Push and Pull

[monochromeFan]

Going from a pdf file i found a link to on the foma website regarding Foma Action 400, which if im not mistaken is the only emulsion recipe they use for 400 iso film..

The pdf file puts forth that foma action 400 emulsion can be shot any where from 200 iso to 800 iso, and be properly developed by using the stock 400 iso time/developer combinations.

With the time, and religious idolatry put forth into making development tables for different iso of each film... the question i have is, if the foma literature is accurate why has anyone bothered to do the alternate developing times

[Michael R]

-Exposure latitude is has no strict/standard definition
-People standardize on different contrast/gradient preferences
-Different developers, agitation methods, temperatures
-Error/slop

[Doremus Scudder]

The terms "push" and "pull" are inherently imprecise and fuzzy themselves. Most who use the terms "push" and "pull" use roll film cameras and in-camera meters.

"Pushing" is most commonly regarded as a technique to get usable photographs in low-light situations or when a really fast shutter speed is necessary. The film speed is rated higher, which underexposes the film, loses the shadow detail and ends up with the highlights exposed somewhere where the mid-tones should normally be. Then the film is overdeveloped to get the highlight density up to around where it should be. The result is a negative with no detail in the shadows, stretched-out mid-tones and contrasty highlights. It's a fine technique to "get the shot" in difficult situations, but does not deliver a full-toned print. The use of pushing for concert and rock-star photos has made it a "look" that many like. That's fine too. So, push, if that's what you want your prints to look like.

"Pulling" is usually used for dealing with contrasty situations. Two things are normally happening here. 1. The contrast of the scene is so much that normal development blocks the highlights. 2. In-camera meters are often fooled into underexposing in contrasty situations. Hence, rating the film slower and reducing development fixes both problems.

Since you're studying the Zone System, you'll note that pushing is related to N+ or expanded development, just with the addition of underexposing the film to get the shot. And pulling is similar to N- or contracted development. Neither pushing nor pulling are as specific or precise as Zone System expansions and contractions.

As for Foma's recommendations: They are simply saying that "Normal" development will yield satisfactory prints from a range of film-speed ratings. Underexposing an ISO 400-speed film by a stop will lose some shadow detail. Foma likely feels this is fine, since pushing always loses shadow detail. Developing longer isn't necessary because the contrast can be dealt with in printing or in post-processing.

Overexposing the film by a stop isn't an issue either. You just get a bit more shadow detail. People might want to do this in situations where they are used to "pulling." Again, development changes aren't needed because proper contrast can be achieved in printing. (There's a good argument to be made that ZS expansions and contractions are not as necessary as they were in the past with today's contrast controls in printing too, but that's another thread :) )

Of course, nothing's stopping anyone from making development-time changes for expansions and contractions or pushing and pulling Foma film. Foma simply feels it isn't needed to get good results. Some may feel they get better results with changes in development time. These are the people that are posting their development times on the Massive Development Chart.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

Foma's film speed rating are infamously over-optimistic; take that into account too. And their provided technical info is minimal. You really do need to establish your own personal benchmarks of speed and development time.

Second, these films are quite different from one another. The alleged 200-speed product has an exceptionally long straight line, so you'll get a more linear response in high contrast settings, whereas the 100 and 400 speed versions are more ordinary in that respect, with a medium toe, and you might have to boost the exposure more in order to get good deep shadow values.

I personally dislike interjecting the terms "push" and "pull" with respect to Zone System theory. "Plus" or "Minus" development is less confusing, since the former pair of terms was generally used in relation to automated minor development tweaks to color film development instead.

[dave_whatever]

Foma's film speed rating are infamously over-optimistic; take that into account too.

