Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-29-2016, 11:12 AM   #16
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,140
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Chromogenic BW films are developed with the C-41 color negative process. That process has one development time for all speeds and brands made for C-41. So, no, you normally do not have a custom develop development time when you shoot XP2 at, say, EI800 or EI1600. But you could add a little more development time if you wanted when you do it yourself on those exposure indexes.
True: XP2+ shot at ISO 400 is normally processed via C-41 color negative chemistry and can be rated between EI 50-1600 (ISO), although I personally wouldn't shoot it between 50-400. No need to push or pull process for this film.

True: C-41 at most labs is run through a mechanized processor that regulates speed and temperature. However, I have worked at a custom lab where the photographer intentionally or accidentally did not shoot their C-41 color print negs at the recommended ISO and requested the film to be pushed. It's rather crude, but we would run just that one (or two, as the processor can develop two at a time) roll solo into the processor and turn it off once it was completely in the developer for a specified amount of additional time to push. We had no way of pull processing as the motors could not increase speeds. NOTE: This is referring to other color print neg films and not XP2+.

02-29-2016, 03:00 PM   #17
Pentaxian
womble's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,323
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
IV) pushing or pulling works
Utter nonsense. The zone system relies on, essentially, pushing and pulling in order to control image contrast. If Ansel Adams thinks it works, I'll take his word for it.

K.
03-01-2016, 12:53 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 362
QuoteOriginally posted by womble Quote
Utter nonsense. The zone system relies on, essentially, pushing and pulling in order to control image contrast. If Ansel Adams thinks it works, I'll take his word for it.

K.
Pushing and pulling only alters contrast it does not alter toe speed to any degree.

If you push the contrast and underexpose two stope you are underexposing two stops and over developing.

The wet print will look horrible...

Yes you can scan and play with contrast but the print will still be missing zone 1 shadow graduation,

Ansel had to use intensification on some of his mistakes to try and print reasonably?
03-01-2016, 01:14 PM   #19
Pentaxian
womble's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,323
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
Pushing and pulling only alters contrast it does not alter toe speed to any degree.

If you push the contrast and underexpose two stope you are underexposing two stops and over developing.

The wet print will look horrible...

Yes you can scan and play with contrast but the print will still be missing zone 1 shadow graduation,

Ansel had to use intensification on some of his mistakes to try and print reasonably?
Yes, his mistakes. On the whole he manipulated his exposure and development times to reduce or increase the dynamic range of the film he was using. As far as I am aware, "pushing" and "pulling" is exactly that, deliberate over or under exposure with the requisite alteration of the development times. The fact that he could do this one frame at a time due to using LF sheet film, rather than having to push or pull a whole roll, is a different matter.

The famous "thin negative" that he had trouble printing and then used a post-development treatment to improve was the "Moonrise over Hernandez" image where he had mislaid his light meter so guessed the exposure on the basis of knowing the brightness of the moon. (He talks about this in his autobiography and the Making of 40 photographs.)

As with everything photographic (and perhaps most things in life), every choice has consequences that have to be mitigated for. Simply stating "it is a lie", is a best a huge over-simplification.

K.

03-01-2016, 03:13 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
... pulling only alters contrast it does not alter toe speed to any degree.
And yet I get good shadow, more highlight detail and finer grain ( more dynamic range) when I over expose by 2 or 3 stops and under develop. It is taking Adam's zone system of N-1, N-2 development to the extreme. I have examples. I can see the results. My negatives look good. But you are saying I'm not seeing that, right? Perhaps you should show us some of your highlight compression work and how it has failed to produce as good of results as box speed developing. Cubic grain films that I have tested don't compress as well as tabular grain. But I haven't looked at them all.

The toe and shoulder of film is not reproduced on BW paper very well at all. Look at the characteristic curve of typical BW paper and that of your film/developer combo. You should see the representation of low and high values are compressed when you create this second generation image and the mid tones are pretty much represent what's on the negative. When I scan I believe I do not have this problem. My biggest problem with low values is my scanner's ability to reach into the blacks. A drum scanner would do a much better job than what I have.

Last edited by tuco; 03-01-2016 at 06:21 PM.
03-02-2016, 09:37 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 362
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
And yet I get good shadow, more highlight detail and finer grain ( more dynamic range) when I over expose by 2 or 3 stops and under develop. It is taking Adam's zone system of N-1, N-2 development to the extreme. I have examples. I can see the results. My negatives look good. But you are saying I'm not seeing that, right? Perhaps you should show us some of your highlight compression work and how it has failed to produce as good of results as box speed developing. Cubic grain films that I have tested don't compress as well as tabular grain. But I haven't looked at them all.

