less than ideal (i.e., crappy). The point, however, in instances where film routinely gets pushed, is the ideal negative was probably impossible.

 

[miha]

This sums it up nicely. There's no loss of shadow detail if there is no expectation of, or desire for, shadow detail—and unless I missed a memo, presence of shadow detail is not a prerequisite for realizing a great photograph.

Totally!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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)

Just to be clear about this, so that people don't get the wrong idea, Gene Smith did not push the film for this photo. Here's what he stated: "The photograph of Tomoko in the bath from the Minamata story represents another one of those impossible lighting situations. There was high windows almost the length of the picture. If I had used only the light that was entering the room, I would have had no shadow detail on the near side of the mother's body at all. In this photograph I also happened to use a small, battery-operated strobe, this time bounced off a fairly clean brown ceiling instead of a dirty brown floor."

This is from Darkroom, vol. 1 (Lustrum Press). The "dirty brown floor" is a reference to the Albert Scheitzer photograph he discussed right before the Minamata one.

 

[warden]

The point, however, in instances where film routinely gets pushed, is the ideal negative was probably impossible.

exactly. You push when it’s The best thing that you can do with the conditions you have, and the film in the camera.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have pushed a lot of film, 100s of rolls, never out of choice, it was pragmatic, get the shot. In the mid 70s I got an assignment from the San Francisco Chronicle to shoot in "modeling studios" posing as brothels. I got the assignment as the editor did not a staff photographer could be recognized. Some of the fronts were actually well lite, could use flash, others not so much. The worse only had a 75 watt bulb, no flash. To get the shot I used Trix at 3200,a very small room, my 50 1.4 was too tight had to use a 28 3.5. I developed this roll in Rodinal 1:25, according to my daybook 30 mintec. None of the "models" would sign a model release, the story did not run, the papers attorneys put a stop on it. I got some decent shots just by accident. But it would never be my first choice. The scan is bit darker than the print which printed on Kodak Medalist SW grade 2, developed in GAF Versaldaol 1:3.

 

[Don_ih]

Excellent photo, Paul - the expression in the eyes really says a lot.

 

[cliveh]

I have pushed a lot of film, 100s of rolls, never out of choice, it was pragmatic, get the shot. In the mid 70s I got an assignment from the San Francisco Chronicle to shoot in "modeling studios" posing as brothels. I got the assignment as the editor did not a staff photographer could be recognized. Some of the fronts were actually well lite, could use flash, others not so much. The worse only had a 75 watt bulb, no flash. To get the shot I used Trix at 3200,a very small room, my 50 1.4 was too tight had to use a 28 3.5. I developed this roll in Rodinal 1:25, according to my daybook 30 mintec. None of the "models" would sign a model release, the story did not run, the papers attorneys put a stop on it. I got some decent shots just by accident. But it would never be my first choice. The scan is bit darker than the print which printed on Kodak Medalist SW grade 2, developed in GAF Versaldaol 1:3.

It would be interesting to see the same photo shot at box speed and thereafter manipulated to obtain the same image.

 

[Paul Howell]

Well, Trix at 400, one main light, as room light was 75 watts, then a 300 watt, no reflector, develop in DK 50 or Rodinal 1:50 at standard speed. burn in the edges. Bleach the eyes?

 

[Agulliver]

For me, I'd been shooting film for some years before I even heard of pushing and pulling. It wasn't something that the people who taught me basic darkroom developing and printing techniques ever mentioned. I learned about it later from a book. It's a tool. And anyone can choose to use it or not, and to like the results or not.

I mostly use this particular tool in low light conditions where I prefer it to using a flash, or where a flash is not possible. For me, that often means my local jazz/blues club. You can argue amongst yourselves as to whether you *like* these or find them technically proficient but achieving these photos meant shooting 400 ISO under exposed two stops and pushing for 1600 in development.

I have the choice of using delta 3200 or TMZ but I personally prefer pushing HP5 or similar, and it's a LOT cheaper for me and realistically the only way I can do it.

 

[Agulliver]

It seems to me that many beginning film photographers who come from digital photography don't (at least at first) understand the say film works. Some think that they can adjust the ISO of the film by simply choosing a different setting on the dial, not realizing that film speed doesn't work like that. Some think that "pushing" equates to underexposing without realizing that a development compensation has to be made as well. Etc., etc.

I do feel that a lot of people coming from digital photography have become used to what some of us might consider impossibly fast shutter speeds and hyper-ISO. I know quite a lot of people who will whack the ISO on their phone or digital camera up to 800 or higher in daylight to get fast shutter speeds. And some of these same people cannot comprehend hand holding a shot even at 1/100 second. I've even heard and read phrases like "photographing high speed sports is impossible under 6400ISO"

Now when it comes to film, there are people who learned on equipment which offers the luxury of high ISO and high shutter speeds and that is what they are used to. Some may well choose to "push" film because they do not yet trust themselves to hand hold shots with traditional shutter speeds.

I accept that not everyone has the steady hands I do, where I've been known to hand hold at 1/2 second or without any trace of movement and I typically like 1/30 second when photographing people or landscapes. But in days gone by it was not at all uncommon for the simplest of cameras to offer shutter speeds around 1/60 second

I think that some pushing is done because people coming off digital photography are just used to higher shutter speeds than most of us. The one time I wanted high shutter speeds in daylight for photographing a jousting tournament, I used TMZ. Which was the tool I chose to use that day rather than pushing HP5.

 

[rippa_the_hutt]

I guess that basically all the criticisms push processing magnetize ultimately boil down to the misconception inexperienced photographers have about the ASA dial on film cameras, ie: that it magically makes their film behave like the digital sensor with increased gain LNAs (albeit "low noise amplifier" is often a wishful thinking name from and above ISO 3200, and whereas film grain's appearance might be debatable digital noise is just downright ugly).
I don't think that push processing is bound to produce technically poor negatives. It does so when push processing is employed as a means to get the shot (and in such cases I still think that the product, as already mentioned for the photojournalism case, has a very strong impact and can be pictorially sound if properly handled) but in general, if faced with a low contrast situation, N+1 development accompanied by a slight decrease in exposure will boost the film's gamma just enough so that I can produce an image ranging from III to VII even though the scene only sported a III-VI contrast. The resulting negative is technically valid and can be printed "chalky" or "strong" with the usual contrast control.