Is it OK pushing black and white film for wet printing?

Is it OK pushing black and white film for wet printing?

  • Pushing is a good option, you get faster speed and great quality too...

    Votes: 29 87.9%

  • Pushing sucks, you don't really gain speed and you lose a lot of image quality...

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Total voters
    33
Roughly 90% of wet prints I made in 2009 & 2010 are pushed 2 stops because it fits my shooting style, and I end up with photos I like with pushed film. And I like the look of it when I print, too.
 
Only if you need it. If the situation calls for it, for instance in dim light shooting or when there's no fast film available. Otherwise, it's best to stick with the official speed and normal processing.

Not all films push well though. ISO 100's don't push as well as the ISO 400's.
 
I prefer shadow detail to pushing. I prefer a tripod to pushing, I prefer faster film to pushing. Pushing does not work because it does not put more shadow detail on the film, only exposure does that.

All pushing does is raise contrast on the meager image that does exist.

Now a pull process is simply grand. Overexpose to box speed 1 stop and cut time 20%.
 
Ronald M said:
... All pushing does is raise contrast ...
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is for! In addition to making the dark parts of the image more dense, it also increases the overall contrast. With large format film, controlling contrast with different development times is standard. With roll film such as 35mm or 120, it is usually to shoot as a faster shutter speed, but the contrast still increases.
 
I can't vote in the poll, because neither answer is correct.

Course pushing does not alter film speed. Let's say you have nice directional light with soft shadows—this is what I call "normal." And for this I rate my film with a general, averaging meter at what I have found gives good shadow detail (if that's what I want), and develop accordingly.

Now say the light is very diffuse with overcast sky, and because of this there are no shadows. For this, I will rate my film as if it were one stop faster, and develop approximately 33 percent longer. This gives a nice photo with good contrast. If I had rated the ei normal, I would have a very flat negative, in some cases too flat to compensate for.

If you were reading shadow detail in both situations with a spotmeter and exposing as if the film had one speed, which it does in any given developer, the exposures and development schedules would be just as described above.

Two more common lighting situations at the further ends of the spectrum, super-flat light, and high contrast, both benefit from specific exposure and development.
 
Pushing is underexposing and overdeveloping. Shadow detail cannot be recovered in development. It was certainly a popular way to shoot film and has its own signature. If you like the look, then pushing is fine. If you don't, then it isn't.
 
jmcd,

As you say, I expose at different ISO values and develop them differently according to the scene's contrast. I expose Tri-X 400 at 250 under direct sun for clean shadows and controlled highlights with a short development, and at 640 in overcast or shadows to bring dull contrast to a more normal scene range on negative.

But that's far from believing it's possible to "rate" a 400 film at 1600 or 3200 and then print it with a good image quality in shadows and midtones.

I think the two available options are enough to reflect a position.

Cheers,

Juan
 
"As you say, I expose at different ISO values and develop them differently according to the scene's contrast. I expose Tri-X 400 at 250 under direct sun for clean shadows and controlled highlights with a short development, and at 640 in overcast or shadows to bring dull contrast to a more normal scene range on negative."

This is a helpful distinction and a powerful tool.


As for film speed increase, with HP5+ in Xtol I get almost double the film speed that I do with D-76. But for me the overall look is much more important than film speed.
 
jmcd said:
"As you say, I expose at different ISO values and develop them differently according to the scene's contrast. I expose Tri-X 400 at 250 under direct sun for clean shadows and controlled highlights with a short development, and at 640 in overcast or shadows to bring dull contrast to a more normal scene range on negative."

This is a helpful distinction and a powerful tool.


As for film speed increase, with HP5+ in Xtol I get almost double the film speed that I do with D-76. But for me the overall look is much more important than film speed.
Click to expand...

Totally agree! More than one stop pushing is not my best option either. I guess there are lots of people scanning and that's why there are so many posts talking about wild pushing... The last combo I tested this week, was TMax400 with TMax Dev., and although I was expecting great news, I found the same as always... Above 800, image suffers drastically. I prefer to respect film and give it the light it needs, even shooting at slower speeds.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Sometimes the only way to get an image that isn't a mess of movement blur and camera shake is to shoot at a shutter speed that will under-expose the film. Since the film hasn't captured much, if you develop normally there will be no range of tones, simply thin negatives. If you process for longer, you get something you can actually use. And in most cases it is generally quite nice.

Whether or not this *actually* increases the speed of the film is moot. It's simply a useful way to think about it.
 
With careful processing in an appropriate developer pushing 1 stop is quite acceptable. I reduce agitation to combat excessive contrast gains, and get very nice results- with HP5+ especially- in all kinds of situations.

This is some out-dated Forte 400 @ 800:
542156sm.jpg

Bigger grain is another reason to push.
 
Kind of a silly poll. There are reasons to push film. Sometimes it it the only way to get an image. Other times it is the only way to get a desired effect. OP doesn't like pushing but likes pull processing. If there were a poll for that, my comment still applies. But, to each his own I guess.
 
Whatever works for the needs of the current image or set of images. I normally shot TriX at 320 and developed with Rodinal. I paid attention to my agitation and got fine results. I also pushed at times to 1600. Interesting for what was needed on the night shot but preference to 320. Different film responds differently and technique will play a big role.
 
oftheherd said:
Kind of a silly poll. There are reasons to push film. Sometimes it it the only way to get an image. Other times it is the only way to get a desired effect. OP doesn't like pushing but likes pull processing. If there were a poll for that, my comment still applies. But, to each his own I guess.
Click to expand...

I agree. I had no idea pushing was such a controversial topic. I just look at it as another available tool at my disposal.
 
Pushing all the way ! i used to push my HP5 to 800 and set it to my standard film... no problem with prints, but it fits my photography which don't need to be that clean.
 
oftheherd said:
Kind of a silly poll. There are reasons to push film. Sometimes it it the only way to get an image. Other times it is the only way to get a desired effect. OP doesn't like pushing but likes pull processing. If there were a poll for that, my comment still applies. But, to each his own I guess.
Click to expand...

Hi, I made the poll, and I push film 25 years ago. I've done it -and yet I do- with several films and developers, and it sucks for wet printing. When great quality is not needed, those pushed negatives can be scanned and digitally corrected to some degree... In the cases I prefer a contrasty / grainy look, I don't push, I just overdevelop with a linear developer to burn highlights and keep the base of tonality. To each his eyes, I guess.

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom