Push and Pull

[monochromeFan]

Yes. The OP seems intent on going down rabbit holes that invite speculation and argument. For example all the other threads asking similar questions, that eventually turn into arguments or contradictions. Photography is not molecular genetics. Almost everything there is to know is accessible with a simple Google search and most of the learning happens by shooting film and experimenting, not memorizing tech manuals and product sheets, and then questioning their validity. Push and pull are simple concepts. No way it should take two pages of arguing back and forth.

If I didn’t know better I’d suspect that the OP asks these questions more for entertainment purposes (watching people here beat themselves to death trying to over-explain simple concepts) than for practical understanding.

So if thoughtful introspection is not your thing... why are you online in the first place? Seriously,, just because I dont look at every thread every 5 or 6 minutes doesnt make me a "troll". It means I have a life in the real world. And it also means the website needs some sort of notification system when you log in. Seriously outdated folks..

[paulbarden]

So if thoughtful introspection is not your thing... why are you online in the first place? Seriously,, just because I dont look at every thread every 5 or 6 minutes doesnt make me a "troll". It means I have a life in the real world. And it also means the website needs some sort of notification system when you log in. Seriously outdated folks..

I’m still watching for that mythical post from you that does not have a sour attitude or critical remark.

[Bob Kerner]

If you took a bit of effort you'd realize the site has notifications and subscriptions whereby you can get an email when there's a response to your post. There's also the "New Posts" tab at the top of the page that would show new posts/responses, and you can scroll down and look for your own post. And then there's at least two different ways to search the site and find every answer you could want related to the topics you've been asking about. I know the push/pull issue has been asked at least twice in the last 3 months.

[Doremus Scudder]

how is it sloppy guesswork if you know what the results are going to be ?

Well, I should have qualified that statement with an "often." Certainly, if you test and know what your results are going to be, and if you understand the principles behind the terms well, then pushing and pulling are hardly sloppy guesswork.

Too often the terms, especially "pushing" get used without any idea of what they really do. Some think film is like digital and that you can just ratchet the ISO setting up and down at will, albeit with the inconvenience of changing development times, and magically get three stops more speed out of a given film, or deal with an ultra-contrasty subject, etc. Likewise, "pulling" gets used to magically enhance shadow detail but the associated reduction in development is often completely unnecessary.

If you know you're underexposing and losing shadow rendition and compensating for underexposed highlights and expanding a three- or four-stop SBR to an overall contrast that's easier to print, then, by all means, call it pushing

It's just that "push" and "pull" get bantered around a lot as panaceae for dealing with difficult lighting conditions/SBRs in lieu of better understanding of what's going on.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Zone System is anything but a simplification either. It is, however based on a basic understanding of the underlying sensitometry and tone reproduction principles (and it has that visualization thing going for it too ).

Best,

Doremus

[bob carnie]

I have to say (I don’t actually have to but anyway) the questions OP posts don’t make much sense. Everyone keeps suggesting starting with some basics but that seems to be continually ignored, followed by more questions about random stuff from this or that tech document, book, video.

If you don’t want to learn about this stuff, simply don’t. It will make very little difference in the end. Simply start with the manufacturer’s recommendations, try not to be sloppy, and alter things if you find consistent issues with a particular thing. Negatives too thin all the time? Lower your exposure index. Negatives too contrasty? Decrease development time. Negatives too flat? Increase development time. Read a basic Ilford or Kodak document about mixing chemicals, processing technique/steps and follow them.

It’s not difficult at all to make negatives that will enable great prints to be made. Some people like to pretend it is for various reasons, or they really don’t understand it. Stay away from that noise and expose some film. You can master the negative in no time. Then focus on the printing (or editing if you are scanning negatives). That’s what to work on.

very good point Michael, lots of desire by people to over complicate things.

[monochromeFan]

If you took a bit of effort you'd realize the site has notifications and subscriptions whereby you can get an email when there's a response to your post. There's also the "New Posts" tab at the top of the page that would show new posts/responses, and you can scroll down and look for your own post. And then there's at least two different ways to search the site and find every answer you could want related to the topics you've been asking about. I know the push/pull issue has been asked at least twice in the last 3 months.