This ��100%

If you look at Foma’s published datasheet for the 400 emulsion you’ll see there’s only one developer where the film gets anywhere near 400 speed in, and that’s Microphen (a specifically speed boosting developer) assuming you’re after high contrast, and even then it’s only about iso 320 according to the graphs. So they are basically rounding that up to 400 and sticking it on the packaging. Everyone’s mileage might vary of course, but it does feel like a car manufacturer measuring the MPG while the car’s driving downhill.��

[ic-racer]

Under exposing sheet film and over-developing it is not commonly practiced. Maybe like using a view camera hand -held. Not common, but not without merit for special circumstances.

[paulbarden]

the question i have is, if the foma literature is accurate why has anyone bothered to do the alternate developing times

Because Foma is telling you that you CAN get away with working this way. They are NOT suggesting you'll get optimal results that way. For optimal performance, every film has to be tested and evaluated for your particular work style and the results you want. Simply following the "lowest common denominator" instructions provided by Foma isn't going to get you to "optimal".

[Michael R]

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.

[Bob Kerner]

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.

Exactly right, spot on!!!

[djdister]

The multiple development curves provided on the Foma pdf contradicts their earlier statement that "the film gives good results even when overexposed by 1 EV (exposure value) (as ISO 200/24 o) or underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO 1600/33 o) without any change in processing, i.e. without lengthening the development time or increasing the temperature of the developer used." Perhaps something got lost in the translation to english. The development curves tell the real story, and very few of the curves even suggest rating the film as high as ISO 320.

Kodak and Ilford provide reasonable guidance on their film datasheets:
Kodak "These development times are suggested starting points. Make tests to determine the best development time for your application."
Ilford "Development times may need adjusting to suit individual processing systems and working practices."

[Bormental]

The terms "push" and "pull" are inherently imprecise and fuzzy themselves. Most who use the terms "push" and "pull" use roll film cameras and in-camera meters.

"Pushing" is most commonly regarded as a technique to get usable photographs in low-light situations or when a really fast shutter speed is necessary.

Nope. There is nothing fuzzy about pushing and pulling. They have absolutely nothing to do with exposure. They simply refer to lowering/raising film contrast during development by varying temperature or time. You can even push unexposed film: get it fresh from B&H, don't bother with cameras, load it right away into a Paterson tank and develop in stock D76 for 24 hours for an extreme push! :)

It's very simple. The "fuzziness" comes from Youtube.

[jnantz]

Nope.
It's very simple. The "fuzziness" comes from Youtube.

I would also add that the "fuzziness" comes from reading lots of technical and unnecessary information. I can understand some people love the technical aspect of things but it's just photography and 99.9% of the time none of the technical and unnecessary information matters. what matters is accurate shutter speeds, and developing the film so the impression of what was infront of the lens appears on the film. sunny 16(11) works as well as a meter in most conditions ( if it didn't they wouldn't have printed the instructions on every box of film since the 1940s ), err on the side of a little extra exposure, and develop "normally" as described on the bottle of the developer. fancy developers aren't needed, fancy developing systems are not needed, just a darkened room. the best teacher of photography is the experience of doing it, not reading and watching you tube and tech manuals, they just distract and confuse.

[Bob Kerner]

the best teacher of photography is the experience of doing it, not reading and watching you tube and tech manuals, they just distract and confuse.

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.

[paulbarden]

Nope. There is nothing fuzzy about pushing and pulling.

It's very simple. The "fuzziness" comes from Youtube.

This phenomenon of blaming YouTube for the bad technical advice people find is misguided, IMO. There are plenty of very skilled photographers with good teaching skills, who produce content for YouTube to instruct others how to do X, Y, or Z. Sure, there's plenty of junk content too, but 'Tubers like John Finch, Borut Peterlin, Lina Bessanova - to name but three - produce some great tutorials for YouTube. Don't blame the channel for delivering bad content - blame the user for not being a bit smarter about whose content they're "learning" from. It's not hard to weed out the junk.


Yes. The OP seems intent on going down rabbit holes that invite speculation and argument.
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.

