Why do you push & pull a film

[raine]

Hey guys,
was wondering if you all could answer my question about why you push and pull a film. What actually happens when you under or over-expose a film?
and how exactly would you do it?

I recently tried to push an ilford hp5 by 2 stops, but the reason why i did it was because i had no flash and so, i decided to "cheat". i've yet to print the shots, so don't know how they'll turn out.
But is that the "correct" method of doing it? And what kind of films are suitable for these processes? All kinds or just specific kinds?

thanks so much yar!

[canturn]

One of the best part of B&W photography is the flexibility for you to develop the film the way you shoot.

By pushing the film, you gain the speed but loses some of the tonality. Really depends on what effect you want. For example, if you like the contrasty, grainy, "pushed" look, you would rate your film higher even though you're shooting in bright daylight.

Some developers, for example, the compensating developers are meant for this purpose of pushed films, eg. hc110.

For more serious work/fine art, I prefer to pull the film, in other words, over expose and under develop. This gives you little grain, thinner emulsion for easy/faster printing in darkroom, plus sharpness because of that reason.

[student]

Originally Posted by canturn For more serious work/fine art, I prefer to pull the film, in other words, over expose and under develop. This gives you little grain, thinner emulsion for easy/faster printing in darkroom, plus sharpness because of that reason.

I am not sure if I can agree 100% with you here. My understanding is a little different from yours. Most b&w films true EI (exposure index) are lower than the recommended ASA. For example, the true ASA of Tri-X 400 may be more like 320 or lower. So if you rate Tri-X at 320 you are not actually "pulling" the film. You are actually rating the film at its "correct" speed. It is true that rating a film lower than the recommended ASA may give finer grain. However the "thinness" of the negative is not a function of this. The "thinness" or "denseness" of the negative is a function of the degree of exposure. Thinner emulsion is not recommended for cold light enlarging source. A more dense negative is better for a diffuse/cold light source. A thin negative may be better for a condensor light source. Overexposing and underdeveloping a negative is a method to rein in extreme contrast in the image. I do not think it is a technique to get finer grain or a thinner emulsion. Faster printing is not really an issue for most practical purposes, unless you aim for a negative so dense that you can look at the sky through it!

[canturn]

Originally Posted by student I am not sure if I can agree 100% with you here. My understanding is a little different from yours. Most b&w films true EI (exposure index) are lower than the recommended ASA. For example, the true ASA of Tri-X 400 may be more like 320 or lower. So if you rate Tri-X at 320 you are not actually "pulling" the film. You are actually rating the film at its "correct" speed. It is true that rating a film lower than the recommended ASA may give finer grain. However the "thinness" of the negative is not a function of this. The "thinness" or "denseness" of the negative is a function of the degree of exposure. Thinner emulsion is not recommended for cold light enlarging source. A more dense negative is better for a diffuse/cold light source. A thin negative may be better for a condensor light source. Overexposing and underdeveloping a negative is a method to rein in extreme contrast in the image. I do not think it is a technique to get finer grain or a thinner emulsion. Faster printing is not really an issue for most practical purposes, unless you aim for a negative so dense that you can look at the sky through it!

On the Ilford Multispeed enlarger head (diffuser) that I'm using, I get really long exposure time for dense negatives. For example, 32 secs at f5.6 for properly developed negative; whereas the same negative takes only 18 sec at f11 to print at the same size on a condensor head. Have replaced the bulbs and still the same timing.

Checked with some of the folks on photo.net, seems like those using the same enlarger head agree that thinner emulsion are alot easier to print. Since then, I've always been rating tri-x around 250-320 and underdeveloping them. That gives me the best tonal range, detail and sharpness. If I want to go for the contrasty look, I would rate it tri-x @1250 and develop in diafine, which gives me a relatively thin neg with fine grain.

[student]

Originally Posted by canturn On the Ilford Multispeed enlarger head (diffuser) that I'm using, I get really long exposure time for dense negatives. For example, 32 secs at f5.6 for properly developed negative; whereas the same negative takes only 18 sec at f11 to print at the same size on a condensor head. Have replaced the bulbs and still the same timing. Checked with some of the folks on photo.net, seems like those using the same enlarger head agree that thinner emulsion are alot easier to print. Since then, I've always been rating tri-x around 250-320 and underdeveloping them. That gives me the best tonal range, detail and sharpness. If I want to go for the contrasty look, I would rate it tri-x @1250 and develop in diafine, which gives me a relatively thin neg with fine grain.

I take it to mean that you are using the Ilford Ilfospeed Multigrade 500 H. I use this too, on my DeVere Enlarger. In the example you gave, I think your negatives might be too dense. Typically I rate my eg Tri-X at 250 and my negatives get to print at f8/11 between 10-20 seconds. I also rate my HP5 at 160, developed in Perceptol according to Barry Thornton, and get very nice negatives. You might like to think about the way you exposed the negatives, especially when you are already pulling development.

[StreetShooter]

Different strokes for different folks.

