Film speed rating question???

steve garza

Well-known
Local time
2:36 PM
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
418
I've noticed some photogs like to take a high speed film and rate it at lower speed. Why not just use a lower speed film? I've wondered what generally is the effect and how developing should be adjusted. Any enlightenment is greatly appreciated.
 
Film manufacturers like to tell us their film is ISO100 or ISO400 or whatever. This can be marketing spin and the film may actually be ISO64 or ISO320, so we sometimes rate it at the true speed not the box speed.
 
It's refered to as "pulling" a film (reducing the rated speed) as opposed to "pushing" a film (increasing the rated speed).

Bob
 
General rule--use a film speed that results in a density of 0.1 above film base plus fog for an exposure at zone 1 (4 stops below average reading). Use a development time that will give a nearly-white value on the print for an exposure at zone 9 (4 stops above average reading).
 
I have a camera loaded w/ fuji neopan 400 right now.....any suggestions on pulling the speed and development time? I'm curious to try this.
 
The ISO rating of a film indicates its sensitivity in a standardized testing procedure, and of course the agreed standardized development. Especially for traditional black and white films, the true speed varies somewhat with the choice of developer, as there are so many more available developers with quite different characteristics. That's why both the film and developer chemistry suppliers supply instructions with suggested developer concentrations, times, and temperatures also specifying effective film speeds that may vary from the ISO rating.

Beyond that, somewhat, is the photographer's own choice of film speed and processing to suit his individual preferences, and these may vary according to the lighting and subject. Ansel Adams's books on this are a standard reference... Pulling and Pushing are processing variations done in coordination with deliberate variations in exposure.
 
When "pushing" film, yes, you would have to increase the development time. The reason being, you are, in effect under-exposing the film. In the reverse case, they might not alter the development time, since they are saying the film is not as fast as advertised.

Pop Photo columnist Tim Fitzharris seems to regularly shoot Velvia 50 at ISO 40. This may be his preference, as I know of no scientific data or other peoples' comments that verify the change. Or maybe other people just don't say so!!

Color print film has a tendency to 'like' over-exposure. Generally, a full stop extra is within what the film can handle. In other words, cut the ISO in half.

Back in the days of predominantly black & white, there was a "rule of thumb" to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. This usually meant over-exposing, then under-developing. But b/w film is a different animal than color, especially slide film, so you have to watch that you don't go so far as to affect color rendition. Those who have their film done at labs can usually give instructions for development according to altered ISO.
 
dll927 said:
Color print film has a tendency to 'like' over-exposure. Generally, a full stop extra is within what the film can handle. In other words, cut the ISO in half.

I've noticed that many "store" brands work much better that way, and the negs are underexposed when rated at their labelled ISO. If using colour print now I only use one particular brand (Fuji) as it works well for me. (Or possibly works well with the minilab chems ?)
 
I pull Tri-X to 200 sometimes, reason being that I've always got lots of Tri-X in the fridge but don't always have any slower rated film. Having said that, I've currently got large stocks of Pan F and some Fuji Acros, just waiting for the light to improve (it's been dull and overcast here for a couple of weeks).

Ian
 
Back
Top Bottom