Pushing and Pulling effect on tone curve?

[bob carnie]

Drew

Jock Sturges prints have incredible shadow detail, I am not sure underexposing over developing is the way I would go, in fact quite the opposite.

Bob

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 developme
nt. 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.

[Drew Wiley]

Indeed. I'm not trying to discourage you at all, Ryan. But I do know how to achieve the effect you are seeking with current materials, and I am being completely honest (not jealous) when I state that I am not intimidated by anyone's reputation. A number of people on this forum can really print, even if they aren't household
names. You need to get to first base before you can get to second or third. And you're going to get there a lot, lot faster with good light meter technique. It can
be a lot of fun, but will take some distinct experience, esp in the printing aspect. Lots of the newer papers just don't behave like the old ones, so consequently might need a revision of film technique itself.

[ryanmills]

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.

Quick google check is not showing a lot but I will keep looking. I just want to be clear, lets say I shoot a 100 ISO film but set my meter for 400 and develop for ISO 400 is that not pushing it 2 stops? And again to be clear, thats not what jock is doing.

Maybe its the math im missing. Lets say im shooting a 100 ISO film I take my middle gray and over expose 3 stops. Using the method jock did what am I basing my develop time on? Is it not just using the time for 800 or do I go under and use 400? If its not how would I find my time or whats it based on. I did not follow the N-2 reference, what would N be?

[frotog]

If the shadows are eluding you, as you say, then you are not exposing enough. But as it's already been said, in order to hold onto the highlights you're going to need to compress the tonal scale. Traditionally this can be done in two different ways - either cut back on overall developing time (pulling the development), as it has already been noted here, or look into stand and semi-stand developing. Highlights are held back due to developer activity exhausting quickly in the more exposed portions of the neg while shadow development goes on and on and on….until gamma infinity. Even if you don't choose gamma infinity style development, you'd be wise to keep your agitation cycle as gentle and minimal as the film/dev combo will allow so as to keep the highlight density down. Robert Adams, Emmet Gowin, and Sally Mann have a similar technique of achieving open shadows whether it be stand dev. or the use of water baths and developing by inspection. You might find this article helpful in this regard… http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mo...mortensen.html

And contrary to what has been said here, a flat neg. is an eminently printable neg as it has no real constraints (i.e. blocked-up shadows or highlights), thereby affording the printer tremendous latitude in its interpretation. For example, notice how often Sturges will print a negative down to a desired black yet still keep all the micro-tonality in the skin tones - all that shadow detail is there to do whatever he wants with so long as the highlights are not blocked up. Plus, bonus, flat negs scan better.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob, remember that Tmax will dig fully two stops deeper than most popular films, in terms of resolving shadow gradation, IF the metering is dead on. But I doubt that's how Sturges did it anyway, because he probably wasn't generally working with that harsh a luminance scale. I personally liked to use Ari fresnels, old-school,
but when the printing was done, you'd never guess it, because the gradation was so subtle. All in the printing.

[frotog]

Not everything he shoots is at magic hour…

http://lamodelamour.files.wordpress....-sturges11.jpg

http://image.invaluable.com/housePho...-L00418037.jpg

Huge brightness range in these two shots. Again, metering for the highlights on the skin and compressing the tonal scale in development. And since he's always making pictures of pre-pubescent, lily-white nudes in mostly magic hour lighting, I'm not surprised he finds no need for the light meter. There's a reason DP's sometimes refer to it as "stupid hour"

[bob carnie]

Ryan ,

No , in the scenario you describe you are underexposing your film , I think you need to get rid of the term PUSH for right now.

When you need a negative with strong contrast and you are not concerned with great shadow detail you would double the rated film speed and then process accordingly.
I printed for the wonderful ballet photographer Catherine Ashmore and her method was to take HPF and rate it at 800 and then process in microphen at an extended time.

This allowed her camera speed , and was willing to suffer a bit of shadow detail. Most theatrical and sports photographers require this method.

For lith printing a strong negative is required, and Trix would be exposed at 1600 and processed in HC110 for a longer time. Anton Corjbin and Mike Spry his printer pretty much wrote the book on this one..

PUSH - is a term we lab rats would use more for the process time and is not in reference to the ISO.
In both these cases the photographer would extend the ISO for camera speed and would PUSH **extend** the development time to bring the film back.



Verbally it is hard to describe and I may not be doing justice to the conversation.

If I can find some info on Kodak Ring Arounds for Black and White I will post or maybe some kind soul here will do so. As once you see it
you should get it.

