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

[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.

[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.

[djdister]

The push and pull Mini...

[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.