Pushing film for contrast Vs adding in post

N

Nebular89

Messages
235
Edit My Images
No
If you know before you take a photo that want it to be high contrast is there any difference between pushing film to get extra contrast Vs just adding it in post?
Aside from extra grain
 
Not something I've considered, but off the top of my head I could see possible problems with a darkroom print simply because the paper has such a relatively small range of tonal values. With a scanned and digitally printed print, the possible problem I can see is if the density goes beyond the reach of your scanner to scan.

In theory, increasing development for darkroom printing should be a better way to go, as it gives you the option of using a harder grade of paper (or the equivalent with multigrade filters) to increase the contrast more.

I await with interest comments from people who've tried this - I've never intentionally modified my development times because my style of photography and subjects haven't need it (yet).
 
Nebular89 said:
If you know before you take a photo that want it to be high contrast is there any difference between pushing film to get extra contrast Vs just adding it in post?
Aside from extra grain
Click to expand...

If you're shooting 35mm or roll film (120) one immediate but I suppose important difference that comes to mind is that by controlling contrast via development you would be doing so for the whole roll, so the whole set of images exposed. Whereas by doing it in post you would work only on selected images.

Increasing contrast by pushing (=exposing less AND developing more) would allow you use faster shutter speeds and/or smaller apertures, thereby theoretically, in some situations, minimizing motion blur, or increasing DOF, or both - compared to the same film exposed normally. Of course, by pushing you will irremediably lose shadow detail (something that the extended development will be unable to recover) and will risk saturating and losing important highlight detail. Added grain is another factor to consider as you correctly highlighted.

Pick your poison!
 
Last edited:
Back in my day we'd often over expose and pull dev time to reduce contrast, and underexposing and pushing dev time would boost contrast (although it wasnt very often you needed too. I used to go with multigrade paper and a 5? filter (the highest anyway) if I really needed too.
My prefered method for high contrast was lith film though,
 
StephenM said:
Not something I've considered, but off the top of my head I could see possible problems with a darkroom print simply because the paper has such a relatively small range of tonal values. With a scanned and digitally printed print, the possible problem I can see is if the density goes beyond the reach of your scanner to scan.

In theory, increasing development for darkroom printing should be a better way to go, as it gives you the option of using a harder grade of paper (or the equivalent with multigrade filters) to increase the contrast more.

I await with interest comments from people who've tried this - I've never intentionally modified my development times because my style of photography and subjects haven't need it (yet).
Click to expand...
True, I suppose your stuck with high contrast if you push the film.
I thought about it as I took a photo in flat light a few days ago. Knowing I would be adding contrast later anyway and now I have a 4x5 and can develop each photo differently I wondered if they’d be any point to just baking in it, but then your stuck with it, no going back
 
That's not strictly true - there are reducers that you can use to compensate for over exposed or over developed negatives. They come in two types, those that "shave off" the same amount from highlights and shadows, and those that work proportionally which would reduce contrast. I suspect that they may not be easily found these days.

In passing, the reverse is also possible with intensifiers; a popular one when I was young was uranium intensifier, sold made up. That is probably even more difficult to source now...
 
StephenM said:
That's not strictly true - there are reducers that you can use to compensate for over exposed or over developed negatives. They come in two types, those that "shave off" the same amount from highlights and shadows, and those that work proportionally which would reduce contrast. I suspect that they may not be easily found these days.

In passing, the reverse is also possible with intensifiers; a popular one when I was young was uranium intensifier, sold made up. That is probably even more difficult to source now.
Click to expand...
Interesting, never heard of that. I’ve done a bit of darkroom printing before with 35mm. I liked it but I’m glad I’m around in a time where it’s not the only option!
 
I did some super high contrast work for a band, shooting Tmax 3200 at 50,000. It gives a look that I don't think would be entirely reproducible in post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top