# Pushing film?



## MaximS (Apr 13, 2016)

I've been reading some articles on pushing film and from what I understand you can only really push it 2 stops (400 to 1600 for example) until it starts to get really grainy/noisy but what I'm wondering is does it hold up that well? 

I would really like to shoot some pictures at night but would pushing 400 to 1600 actually be equivalent to using a 1600 iso film? Or would there need to be additional work done to the film afterwards?

I'd also be using the stand development method and B/W Ilford HP5. Thanks.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 13, 2016)

Pushing 400 to 1600 is not equivalent to using 1600. You push film as a compromise when you don't have the right film with you. If you have the opportunity to plan ahead then plan to use the right film.

Film can be pushed for effect. In other words you can decide you like the loss in image IQ from pushing film and then do that deliberately.

Pushing film simply means increasing development to compensate for underexposure. What we know however is that film development occurs disproportionately over the exposed tonal range. Increased development time builds density in the midtones and highlights while having little effect on the shadow area. With that understanding then what happens to the tonal information when you underexpose film and overdevelop? The increased development does next to nothing to bring back shadow detail and so pushed film has a signature look to it. It breaks prematurely to black and has no shadow detail.

Quality in a photo is first about tone response. Good tone response trumps grainy versus not grainy which is a secondary issue. If you need 1600 film then use that.

Joe


----------



## MaximS (Apr 13, 2016)

Oh I see, thanks for the explanation. I figured it wouldn't be the same as shooting 1600 iso (or whatever the film was pushed to ) because then there would be no need for higher ISO films in the first place, but I didn't know what the differences were. The lack of shadow detail is something I was noticing when looking at pictures as well but I figured it was just underexposure.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 13, 2016)

Pushing (as well as 'pulling') is also employed for those times when you screw up, forget to set the correct ISO/ASA on your camera and you end up exposing the entire roll at the wrong film speed.


----------



## limr (Apr 13, 2016)

Pushing isn't always just to fix screw ups. Some of us do it deliberately.
Nighttime in the city

I say go for it and then decide for yourself if it works for you or suits your style.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 14, 2016)

If I remember when I get home from work I will post some HP5 pushed to iso100 I've printed some prints in my darkroom and they look great and a lot less grainy than the scan

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (Apr 14, 2016)

HP5 pushed to iso1600


----------



## MaximS (Apr 14, 2016)

I'll definitely have to give it a go, I do like the effect. Cool pics guys.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 14, 2016)

Some Tri-X at 1600:


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 14, 2016)

I rarely push film, but usually pull it.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Apr 14, 2016)

Some films work well others crash horribly. Experiment with film and developers to find the result you seek.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 14, 2016)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Some films work well others crash horribly. Experiment with film and developers to find the result you seek.



I nominate this for the TPF _Post of the Month_.


----------



## mctb (May 11, 2016)

limr said:


> Pushing isn't always just to fix screw ups. Some of us do it deliberately.
> Nighttime in the city
> 
> I say go for it and then decide for yourself if it works for you or suits your style.



Wow, I am always looking for ways to get more contrast. I did not know that pushing film results in the fall off into black. I like it.


----------



## gsgary (May 11, 2016)

mctb said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Pushing isn't always just to fix screw ups. Some of us do it deliberately.
> ...


It's common knowledge 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## mctb (May 18, 2016)

So, which films, respond well to pushing? By respond well, I mean, do not drown the image out with grain. Will pushing color film result in the same increase of contrast as B&W film will?

I have pushed both TMax, Delta, and Fuji Superia but never a massive amount. Normally, just pushing from 400 to 640, for example.


----------



## Ysarex (May 18, 2016)

mctb said:


> So, which films, respond well to pushing? By respond well, I mean, do not drown the image out with grain. Will pushing color film result in the same increase of contrast as B&W film will?



Yes. Underexposure produces the same telltale result with all films: Shadow detail is dropped out and the photo cuts rapidly to black assuming a development increase was applied to bring the overall film density up to normal. This sensitometry fact is what produced the film era mantra, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Pushing film breaks that rule.

Joe



mctb said:


> I have pushed both TMax, Delta, and Fuji Superia but never a massive amount. Normally, just pushing from 400 to 640, for example.


----------



## Gary A. (May 18, 2016)

Shooting news, I probably pushed my Tri-X 66% of the time.

#1





TriX @ 1600

#2




Tri-X @ 1600

#3




Tri-X @ 1600

#4




Tri-X @ 1600

#5




Tri-X @ 1600

#6




Tri-X @ 1600

#7




Tri-X @ 2000

#8




Tri-X @ 1600


----------



## gsgary (May 18, 2016)

20 years out of date Tmax 100 pushed to 400 and developed in Rodinal


----------



## jcdeboever (May 18, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> Shooting news, I probably pushed my Tri-X 66% of the time.
> 
> #1
> 
> ...


Those are excellent on so many levels. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------