"Monochrome" has been advised to get himself one or two books that detail the more basic principles of film exposure and development, and spend less time trying to interpret works like A. Adams, but it seems he (this has to be a male, based on his demeanor) is intent on trying to digest the more intricate aspects of B&W photography without building a foundation of understanding that - let's face it - is essential to understanding and applying the more complex concepts. He wants to fly without first learning to walk. He's ignored plenty of sage advice, sneered at his peers and the photographers he encounters "IRL", and defied the instruction he's been offered. It's hardly a wonder that some have interpreted his posts as "trolling".

When someone has come to a group seeking advice, but has already made up his mind about the subject he's asking about, there's nothing anyone can do to address the problems. This one seems intent on avoiding learning anything.

[notorius]

The multiple development curves provided on the Foma pdf contradicts their earlier statement that "the film gives good results even when overexposed by 1 EV (exposure value) (as ISO 200/24 o) or underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO 1600/33 o) without any change in processing, i.e. without lengthening the development time or increasing the temperature of the developer used." Perhaps something got lost in the translation to english.

Nope. I can assure you there is the exact same nonsense in the original Czech language too. :-)

[Doremus Scudder]

... I personally dislike interjecting the terms "push" and "pull" with respect to Zone System theory. "Plus" or "Minus" development is less confusing, since the former pair of terms was generally used in relation to automated minor development tweaks to color film development instead.

I dislike the terms, period. Basically shorthand for sloppy guesswork.

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

Under exposing sheet film and over-developing it is not commonly practiced. Maybe like using a view camera hand -held. Not common, but not without merit for special circumstances.

Yep. It's a roll-film-get-the-shot-in-low-light thing. It's become enough of a "look" that some like it (and think it's technically good photography).

Doremus

[jnantz]

I dislike the terms, period. Basically shorthand for sloppy guesswork.

Doremus

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

[Bob Kerner]

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

You two are making my point for me! See post #13. OP hasn't been back here since posting the original question.

[jnantz]

You two are making my point for me! See post #13. OP hasn't been back here since posting the original question.

hi bob, kinda funny :)

the OP doesn't come back. cause s/he's a troll and this is what trolls do, get people talking. without them stopping in
to this site from time to time (and it's probably the same person, but just a change of name every few weeks)
the 4 or 5 active posters wouldn't say anything at all about photography.

[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

[Vaughn]

...
I personally dislike interjecting the terms "push" and "pull" with respect to Zone System theory. "Plus" or "Minus" development is less confusing, since the former pair of terms was generally used in relation to automated minor development tweaks to color film development instead.

Hearing "under" and/or "over" used for exposure and/or development, I tend to think of someone making a mistake.

I tend not to use contrast controls when printing alt processes, so I have to get the contrast right (and rather high) in the negative. So when I give a negative twice the development recommended by the manufacturer for silver gelatin printing, I am not over developing, I am developing just the right amount. :cool:

[jnantz]

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

I know what you mean Doremus ..
people go on about pushing and pulling as if it can fix anything, like stand development in 1:126.5 rodinal with spring water from the fountain of youth ..personally I don't even think about if I am pushing or pulling anything I just expose and develop ..

John

[Michael R]

I know what you mean Doremus ..
people go on about pushing and pulling as if it can fix anything, like stand development in 1:126.5 rodinal with spring water from the fountain of youth ..personally I don't even think about if I am pushing or pulling anything I just expose and develop ..

John

Semi-stand is good for the calf muscles, but only if you extreme minimal agitate.

[Tin Can]

My advice is shoot 35mm without meter and no evil Auto anything

until you can shoot daylight

by thinking and looking at the light, time of day, season...

don't use a meter

[jnantz]

Semi-stand is good for the calf muscles, but only if you extreme minimal agitate.

that's pretty good stuff, kind of dangerous to give instructions like that in a public forum.


My advice is shoot 35mm without meter and no evil Auto anything

until you can shoot daylight

by thinking and looking at the light, time of day, season...

don't use a meter

couldn't agree more !

[Tin Can]

I roll my own 35 with 12 shots

Yes it wastes some film!