I push to get speed and graininess, both of which are desirable characteristics for me, since I shoot almost exclusively using available light, and I go for the "photojournalistic look" - you know, grainy, high contrast, poor detail.

Fine art B&W folks aim for tonality, smooth grain, details details details. For this you would do best by pulling the film. The mantra (I understand) is to overexpose and underdevelop to preserve the details. That's great stuff, but it doesn't turn me on.

So now you know why people push and pull film.

[canturn]

Originally Posted by student I take it to mean that you are using the Ilford Ilfospeed Multigrade 500 H. I use this too, on my DeVere Enlarger. In the example you gave, I think your negatives might be too dense. Typically I rate my eg Tri-X at 250 and my negatives get to print at f8/11 between 10-20 seconds. I also rate my HP5 at 160, developed in Perceptol according to Barry Thornton, and get very nice negatives. You might like to think about the way you exposed the negatives, especially when you are already pulling development.

Mine's Ilfospeed 500C on the De Vere 504. It's quite friendly with thin negs, but printing dense or C-41 processed B&W film can be a nightmare

[student]

Originally Posted by StreetShooter Different strokes for different folks. I push to get speed and graininess, both of which are desirable characteristics for me, since I shoot almost exclusively using available light, and I go for the "photojournalistic look" - you know, grainy, high contrast, poor detail. Fine art B&W folks aim for tonality, smooth grain, details details details. For this you would do best by pulling the film. The mantra (I understand) is to overexpose and underdevelop to preserve the details. That's great stuff, but it doesn't turn me on. So now you know why people push and pull film.

Just for discussion. I apologise to the thread starter for going slightly off topic.

Your statements appear to suggest that using available light and photojournalistic look = grainy, high contrast, poor details.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with that. You might prefer, and you do, grainy, high contrast, poor details photos. But available light and photojournalistic look are not necessarily grainy, high contrast, poor details etc.

Firstly look at the works of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and lately people like Michael Kenna ( plus lots and lots and lots of others! ) These people work exclusively with available light. And their work are but anything grainy, high contrast etc. Available light photography do not equal graininess, high contrast, etc.

Secondly, from a "photojournalistic" point of view. Again photojournalism does not equal graininess etc etc. Last week I had an opportunity to see an original print of Marilyn Monroe taken by HCB. I had also seen original prints by Eugene Smith and Sebastio Salgado. They are by no means grainy, high contrast with poor details. More grainy, yes. The rest, NO. I have seen MANY original prints by Ralph Gibson. High contrast yes. Grainy, yes - more than the works by HCB, SS, and ES. But lacking details? NO.

Last week I saw original prints by Steve Anchell (author of Film Developing Cookbook) on his works of blues musicians, and night street scenes, mostly taken with 35 mm high speed films, and enlarged up to 16x20. Grainy yes. High contrast, yes and no. Lacking in details. NO.

I think we should not equate available light and photojournalistic photography to high contrast grainy pictures. That you prefer your pictures to be grainy etc and you know how to achieve it is totally legitimate and fine. They can be very beautiful. But we need to be clear about our concepts.

[student]

Originally Posted by canturn Mine's Ilfospeed 500C on the De Vere 504. It's quite friendly with thin negs, but printing dense or C-41 processed B&W film can be a nightmare

I think the 500C is similar to the 500H. Printing with a very dense negative is of course a nightmare! But why such dense negatives? 32 seconds at f5.6 for a properly developed negative is really too long. Any problem with your enlarger? I can't understand this. Are your prints with the 504 very contrasty even at grade 2 dialled in? I had used a 504 before, but do not remember such long exposures for "normal" negatives.

[StreetShooter]

Originally Posted by student Just for discussion. I apologise to the thread starter for going slightly off topic. Your statements appear to suggest that using available light and photojournalistic look = grainy, high contrast, poor details. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that. You might prefer, and you do, grainy, high contrast, poor details photos. But available light and photojournalistic look are not necessarily grainy, high contrast, poor details etc. Firstly look at the works of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and lately people like Michael Kenna ( plus lots and lots and lots of others! ) These people work exclusively with available light. And their work are but anything grainy, high contrast etc. Available light photography do not equal graininess, high contrast, etc. Secondly, from a "photojournalistic" point of view. Again photojournalism does not equal graininess etc etc. Last week I had an opportunity to see an original print of Marilyn Monroe taken by HCB. I had also seen original prints by Eugene Smith and Sebastio Salgado. They are by no means grainy, high contrast with poor details. More grainy, yes. The rest, NO. I have seen MANY original prints by Ralph Gibson. High contrast yes. Grainy, yes - more than the works by HCB, SS, and ES. But lacking details? NO. Last week I saw original prints by Steve Anchell (author of Film Developing Cookbook) on his works of blues musicians, and night street scenes, mostly taken with 35 mm high speed films, and enlarged up to 16x20. Grainy yes. High contrast, yes and no. Lacking in details. NO. I think we should not equate available light and photojournalistic photography to high contrast grainy pictures. That you prefer your pictures to be grainy etc and you know how to achieve it is totally legitimate and fine. They can be very beautiful. But we need to be clear about our concepts.

Yes, you're right, of course. I apologise.

[Terence]

Ok, I've been rereading this thread for the 3rd time and have come to the conclusion that you guys are speaking in martianese.

Your digitally dependant friend,
Terence

[student]

Originally Posted by Terence Ok, I've been rereading this thread for the 3rd time and have come to the conclusion that you guys are speaking in martianese. Your digitally dependant friend, Terence

There is no need to learn the Martian language if you are not, and have no intention, to travel to Mars.

Likewise, the "Digitalese" language is almost (like I can understand a few words of Japanese such as sushi and sashimis) meaningless to me.

Your film-dependent friend and forever Student! (maybe one day I might learn Digitalese - in the spirit of learning!)

[Brett]

Just want to say thanks to those who haved experimented and shared thier info on this tread very enlightening to B/W hobbist !

[canturn]

Originally Posted by Terence Ok, I've been rereading this thread for the 3rd time and have come to the conclusion that you guys are speaking in martianese. Your digitally dependant friend, Terence

B&W processing and printing is the only reason why I haven't gone fully digital yet. Simply because

a) The flexibility of choosing the right film/coloured filter/ developer/ timing/ paper/ toner for the job.
b) Being able to control the whole process w/o letting some lab folks screw it up for you (you've only yourself to blame when film is screwed).
c) The shiok feeling of seeing the image magically appearing in front of you.
d) The addiction to the sourish smell of chemicals, esp fixer and stop bath (old type).
e) Toying with selenium is like eating fugu (puffer fish) sashimi.
f) Knowing the fact that your fibre-based prints are going last for xx number of donkey years after you've selenium toned them.
g) you can boost to those folks visiting your house when they see those prints/negatives hanging dry in the toilet.

[student]

Originally Posted by canturn B&W processing and printing is the only reason why I haven't gone fully digital yet. Simply because a) The flexibility of choosing the right film/coloured filter/ developer/ timing/ paper/ toner for the job. b) Being able to control the whole process w/o letting some lab folks screw it up for you (you've only yourself to blame when film is screwed). c) The shiok feeling of seeing the image magically appearing in front of you. d) The addiction to the sourish smell of chemicals, esp fixer and stop bath (old type). e) Toying with selenium is like eating fugu (puffer fish) sashimi. f) Knowing the fact that your fibre-based prints are going last for xx number of donkey years after you've selenium toned them. g) you can boost to those folks visiting your house when they see those prints/negatives hanging dry in the toilet.

Amen to all that!

But I have to try fugu one day! Can't really say I like the selenium smell!

At the end of it, I can truly say that the picture is ALL my effort. My way of seeing. My way of making the final print the way it is. No darn computer chips can say that they make the picture for me (some may argue what is the big deal? fair enough! But I prefer it that way)

BTW, have you consider using an alkaline fixer? Then you don't have to use an acid stop bath. And washing time is shorter!

[canturn]

Originally Posted by student Amen to all that! But I have to try fugu one day! Can't really say I like the selenium smell! At the end of it, I can truly say that the picture is ALL my effort. My way of seeing. My way of making the final print the way it is. No darn computer chips can say that they make the picture for me (some may argue what is the big deal? fair enough! But I prefer it that way) BTW, have you consider using an alkaline fixer? Then you don't have to use an acid stop bath. And washing time is shorter!

You won't wanna smell selenium...I do it along the corridor when the wind direction is blowing anywhere else but my unit

er, alkaline fixer? Heard about it but can't seem to find these things here. What's the wash time like? Might consider because the FB workflow is so helluva tedious.

Getting a little OT here.

Anyway, just printed a series with HP5 rated at 1000 and dev in Ilford DDX... Surprisingly nice tones and fine grain at that EI! Would recommend that developer for pushed film. The downside is that it is darn ex... $28 for a litre, which is to be used at 1+4 dilution.

[kex]

Hi student,
where can i get alkaline fixer?which brand sells it ?

thanks~!

[student]

Yup, we are getting OT. Sorry.

Selenium at a concentrationt to cause color shift is often very foul smelling, even with a chemical gas mask which I wear whenever I use selenium.

One advantage of alkaline fixer is that you do not need to have an acid stop bath. So one less chemical. Another is that you can use the same alkaline fixer (same concentration) for films and prints. So less bottles to keep. Why then is it not better known? Because companies like Kodak, and even Ilford, would prefer to keep it a secret because you know how much you pay for a bottle of acid stop bath? and how much those acetic acid cost? So there is not incentive for Kodak and Ilford to promote alkaline fixer.

Wash time for negatives with alkaline fixer is 10 minutes with no hypo. Not quite sure for prints- need to check this.

Where do I get this? Right now I am trying to find out!

Regarding DD-x. Wonderful stuff. Try Delta 3200 rated at 2400 in DD-x. Very nice, but pricey!

[kex]

Do keep us posted on the availability of the Alkaline fixer then~

[raine]

*speechless* wah....info overload...