The toe and shoulder of film is not reproduced on BW paper very well at all. Look at the characteristic curve of typical BW paper and that of your film/developer combo. You should see the representation of low and high values are compressed when you create this second generation image and the mid tones are pretty much represent what's on the negative. When I scan I believe I do not have this problem. My biggest problem with low values is my scanner's ability to reach into the blacks. A drum scanner would do a much better job than what I have.
The 'toe' speed of the film does vary a bit with development time, but the fog level can also rise.
Decreasing the exposure and increasing development means that wet printing is rather more difficult and you lose toe graduation.
Yes if you scan and play with sliders you can recover some shadow graduation the degree is dependent on the film toe and developer.
But two stops is a lot.

Please see 2nd page of link.
http://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

If you scan you will have dmax problems, Foma 400 tends to go contrasty quick.

I'd try wet printing you don't need a wet darkroom you can use a processing tube, an under stair cupboard and free enlarger if you are patient...

I typically overexpose a stop ie set ISO/EI to half box speed and meter for zone 1 using a Weston up close to a zone 1 tone. So similar to you. It makes wet printing easier for me. I develop stand in Rodinal and may have too much contrast in some circumstances, with 36 frames on a film you are stuck...

This is very close to Ansels scheme, and simple to do.

But you are correct in a high contrast scene only mid tones will be 'representative' and wet printing requires VC paper masking template burning and dodging and two filter settings.

But you don't need under exposed shadows 'burnt' high lights are way easier to deal with.

Wet printing is slow slow.

Last edited by Xmas; 03-02-2016 at 09:54 AM.
03-02-2016, 10:17 AM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
...
I'd try wet printing you don't need a wet darkroom you can use a processing tube, an under stair cupboard and free enlarger if you are patient...

.
I have two enlargers. One for 6x7 color/BW ( use to do color prints too) and one for 4x5 BW. I have been doing BW wet prints for over 30 years. I know what my negatives look like 30 years ago and I can measure base + fog densities. I have done speed tests and other things.

So when I say I get better results shooting and developing for highlight compression that is a voice tempered with experience. And I have the physical data that contradicts a lot what you're saying, FYI. The world of BW film is so diverse with all the different developers, it's hard to generalize the characteristics of BW film in my humble opinion.

Last edited by tuco; 03-02-2016 at 10:27 AM.
03-04-2016, 08:55 PM   #23
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,191
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
Pushing and pulling only alters contrast it does not alter toe speed to any degree.
Depends on the film, developer, and development technique. While it was still available, I routinely used Edwal FG-7 diluted 1:3 and shot at (usually) EI 2x the box speed. The resulting negatives had tight grain*, good density throughout with no loss of shadow detail, and no highlight blocking.

QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
The world of BW film is so diverse with all the different developers, it's hard to generalize the characteristics of BW film in my humble opinion.
Yep...I am not as good a technician as Tuco and not as active, but I have been processing film since the late 1960s.


Steve

* Generally ISO 100 films, both cubic and tabular grain. The 2x speed boost was approximate. For example, I shot APX 100 at EI 160, but TMax was consistently good to 200.


Last edited by stevebrot; 03-04-2016 at 09:02 PM.
03-04-2016, 09:00 PM   #24
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,191
QuoteOriginally posted by Xmas Quote
If you scan you will have dmax problems, Foma 400 tends to go contrasty quick.
Welcome to the land of Foma. I don't shoot their 400, but Foma 100 builds highlight density so quickly as to be almost unusable with standard development. I soup the 4x5 in highly dilute HC-110.


Steve
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
brand, chart, development, ei, expose, exposure, film, film photography, iso, pull, push, time, times
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teathering - Is Someone Pulling my Leg? mark2c Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 12-11-2015 09:16 AM
Selling the T 18-250 and pulling the trigger on the 18-135, worth it? Neo_ Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 12-09-2014 12:47 AM
K-30 and pulling shadows rrstuff Pentax K-30 & K-50 5 03-05-2014 08:48 PM
Pulling out my dad's old ME, what do I need to do to get it up and running? mojoe_24 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 9 11-14-2010 10:54 PM
Pushing, pulling and exposure comp Johnct Pentax Film SLR Discussion 2 11-07-2010 03:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top