Do you routinely push? TOP on pushing...

[email protected] said:
i used to push but i don't do it anymore. now i try to get a rich negative. overexposure and over development is still a problem though.
Click to expand...

Are you scanning or wet printing? I ask because I'm finding that wet printing with a Durst diffusion printer I like a fairly dense negative, and can control the highlights pretty well. With scanning the highlights seem to blow out more easily.
 
He seems very dogmatic - which can be an even bigger problem than pushing film. I say let the 'newbies' do as they care and they'll find their own way through this labyrinth that is photography. And probably learn from it in a specific way to them.

I've been pushing lately and been getting better results. I also like long depth of field, so this helps.

I'm still trying to work out why this pushing helps, but isn't that part of the fun.
 
I push only when I need the speed, not as a matter of course. I generally shoot Tri-X at 320 when there is enough light. When I push, I usually push only moderately, say about 640 or 800 for Tri-X; and then develop in a speed increase developer like T-Max, Microphen, or DD-X.
 
From time to time, yes. Normally I expose Tri-X at 250 or 400, but I've pushed it a stop or two with results that please me. And as was said and demonstrated with images in the TOP responses, pushing, even with poor technique, is better than not trying to capture the image.

Carrying a digicam (for dimly lit images) along with the film camera (for normal light) seems silly to me because the results will be so different that it wouldn't be possible to collect the images as a series. I'd rather use all digital or all film.

Every film photographer starts from somewhere, takes poor quality images, develops them badly, and prints them incompetently. So what? Eventually we all learn and grow. Insisting that everyone should stop pushing film is like insisting everyone use a tripod, which is also nonsense.
 
I push on a regular basis. I actually really like HP5 in HC-110 @800. I also go further, and I pushed HP5 to 3200 although I can't remember what developer. I'm running a test with Delta 400 @3200 and I am going to develop it in microphin. I'll see how it goes.

If I shoot color or xp2, I tend to expose properly and use a flash. To each their own. It isn't about making an image that suites others. It's about making an image that suites yourself.
 
I normally push in order to pick up some contrast such as on overcast days (which we get alot of where I live) or indoors under flat lighting. However sometimes the unexpected happens and it seems to work out. I saw a good brightly lit shot, but my camera was loaded with HP5@1600 which I had been shooting indoors with. The unplanned for definitely helped the image.

U34890I1284149400.SEQ.0.jpg
 
My dslr is to big for me to lug around and I have no other digital camera. Been shooting delta 400 @ 800 and with very careful agitation trying to get something out of it in rodinal. It isn't perfect but I kind of like the look.

However. I prefer the unpushed look.
 
I pull more often than I push, but I do frequently shoot Tri-X at 800 and Plus-X at 320 and develop in Diafine. Strictly speaking, that's not pushing the film speed, b/c of the way Diafine works, but it has the same result.
 
ChrisN said:
Are you scanning or wet printing? I ask because I'm finding that wet printing with a Durst diffusion printer I like a fairly dense negative, and can control the highlights pretty well. With scanning the highlights seem to blow out more easily.
Click to expand...

Sure... For wet printing, I like dense negatives too: That's why my development times are a bit longer than usual... I prefer having deep (pure) black in the base+fog (on paper) AND pure whites when things were white in the scene... And yes, scanners can't handle well -in general- those dense negatives, because they see pure white too soon... But wet printing can handle a much wider, more separated tonal range: even if negatives are a bit high in contrast, by adding more enlarger time we get deep blacks, and highlights are beautifully detailed while the print looks rich and wide in tone...

With filters there's room for great prints even with far from perfect negatives... And if negatives are close to perfect, those are easy to print and can also be used for different "interpretations" while printing, all of them great and with different contrast and tonal range... Ansel Adams used to say negatives are just like scripts, but the images -the music- is what we decide to play "on paper"...

I find wet printing is a great tool: sometimes digital files don't accept a big amount of processing, especially those from high ISO shooting because of the noise and how it is affected by digital manipulation... High ISO negatives (and their big or medium grain) accept lots of darkroom work and remain showing clean, beautiful grain... The blacks extreme -with scanning- can be a pain sometimes too, when there's visible grain in the dark zones but the scanner tends to see there just grays too far from blacks, so to make them black digitally, the grain suffers...

A cool thing is scanning a good wet print...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan posts on printing and I find myself in complete and total agreement with him... did the sun rise in the east today??? ;-)

More seriously, I routinely rate TMY2 and Neopan 400 at EI800, developing in XTOL (which is a relatively "fast" developer). Like Fawley, I live in the PNW and as he says, we often have very flat light so the higher contrast can actually work to our advantage. And in the winter it's usually pretty dark. In good light I shoot ACROS at 80 or 100.
 
the reason I would push is merely to be able to shoot in low light at higher speeds. but I shoot with Superia 800 or New Portra 400 rated at 800 (no push), and it's enough for streets at night.

also, the lab where I develop+scan doesn't push, I'd have to take to another lab to push develop and then bring to the other lab to scan, which is quite a PITA.
 
I pushed my film, somewhat inadvertently, because I noticed I just liked my negs better when I added 20% or so development time...more contrasty, better blacks and easier to print.

Then winter came and I realized I was tired of shooting at 30th or 60th so I upped my 400 B&W to EI-800...still have negs that are good to print and the contrast I want.

Pushing, as was mentioned, is great if done right and for reasons the photographer understands. A stop or two, with black and white film (with its inherent latitude) is not going to be a calamity.
 
That Bobby Kennedy on the floor print is pretty darn good looking at the negative.

I think there is a big difference in pushing when working in 'full' light and pushing working in 'no' light. Pushing is a tool, just as pulling is for controlling contrast, grain and tonality. I push HP5 to 800 very often, and will use an ND filter to do so sometimes. I push HP5+ for the grain, and when developed carefully it certainly does not look like that example.

5707-2A.jpg

HP5+ at 800 in Rodinal 1:25 (nice "beefy" grain)

Other than that I tend to shoot at box speed or pull. I pull PanF, Adox/Efke 25, Double-X, Neopan 1600 and the Rollei Ortho film. I only shoot HP5, FP4 and the Adox/Efke 100 at box speed. I find that eliminating all but a single inversion per minute for all the added time of the push works best for me. Depending on the subject I'll sometimes reduce agitation even more.

I also prefer a somewhat denser than 'normal' negative for printing with my LPL VC diffusion enlarger and use longer than 'normal' times based on the Massive Development Chart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top