Pushing and Pulling effect on tone curve?

[sanking]

Your comment "hint of black" was exactly what I noticed, he never really prints for a true black most of the time. Its something I just felt like it had to be there when do my own and feel I need to look at that again. Im just missing how he keeps his highlights down during the development process.

Shadow detail and negative contrast are to some extent dependent, but the primary factor in shadow detail is exposure, the primary factor in negative contrast is development. Do as Bob Carnie suggested, overexpose two or three stops, and develop the film for a shorter than normal time (or use a weaker dilution developer, or use some form of stand development, or use a two-bath developer).

Getting the look you are after is more a matter of process than of specific materials. TRI-X and PMK might work for some, others would get what they want with Puke-a-Pan and D-FartyOne

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Ryan ... because someone has an effective method for doing something based upon years of experience and memory doesn't mean you're going to be able to
fast-track the same thing. And no .. I'm not intimidated by the name of anyone in this business, so don't try that bluff with me. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways are a lot easier than others, and nearly all of them involve a light meter. One distinct problem is that printing papers are changing, and what once worked might not work so well anymore. So there's an argument to making a versatile negative rather than one which straight-jackets you into just one method of printing. Thick neg technique with Tri-X was once popular, and there are still a few notable practitioners of it. But it comes with a substantial penalty, and in most cases, does not in fact make life any easier. It seems to be a holdover from contact printing long-scale Azo. But no sense explaining the details here. But yeah, you've got it all backwards anyway. Need to learn basic film technique first.

[bob carnie]

Jock Sturges prints influenced many photographers in the 90's as well as printers like myself who were asked to print in various styles.

If I had to describe his prints I would say they are very open prints, with and emphasis on of detail completely throughout the scene with out any real printer adjustment other than to make sure there is slight detail in the highlights and a hint of black. Geoffrey James, Steve Evans both excellent photographers would emulate this style in their landscape and architecture work.

I believe that Mr Sturges prints would be considered at one end of the silver print spectrum , and David Baileys prints at the other.

To get either result requires a different approach , that is IMO the basis of the Zone System or the ability of pushing tones around.

BTW I love both methods, but am really partial to Brett Weston prints where he has a bit of a f... the shadow detail and give me bold bold highlights, printing style.

This is what is so great about print making, the ability to play with light, film choice , developer choices, times, paper chems tones... its an endless lifetime of print making.

[ryanmills]

Ryan ... because someone has an effective method for doing something based upon years of experience and memory doesn't mean you're going to be able to
fast-track the same thing. And no .. I'm not intimidated by the name of anyone in this business, so don't try that bluff with me. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways are a lot easier than others, and nearly all of them involve a light meter. One distinct problem is that printing papers are changing, and what once worked might not work so well anymore. So there's an argument to making a versatile negative rather than one which straight-jackets you into just one method of printing. Thick neg technique with Tri-X was once popular, and there are still a few notable practitioners of it. But it comes with a substantial penalty, and in most cases, does not in fact make life any easier. It seems to be a holdover from contact printing long-scale Azo. But no sense explaining the details here. But yeah, you've got it all backwards anyway. Need to learn basic film technique first.

Sigh... there is always that one guy... Offers nothing but "dont even try it" or "your not good enough" without a single bit of useful information. Goes on to insult the photographer who quite frankly makes your work look like 4 yearolds finger painting then comes back with this garbage trying to sound educated. Why would i even begin to respect your opinion after that. Better yet keep that in mind the next time you bother to post this useless dribble that's hard to hear through the jealousy of knowing you will never make it like he did.

Learning how your betters got results makes you a better photographer, maybe I cant get it exact but understanding it is important and quite frankly your a wasting your time trying to insult my ability's. Frankly my darling, I dont give a damn.