Bob

Quick google check is not showing a lot but I will keep looking. I just want to be clear, lets say I shoot a 100 ISO film but set my meter for 400 and develop for ISO 400 is that not pushing it 2 stops? And again to be clear, thats not what jock is doing.

Maybe its the math im missing. Lets say im shooting a 100 ISO film I take my middle gray and over expose 3 stops. Using the method jock did what am I basing my develop time on? Is it not just using the time for 800 or do I go under and use 400? If its not how would I find my time or whats it based on. I did not follow the N-2 reference, what would N be?

[ryanmills]

Not everything he shoots is at magic hour…

http://lamodelamour.files.wordpress....-sturges11.jpg

http://image.invaluable.com/housePho...-L00418037.jpg

Huge brightness range in these two shots. Again, metering for the highlights on the skin and compressing the tonal scale in development. And since he's always making pictures of pre-pubescent, lily-white nudes in mostly magic hour lighting, I'm not surprised he finds no need for the light meter. There's a reason DP's sometimes refer to it as "stupid hour"

Those photos are the excat reason im asking but I did not want to bother with too long of a back story. I can shoot just fine in the shadows, nice window lights, and i have gotten good at finding the nice subtle light and know exactly what I need for good shadow detail and I get perfect results using both tri-x 320 and tmax at box speed. But after looking at his book I see him getting far better results in very harsh lighting. Knowing how to better control that would be quite valuable to me and he is a rather well know photog and a good example, hence the reason for me asking what he meant by his comment. I tend to shoot tri-x 400 at 1600 and higher because i hate the results in any lighting at box speed. Doing that adds a lot of contrast. Thats why I was so confused by his comment. I'm not understanding something correctly in how the developing process effects the negative. Maybe i'm thinking of it too linerly. Those shots look to have to have a 6+ stop range, that second shot with the younger girl show it perfectly, detail still on both arms.

A practical example of reproducing that should would be quite helpful. If i was going to try I would meter the shadows, drop 1 maybe 2 stops and shoot that and develop normally. Maybe guess would be dead black negs on the harsh side of her body and little to no detail. I know agitation effects this, jock does 16-20 8x10's at a time and I know a person could only do that so fast so lower agitation rate, but how do I find or know what time to develop for? Do I need to meter differently?

[ryanmills]

Ryan ,

No , in the scenario you describe you are underexposing your film , I think you need to get rid of the term PUSH for right now.

When you need a negative with strong contrast and you are not concerned with great shadow detail you would double the rated film speed and then process accordingly.
I printed for the wonderful ballet photographer Catherine Ashmore and her method was to take HPF and rate it at 800 and then process in microphen at an extended time.

This allowed her camera speed , and was willing to suffer a bit of shadow detail. Most theatrical and sports photographers require this method.

For lith printing a strong negative is required, and Trix would be exposed at 1600 and processed in HC110 for a longer time. Anton Corjbin and Mike Spry his printer pretty much wrote the book on this one..

PUSH - is a term we lab rats would use more for the process time and is not in reference to the ISO.
In both these cases the photographer would extend the ISO for camera speed and would PUSH **extend** the development time to bring the film back.



Verbally it is hard to describe and I may not be doing justice to the conversation.

If I can find some info on Kodak Ring Arounds for Black and White I will post or maybe some kind soul here will do so. As once you see it
you should get it.

Bob

Ok, im following that, I guess its finding the development time without doing clip tests that im missing. So far google is letting me down.

[Oren Grad]

I tend to shoot tri-x 400 at 1600 and higher because i hate the results in any lighting at box speed.

If you are truly exposing TXP at 1600 - it's hard to know without understanding your metering technique - then you are grossly underexposing the film, making life very difficult for yourself.

To a first approximation, for a given scene, exposure controls shadow detail, while development controls contrast. If you do not have enough detail in the shadows you need to give more exposure. Once you are giving enough exposure, you can adjust development to get an overall density range (contrast) that will print comfortably on the papers you want to use.

For now, forget the terms "push" and "pull". Also forget anything you may have heard about the zone system, N+/N- development, anything of the sort. It is plainly confusing you.

Get a copy of either of David Vestal's books - The Craft of Photography or The Art of Black-and-White Enlarging. If you get Craft, then read chapter 9 and do the exercise described in it. If you get Art, read chapter 3 and do the exercise described in that. When you have finished, you will understand how your film behaves, and you will be able to answer your own question.