But not really

I buy 100 ft rolls

Soon I will show how far we can enlarge 35

[paulbarden]

Soon I will show how far we can enlarge 35

In 1991 I worked for a friend of mine (Canadian photographer Arno Maggs) as his darkroom technician/assistant. One project we worked on together was his series "Hotel" (https://www.aci-iac.ca/art-books/arnaud-maggs/key-works/hotel-series/)(click on link to view), which involved making huge prints from 35mm negatives. Each print was either 6 or 8 feet tall by approximately 2 feet wide. We printed these on Ilford MGFB rolls using a Beseler 23C II enlarger on its side, projecting on a wall, and developed the prints in wallpaper paste trays! So yeah - you can make some pretty big prints from 35mm, if you have the will to do so!

[Tin Can]

Now guess taking format on all actual prints

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53440488206_7186226724_4k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2pqmtiG)Tin Can (https://flic.kr/p/2pqmtiG) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Drew Wiley]

Over the web it might make little difference, viewing the prints in person it very well might.

[jnantz]

I roll my own 35 with 12 shots

Yes it wastes some film!

But not really

I buy 100 ft rolls

Soon I will show how far we can enlarge 35

if you ever get a chance view guillaume zuili's 35mm enlargements they are gigantic and absolutely beautiful

[Michael R]

Over the web it might make little difference, viewing the prints in person it very well might.

Who looks at prints in person anymore? That’s 20th century stuff.

[Michael R]

if you ever get a chance view guillaume zuili's 35mm enlargements they are gigantic and absolutely beautiful

Not only that but I still think the vast majority of people will make better photographs with smaller than larger formats.

[Drew Wiley]

That's only because you have shorter days in winter up there, and can't deal with the longer exposures necessary for most large format shots.

[Michael R]

That's only because you have shorter days in winter up there, and can't deal with the longer exposures necessary for most large format shots.

Nope it’s based on all my years looking at photographs - including on here, where the best stuff is in the non-large format gallery threads. But it’s true short days are my favourite.

[jnantz]

not only that but i still think the vast majority of people will make better photographs with smaller than larger formats.

only if it's a leica!

[Vaughn]

Who looks at prints in person anymore? That’s 20th century stuff.

I know! And people still listening to live music, too, when we have ear-buds and all that stuff. Unbelievable! :cool:

And obviously Ansel's work became much better when he started using the Hassy...;)

[paulbarden]

only if it's a leica!

Don't start that now!!!

[jnantz]

I know! And people still listening to live music, too, when we have ear-buds and all that stuff. Unbelievable! :cool:

And obviously Ansel's work became much better when he started using the Hassy...;)

just think how good his work would have been if he used a Leica like Bresson .. he really missed the boat ..

[Vaughn]

just think how good his work would have been if he used a Leica like Bresson .. he really missed the boat ..

By all accounts he was looking forward to the digital age, so he missed that boat, too. Instead, he drove his wood-sided land yacht off into the sunset.:cool:

[notorius]

Very funny. :) Finally this thread has become meaningful!
edit: I mean a couple of the latest posts.

[Michael R]

By all accounts he was looking forward to the digital age, so he missed that boat, too. Instead, he drove his wood-sided land yacht off into the sunset.:cool:

Didn’t he have that Cadillac by the end?

[jnantz]

By all accounts he was looking forward to the digital age, so he missed that boat, too. Instead, he drove his wood-sided land yacht off into the sunset.:cool:

I know what you mean vaughn
years ago I had a conversation with jerry katz, the chemist who did all the data and whatnot for the photo lab index .. and he was at some PLI/Morgan+Lester shindig and ansel adams was there. Adams was extremely interested in the photographs he (katz )put on the wall ... from what he told me it was a blow up ( 16x20 ) tight grain, sweet tonality et C. and mr adams asked if it was made with a LF negative, Mr katz told him it was 8mm, developed in some sort of monobath he invented ... it blew mr Adam's mind .. he was open minded, and loved making photographs any way he could and saw a bright future. land yacht .. you aren't kidding !