And i am pretty damn sure in either of these two instances of push/pull being discussed, did anyone actually have any factory paperwork stating that it was not needed with a particular film.

Everyone knows that Foma is a funny acting emulsion, many say it has no anti halation layer yet when developed with Rodinal, i have gotten interesting colors in the used developer, and even stop bath that MOST people say are only going to happen when you have developed a film WITH an anti halation layer.

Many people get great results shooting it at box speed of 400 iso,, many shoot it at higher speeds with great results. Just as many people have internet websites where they discuss using HP5 at 1600 iso in 35mm format, but use digital scans of pictures taken with 120 and 4x5 film versions of HP5 to "prove" their point.

[jnantz]

And i am pretty damn sure in either of these two instances of push/pull being discussed, did anyone actually have any factory paperwork stating that it was not needed with a particular film.

Everyone knows that Foma is a funny acting emulsion, many say it has no anti halation layer yet when developed with Rodinal, i have gotten interesting colors in the used developer, and even stop bath that MOST people say are only going to happen when you have developed a film WITH an anti halation layer.

Many people get great results shooting it at box speed of 400 iso,, many shoot it at higher speeds with great results. Just as many people have internet websites where they discuss using HP5 at 1600 iso in 35mm format, but use digital scans of pictures taken with 120 and 4x5 film versions of HP5 to "prove" their point.

does it really matter what other people's results were or if they used the documentation from foma ?
IDK how many years ago somebody didn't believe that Kodak's suggestion of 1 stop over and under the box speed developed "normally" would produce usable negatives so I burned a couple of sheets of 4x5 film .. used a dark slide and made a film test strip out of tmx and tmy both developed normally ... I scanned them without manipulation and inverted them, and the person claimed my results were fixed/fake to prove a point that kodak wasn't wrong LOL. no im not a kodak fanboy, but im honest and that guy was a moron.
at the end of the day none of these questions and answers matter. you should just buy a few rolls or a box of film and just develop and make images yourself and not rely on what a bunch of strangers on the internet, who may or may not actually use a camera and film, might tell you their results are. it's the internet and people are full of crap, lie about who they are, and what they do. one person who has replied to this thread has acknowledged being a BOT ... regarding documentation from the factory, .. they have methods they work from .. a specific exposure routine, developer / development routine, and unless you are in their lab and using their gear or find yourself someone from foma coaching out on how they expose and develop their film to get their ISO information it really isn't much of anything but a starting point. and most manufacturers of film and chemistry suggest it's a starting point..

it would be great to see some of your results

[Mark J]

Everyone knows that Foma is a funny acting emulsion, many say it has no anti halation layer yet when developed with Rodinal, i have gotten interesting colors in the used developer, and even stop bath that MOST people say are only going to happen when you have developed a film WITH an anti halation layer.

It's not really a funny-acting emulsion, the 100 and 400 are pretty basic, quite old-fashioned. the 200 is a bit more like a modern T-Max style emulsion.
There is an anti-hahltion layer but it's not as effective as on most modern films. Anyone who says there is no anti-halation layer has not used the old Kodak High-speed Infra-Red.

Have you tried pushing or pulling one of these films and seen what the trade-offs are ?

If you are relying on Youtube vids for your info on how to use Fomapan, then give it up. I have sifted through many of them and found them frankly dire.
In general most vids show people trying out only 35mm film on street scenes in dreadfully dull weather and doing no meaningful comparison against any other film.

[paulbarden]

It's not really a funny-acting emulsion, the 100 and 400 are pretty basic, quite old-fashioned. the 200 is a bit more like a modern T-Max style emulsion.
There is an anti-hahltion layer but it's not as effective as on most modern films.

Anyone who says that Fomapan doesn't have an anti-halation dye simply doesn't know what they are talking about. Obviously it does.

Everyone knows that Foma is a funny acting emulsion, many say it has no anti halation layer

There's absolutely nothing "funny acting" about Fomapan. Who is this "everyone" you're speaking for??

[jnantz]

Have you tried pushing or pulling one of these films and seen what the trade-offs are ?

from what the OP has suggested s/he has not really developed or processed any film, I could be wrong though ...
s/he/s been asked to show results or examples but nothing has been posted / linked to.. I could be wrong again