[Drew Wiley]

Ironically, I'd pick one of the TMax sheet films for either style today, Bob. To get that BW look, I'd underexpose and overdevelop it, to let the deep shadows drop
hard and expand the midtones - Of course it would help to have some Seagull G and amidol on hand, with full development. But I could take that same film exposure strategy and print a very soft long-scale portrait by snatch developing a silver-rich paper and carefully toning it, which I happened to prefer the old graded Brilliant for, back in its day. I doubt that even many photographers would recognize the similarity unless they saw the original negs. The profound difference in look was all
in the printing. But a distinct procedural "flaw" from the norm in exposure and dev was also involved in each case. New materials. New ways.

[ryanmills]

If we use a film that really is ISO 400 and expose it as if it were 100, then all things being equal we over-expose by 2 stops.

If we then give the film N-2 development, we contract the high values that were just placed 2 stops too high, back down by 2 stops.

That's likely what is meant by over exposing and under developing. The tone curve gets less steep. We have compressed the contrast range.

Compared to the "soot and chalk" appearance of many b&w photos, a competently exposed, developed and printed negative will often look remarkable. It has less to do with format size, than with competent technique. The same principles apply whether we shoot small film or large film.

Thanks Ken, I did not explain myself well in the first round. I meant to ask if he was simply pushing or pulling the film. I get both of those. The question is if he is not pushing or pull, what would be be doing and how is it effecting the negative. I think your following what I was looking for however N-2, its the math im missing. I dont know the zone system well if that's a reference to it. For portrait work its just never made sense for me, questioning that now. I'm confused how what you described is any different than pushing/pulling film. If you over expose then under develop don't you end up at the same spot. How would it be different that metering and pushing everything 2 stops. So 100 ISO film @400.

[jp]

Ryan; any advice here comes with some personality.

Drew is essentially saying there are printing challenges inherent to a solution. I'd take it as a challenge rather than a discouragement.

I've done some thick tmy2 negs which capture a scale well beyond what I can print in the darkroom (such as with the sun in the photo not getting blown out) with my enlarger and MG paper. I can scan them successfully though; another way to skin a cat.

[ryanmills]

Ryan; any advice here comes with some personality.

Drew is essentially saying there are printing challenges inherent to a solution. I'd take it as a challenge rather than a discouragement.

I've done some thick tmy2 negs which capture a scale well beyond what I can print in the darkroom (such as with the sun in the photo not getting blown out) with my enlarger and MG paper. I can scan them successfully though; another way to skin a cat.

Lol your reading into his comment "That's called shooting from the hip.... which is often synonymous with shooting yourself in the foot... or in the case of large format film, unnecessarily shooting holes in your wallet. Some films will let you be sloppier than others, but achieving rich tonality has exactly zero to do with guessing exposures. Buy a light meter." a bit too much... he is just a troll, gets called on it and suddenly wants to look less foolish. He can say whatever he likes to save face, respect or care for that matter was lost on the first comment.

I'm just missing a developing concept and trying to understand it better, its just hard to articulate it correctly. If I push film I get more contrast, how do I limit that to get the effect. Maybe that's the simplest way to put it.

[bob carnie]

Ryan

Ken is describing a classic over exposing under developing scenario that is relevant to this discussion.
This allows for great shadow and low end detail and excellent highlight detail.
And no you do not end at the same spot.

google Kodak black and white ring around... you will see great examples


Pushing and pulling more are terms relevant to transparency work.

You would push the development of a clip test if the image was too dark
You would pull the development of a clip test if the image was too dark.

Thanks Ken, I did not explain myself well in the first round. I meant to ask if he was simply pushing or pulling the film. I get both of those. The question is if he is not pushing or pull, what would be be doing and how is it effecting the negative. I think your following what I was looking for however N-2, its the math im missing. I dont know the zone system well if that's a reference to it. For portrait work its just never made sense for me, questioning that now. I'm confused how what you described is any different than pushing/pulling film. If you over expose then under develop don't you end up at the same spot. How would it be different that metering and pushing everything 2 stops. So 100 ISO film @400.

[bob carnie]

BTW Ryan , I cannot over emphasis the Ring Around Concept. If you do this with your own work it will help you immensely.

even go farther and do the ring around with different lighting ratios..

I think this is the most helpful tests one could do to see how this tonality thing works with black and white.