[Drew Wiley]

My Grammar School graduating class motto was, "Push, Pull, or Get out of the way". Simpler days then. If you wanted to talk to someone, you walked, bicycled, or took a horse. No phones there yet except at the General Store (a mahogany box with a crank handle), and darn little TV reception either.

I imagine Ansel would vomit if he saw what is being done with digital photography today. Be careful what you wish for.

[jnantz]

I imagine Ansel would vomit if he saw what is being done with digital photography today. Be careful what you wish for.

He’d be sickened because people are being creative using photography ? I don’t get it ..

[Michael R]

He’d be sickened because people are being creative using photography ? I don’t get it ..

Back to OP’s topic…https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YWywb9i-z7Y&pp=ygUXcHVzaCBhbmQgcHVsbCBqdWx5IHRhbGs%3D

[Vaughn]

Didn’t he have that Cadillac by the end?

Yes, and an International Travel-all in there for awhile.

And a burro, too (but no photos of AA up on a pack-top roof rack). Personally, I packed mules for ten years while doing trail work and never fully trusted them to haul my 4x5 out into the wilderness (not a lot of pushing or pulling those beasts). There just wasn't time and/or energy to get too creative...if there was light, there was something that needed to be done. Except for a few times I backpacked the camera in on my days off, I saved photography for the other 6 months of the year up in the redwoods and occasional trips to the SW in my '71 VW Bug.

[jnantz]

Back to OP’s topic…https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YWywb9i-z7Y&pp=ygUXcHVzaCBhbmQgcHVsbCBqdWx5IHRhbGs%3D

for a second there I thought that was the pepto bismol ad

[Drew Wiley]

The trouble with mules is that they can be smarter than people; and the saying, "stubborn as mule" didn't come out of nowhere. They also know how to lay down in the middle of creeks to cool off, along with the gear atop them. AA stopped backpacking when he was just 32 and resorted to mules. Many of his high country pictures were taken on brief breaks when leading huge mule and horse train convoys of Sierra Clubbers along the trails. More often these days, llamas are preferred instead by photographers; but they get spooked more easily. I still prefer my own two feet.

[Bob Kerner]

I sure hope we can get to 15 pages on this topic

[djdister]

The push and pull Mini...
247154

[rdenney]

Okay, guys, play nice…

Rick “back to actual content, please” Denney

[Michael R]

I sure hope we can get to 15 pages on this topic

I know we can do it. Go team.:D

[djdister]

Back to our original programming...

There is nothing inherently bad or wrong about push processing, which may be required due to intentional or inadvertent underexposure. Kodak describes it simply on one of their datasheets:

Push processing allows you to expose the film at higher
film-speed numbers for conditions such as low-level light,
stop action, or existing light. However, there will be a loss
of shadow detail and an increase in graininess.
Because of these films’ exposure latitude, you can
underexpose by one stop and use normal processing
times. Prints will show a slight loss in shadow detail.
You can underexpose by two stops if you increase
development time by push processing. Prints will show an
increase in contrast and graininess with further loss of
shadow detail. However, results should be acceptable for
many applications. Expose a test roll to determine the film
speed that gives the best results for your application.
You can underexpose TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX by three
stops if you increase development time by push
processing. Prints will show an increase in contrast and
graininess, and an additional loss of shadow detail.
However, results should be acceptable for some
applications. Expose some test rolls to determine the film
speed that gives the best results for your application.

[Drew Wiley]

"results should be acceptable for some applications" - Well, I can attest to that ridiculously over-optimistic statement. I was the first person to a nighttime car wreck and happened to have a 35mm camera with me. But a Sheriff's Deputy soon arrived too. I took a handheld 4 sec exposure via auto headlights which did need "pushing" three stops. It was wretchedly blurred and there was almost no shadow gradation. But that made no difference published in a rural newspaper where all the pictures were miserable. It was enough to show the face of the drunk driver sitting in the ditch with his jeep upside down nearby, cussing at the Deputy for telling him he was going to jail after he got out of the hospital, still too drunk to realize he had broken a couple of legs. It takes a long time for an ambulance to arrive at the place like that, and once his head started clearing up, he was beginning to moan enough.

