40oz
...
I tend to push TriX much more than I expose it at 400 EI. The reason I do it is to use an appropriate shutter speed to stop subject movement or eliminate camera shake. Exposing at 800 doesn't require any kind of over-development in most cases. Just under-exposing by one stop is within the latitude of the film. Of course, if your meter says 800 EI and the scene is evenly lit, you'll have different results than if the scene is dominated by a few bright sections.
I try to expose based on the development times I plan on using. So I use 1600 EI as a way of saying I am developing in D-76 1:1 for 13.25 minutes. A meter might give me a shutter speed/aperture combination for that rating, but I adjust the camera settings to fit the scene - slower shutter or wider aperture for a constrasty scene, or the recommended settings for an evenly lit scene.
You are using exposure to control where the details in the scene show up on the "curve" of the negative. I don't know how to say it. The scene has a wider range of light values than the film can handle without losing detail. At some point, either the high points are cut off at the same level of white, or the low points are too low to show up as anything other than pure black.
I think it is important to understand that while many people use the term "highlights" to refer to the brightest features in a scene, it really means any area lighter than the surrounding. So a face lit fom the side will be "highlighted" by the light, even if it is darker than the brightest parts of the image. When you "expose for the shadows," you are setting exposure such that the darker parts of the scene show detail on the negative. When you "develop for the highlights," you are trying to bring out the details (highlights) in the shadow areas.
Consider at night, you can have a bright light and pitch black all in one scene. In this case, you want to calculate the exposure for the details you actually want on film. If you are trying to capture a neon sign, you would expose so it was bright, and let everything else fall into shadow, appearing black on a print. If you are trying to capture the texture of the wall behind it, you need to expose so the wall is dark but still retains detail, and let the neon sign blow out to pure white when printed.
When I "expose for the shadows," I am trying to get the details under a bridge arch, for example. So if I am using a meter that averages a scene, such as on my Canonet, I will use a slower shutter speed or open up a stop or two more than the camera suggests. Basically, I am over-exposing the rest of the scene to make sure the details under the arch show up on film. This causes some of the brightest lights to blow out at 1600 EI, but that is fine, IMHO, because the alternative would be a black scene with a few properly exposed street lights :/ When I process the roll, I develop for TriX at 1600 EI. This means I leave it in the developer longer. This results in less of a difference between the brightest and slightly less bright parts, but that's OK, because it also means the subtle details of the stonework under the bridge arch are more visible.
Basically, when you under-expose a film and develop normally, you lose detail in the shadows first, while the brighter parts are bright enough to show up. The *print* will show all the darker areas as pure black, while the brightest areas will be the only areas showing any detail, albeit the bright areas will be gray, not white.
Developing clears the unexposed parts of an image, the "shadows." Anything exposed to light will stay, blocking light on the negative when you print. Developing longer retains more of the exposed portions of the film, or rather, darkens the highlights on the negative and making them lighter on the print. At the same time, it also darkens the shadow areas on the negative, making them lighter on the print as well. But it has more of an effect on brightest areas, turing streetlights into white beachballs, for example.
Pushing *seems* to decrease the range of light values the film can capture. It doesn't decrease the smoothness of tones, and grain really isn't a problem at 1600 EI in D-76 1:1, for me anyway. Even at 8x10 from 35mm, it is present if you really look, but nowhere near as obvious as a scan would imply. And the only time you lose shadow detail when pushing film is if you expose as such. You will lose more detail in the bright sections than you ever do in the dark ones, or you aren't developing long enough for your exposure. Your meter might rate a scene at a given EI, but that doen't mean everything in the scene will show up equally on the negative. If you are losing shadow detail, you need to increase exposure or increase development time, whichever is more feasible. But you will have to accept some blown highlights. If rendering naked bulbs as globes of light is unacceptable, you will need to accept that you aren't exposing for the shadows anymore.
I try to expose based on the development times I plan on using. So I use 1600 EI as a way of saying I am developing in D-76 1:1 for 13.25 minutes. A meter might give me a shutter speed/aperture combination for that rating, but I adjust the camera settings to fit the scene - slower shutter or wider aperture for a constrasty scene, or the recommended settings for an evenly lit scene.
You are using exposure to control where the details in the scene show up on the "curve" of the negative. I don't know how to say it. The scene has a wider range of light values than the film can handle without losing detail. At some point, either the high points are cut off at the same level of white, or the low points are too low to show up as anything other than pure black.
I think it is important to understand that while many people use the term "highlights" to refer to the brightest features in a scene, it really means any area lighter than the surrounding. So a face lit fom the side will be "highlighted" by the light, even if it is darker than the brightest parts of the image. When you "expose for the shadows," you are setting exposure such that the darker parts of the scene show detail on the negative. When you "develop for the highlights," you are trying to bring out the details (highlights) in the shadow areas.
Consider at night, you can have a bright light and pitch black all in one scene. In this case, you want to calculate the exposure for the details you actually want on film. If you are trying to capture a neon sign, you would expose so it was bright, and let everything else fall into shadow, appearing black on a print. If you are trying to capture the texture of the wall behind it, you need to expose so the wall is dark but still retains detail, and let the neon sign blow out to pure white when printed.
When I "expose for the shadows," I am trying to get the details under a bridge arch, for example. So if I am using a meter that averages a scene, such as on my Canonet, I will use a slower shutter speed or open up a stop or two more than the camera suggests. Basically, I am over-exposing the rest of the scene to make sure the details under the arch show up on film. This causes some of the brightest lights to blow out at 1600 EI, but that is fine, IMHO, because the alternative would be a black scene with a few properly exposed street lights :/ When I process the roll, I develop for TriX at 1600 EI. This means I leave it in the developer longer. This results in less of a difference between the brightest and slightly less bright parts, but that's OK, because it also means the subtle details of the stonework under the bridge arch are more visible.
Basically, when you under-expose a film and develop normally, you lose detail in the shadows first, while the brighter parts are bright enough to show up. The *print* will show all the darker areas as pure black, while the brightest areas will be the only areas showing any detail, albeit the bright areas will be gray, not white.
Developing clears the unexposed parts of an image, the "shadows." Anything exposed to light will stay, blocking light on the negative when you print. Developing longer retains more of the exposed portions of the film, or rather, darkens the highlights on the negative and making them lighter on the print. At the same time, it also darkens the shadow areas on the negative, making them lighter on the print as well. But it has more of an effect on brightest areas, turing streetlights into white beachballs, for example.
Pushing *seems* to decrease the range of light values the film can capture. It doesn't decrease the smoothness of tones, and grain really isn't a problem at 1600 EI in D-76 1:1, for me anyway. Even at 8x10 from 35mm, it is present if you really look, but nowhere near as obvious as a scan would imply. And the only time you lose shadow detail when pushing film is if you expose as such. You will lose more detail in the bright sections than you ever do in the dark ones, or you aren't developing long enough for your exposure. Your meter might rate a scene at a given EI, but that doen't mean everything in the scene will show up equally on the negative. If you are losing shadow detail, you need to increase exposure or increase development time, whichever is more feasible. But you will have to accept some blown highlights. If rendering naked bulbs as globes of light is unacceptable, you will need to accept that you aren't exposing for the shadows anymore.
