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!Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Nope. I can assure you there is the exact same nonsense in the original Czech language too. :-)
I dislike the terms, period. Basically shorthand for sloppy guesswork.
Doremus
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
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks