> Can someone clear my mind on pushing and pulling film.
> Is it true that underexposing slightly or pushing slide film gives =
> better results i.e. more colour saturation/definition in shadow areas, =
> and that overexposing or pulling print/negative film is better?
> On my last roll of film (colour negative) I actually pushed the film one =
> stop and forgot to mention it to the lab. The prints however have come =
> out very well, so it makes me think that slight overexposure on print =
> film is not always the best thing to do!
> Any comments are welcomed
> Cheers Adam
>
Let me try to help. If this gets too fundamental, go to the next post. If
it's too confusing, email me.
The act of pushing or pulling film is done to counteract the under or over
exposure of film, intentional or unintentional, by increasing or decreasing
the development time. (This is sometimes done in B&W photography to change
the nature of a film, to give additional details in highlights or shadows,
or change contrast, but here, we're talking about color) Your one-hour
minilab can only do this by pulling the plug on the machine while the film
is in the first developer. There are many pitfalls.
The act of rating a film differently from the manufacturer's speed to
increase saturation requires that development remain "normal." This applies
only to transparency films. How did this get started?
Even before color, some photographers have always felt that the speeds
indicated by film manufacturers for selected film emulsions did not
accurately reflect the speed obtained in real life shooting situations.
Sometimes this is the result of taste (my washed-out, thin slide is your
brilliant one), and sometimes this is the result of the proceedures that are
used to arrive at recommended speeds (often solely by laboratory methods,
and no actual in camera tests). This applies equally to all film.
The business of underexposing chromes for saturation goes back quite some
time. Unlike negative films, transparency films have a narrow latitude, so a
small difference in exposure can make a dramatic difference in appearance.
As the color dyes become more dense, the colors become more intense. In some
film, this difference can be noticable with as little as a third stop
underexposure. Is there a free lunch, and why don't we all do this?
The bad news is, with the increased saturation comes increased contrast, and
a loss of shadow detail. In the pre-Photoshop days, most all shots for
publication were not underexposed, except for the most exacting users,
because of the buildup of contrast and loss of shadow detail. I shoot some
for a magazine that still prefers thin chromes, although this is less of a
consideration with separations made in Photoshop and not on film.
Negative films are another animal. We all used to overexpose VPS, and boy,
did it need it. Many photographers feel that Kodak film speed is overrated,
and Fuji is generally accurate, although some may argue. In any event, the
variations of printing added to the latitude of the film make this
discussion a bit like totaling angels on pinheads.
Remember, though, if you push film, you must increase development.
Bill Pearce, who promises to learn to be brief.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|