[jnantz]

The trouble with mules is that they can be smarter than people; and the saying, "stubborn as mule" didn't come out of nowhere. They also know how to lay down in the middle of creeks to cool off, along with the gear atop them. AA stopped backpacking when he was just 32 and resorted to mules. Many of his high country pictures were taken on brief breaks when leading huge mule and horse train convoys of Sierra Clubbers along the trails. More often these days, llamas are preferred instead by photographers; but they get spooked more easily. I still prefer my own two feet.

drew

I know you are familiar with hill country and rural areas where you grew up, and have spent your life exploring and enjoying. have you ever thought of creating something that folks might consider a monograph of these areas. as someone who is a historic preservation professional interested not as much preserving the landscape ( it's alive and will change due to forces beyond mere mortals power ) but mainly through photography. travel photography / preservation photography began as soon as photography was invented. I don't just mean pristine images of the landscape, but even a view of someplace and like the white stylus on a 3A postcard camera allowed a description maybe in 1 sentence of what used to be there. I live in RI and one hilarious way RI-people give directions is stating where something used to be .. for example " you go down and pass the light and where the "so and so" used to be you take a left ..." I have 40 years of these types of images and will eventually make a guidebook ...I am sure llamas or by foot you must have images made in all formats ... and no pushing or pulling development will be involved :)

[jnantz]

"results should be acceptable for some applications" - Well, I can attest to that ridiculously over-optimistic statement. I was the first person to a nighttime car wreck and happened to have a 35mm camera with me. But a Sheriff's Deputy soon arrived too. I took a handheld 4 sec exposure via auto headlights which did need "pushing" three stops. It was wretchedly blurred and there was almost no shadow gradation. But that made no difference published in a rural newspaper where all the pictures were miserable. It was enough to show the face of the drunk driver sitting in the ditch with his jeep upside down nearby, cussing at the Deputy for telling him he was going to jail after he got out of the hospital, still too drunk to realize he had broken a couple of legs. It takes a long time for an ambulance to arrive at the place like that, and once his head started clearing up, he was beginning to moan enough.

hi drew, sorry for the double-shot .. but except for artists and people who have a higher level of sophistication when it comes to photography, wasn't your photograph a success? most people don't really care about highlight detail of chiaroscuro and it's only purpose is to give an inkling of what was there. It's funny, I spoke with a friend of the family who was a realtor ... It went like this

Me: Mrs. M. have you ever noticed how terrible the photographs are for RE Listings, it's hard to believe those people are paid the photography is so bad ..
Mrs. M.: The photographs don't matter, they are there to just spark an interest.

Similar to a friend whose wife was a realtor...

EB: My wife has gotten really good at real estate photography
Me: Sounds great ...
EB: She carries a fake branch that has leaves with her so people feel more at home.
.. Isn't that similar to what your location-job was about ( you know .. being "good enough" ) ...

[Drew Wiley]

I have done running projects of specific hill country regions, especially the California gold country. I doubt I'll live long enough to publish the pictures, but might find time to put full portfolios of them up for sale. Only representative images have actually been publicly displayed. But this week I was looking through the homemade albums of a young girl with a box camera, who took some remarkable contemporaneous pictures of silver rush towns on the opposite side of the range. I've actually met her - when I was a child and she was in her 90's.

Otherwise, this is the time of year snow is forecast clear over here on our coastal hills. And that's when the real estate photographers go out and take pictures of wretched inland subdivisions as hot and smoggy as hell most of the year. But the brochure will show one of the handful of days when the sky is deep blue with a snowcapped peak in the background, and a verdant green meadow with wildflowers in the foreground (due to be bulldozed the next day).