Jump to content


Photo

push/pull guidence


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 ben jones

ben jones
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • winchester

Posted 23 May 2006 - 07:25 AM

Hello everyone.

I feel quite silly asking this question because I probably should know. On the other hand, I am still rather inexperienced using 16mm film, and hav'nt been given the opportunity (or maybe more precicely the money) to play around with lab procedures.

What Im asking for is if someone could please tell me me the basics of push and pull processing. Is pushing mainly used if you dont think you have enough light? What are the main effects of pushing stock? For example, If you decided to underexpose by a stop and push one stop in the lab, what would the main difference be between the images (one being a correctly exposed image) in terms of quality, detail, colour etc? I know that this must all depend on your stock decision, but I just need some basic direction if any one would be so kind.

Is it the negative actually being treated differently? Or is it a process attached to the telecine procedure?

Thanks for your time everyone,

regards, Ben Jones (no longer a student, but not worthy yet of being a professional ;) )
  • 0

#2 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 23 May 2006 - 07:57 AM

B)-->
QUOTE(major B @ May 23 2006, 08:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello everyone.

I feel quite silly asking this question because I probably should know. On the other hand, I am still rather inexperienced using 16mm film, and hav'nt been given the opportunity (or maybe more precicely the money) to play around with lab procedures.

What Im asking for is if someone could please tell me me the basics of push and pull processing. Is pushing mainly used if you dont think you have enough light? What are the main effects of pushing stock? For example, If you decided to underexpose by a stop and push one stop in the lab, what would the main difference be between the images (one being a correctly exposed image) in terms of quality, detail, colour etc? I know that this must all depend on your stock decision, but I just need some basic direction if any one would be so kind.

Is it the negative actually being treated differently? Or is it a process attached to the telecine procedure?

Thanks for your time everyone,

regards, Ben Jones (no longer a student, but not worthy yet of being a professional ;) )
[/quote]

Push/Pull Processing has been discussed here many times before. Please do a search.

Here is some information on the Kodak website:

http://www.kodak.com...4.15.4.18&lc=en
  • 0

#3 ben jones

ben jones
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • winchester

Posted 23 May 2006 - 08:37 AM

Dear John.

Thankyou for the infomative link you posted. This has been extreemly helpful my understanding of these processes. I must add, that I always perform searches within the forums before posting for advise. In this case, I was left confused and needed some concise and simple guidence. I understand that most people like yourselves are industry reps and professional camera people and I do not wish to waste anyones time unecessarily.

So to test my understanding, You could chose a low contrast stock (like 7229 or 7218) and make a decision to over expose it a stop with the intension of pulling a stop do decrease noticable grain?

On the other hand, you could achieve more contrast within either a high or low contrast stock by underexposing by a stop and then pushing by a stop?

An extreem case - What would the similarities in image be if you were to use a low contrast stock and under/over expose by an extreem amount (say 3 of 4 stops) and then correct by either pushing or pulling?

I will of course search my self, but will appreciate any knowledge you have to offer!

A friend of mine made a consious decision to underexpose by a couple of stops on his graduation film and then push 2 stops. It looked terrible - I would of course love to go through the process myself, but do not wish to ruin someone elses project (and thier trust in me) in the name of my experimentation!

Thankyou once again for your time,

Ben Jones.
  • 0

#4 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 23 May 2006 - 09:11 AM

B)-->
QUOTE(major B @ May 23 2006, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear John.

Thankyou for the infomative link you posted. This has been extreemly helpful my understanding of these processes. I must add, that I always perform searches within the forums before posting for advise. In this case, I was left confused and needed some concise and simple guidence. I understand that most people like yourselves are industry reps and professional camera people and I do not wish to waste anyones time unecessarily.

So to test my understanding, You could chose a low contrast stock (like 7229 or 7218) and make a decision to over expose it a stop with the intension of pulling a stop do decrease noticable grain?

On the other hand, you could achieve more contrast within either a high or low contrast stock by underexposing by a stop and then pushing by a stop?

An extreem case - What would the similarities in image be if you were to use a low contrast stock and under/over expose by an extreem amount (say 3 of 4 stops) and then correct by either pushing or pulling?

I will of course search my self, but will appreciate any knowledge you have to offer!

A friend of mine made a consious decision to underexpose by a couple of stops on his graduation film and then push 2 stops. It looked terrible - I would of course love to go through the process myself, but do not wish to ruin someone elses project (and thier trust in me) in the name of my experimentation!

Thankyou once again for your time,

Ben Jones.
[/quote]

In general, it is best to expose the film normally, and process normally, unless you want a different "look" or don't have the light to achieve a normal exposure. If you want lower contrast, consider using the Kodak VISION2 500T Expression Color Negative Film 7229.

Although you can manipulate contrast and graininess with push/pull processing, the "look" you get is also very dependent on the original exposure. Generally, you would not "push" an overexposed film, or "pull" an underexposed film. Mis-exposing by 3 or 4 stops cannot be fully compensated by any change in processing, especially if you grossly underexpose.

Underexposing by 2 stops will lose shadow detail, even if a push process is used. I would venture to say that your friend's Under-2, Push-2 footage lacked shadow detail, was grainy, and looked harsh/contrasty in the midscale and highlights.
  • 0

#5 ben jones

ben jones
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • winchester

Posted 23 May 2006 - 09:40 AM

Dear John.

Im impressed - Your spot on with that. It looked extreemly grainy. Even though it was supposed to be a kind of grimey kitchen sink drama, i think the grain was a little over the top. I guess the only way to really understand it is to shoot tests myself.

Alternatively -

We had a representative from kodak speak to us recently and demonstrate the new software you guys have developed to play around with all stages of processing with still images. Where can I see this in action again (I imagine its not downlaodable freeware!)

Thanks again Jonh. The information you have given me will clear a few things up when going back over the forums.

kind regards, Ben Jones.
  • 0

#6 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 23 May 2006 - 03:10 PM

B)-->
QUOTE(major B @ May 23 2006, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>



We had a representative from kodak speak to us recently and demonstrate the new software you guys have developed to play around with all stages of processing with still images. Where can I see this in action again (I imagine its not downlaodable freeware!)

[/quote]

I think you mean the Kodak Look Manager software?:

http://www.kodak.com...=0.1.4.22&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com...1.4.22.18&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com....1.4.22.4&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com....1.4.22.8&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com...1.4.22.10&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com...1.4.22.12&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com...1.4.22.16&lc=en
  • 0

#7 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 23 May 2006 - 05:55 PM

In general, any emulsion works best when exposed and processed at the recommended settings. If it could perform better at different settings, I guess they would have become the recommended ones by now :)

Push processing was a serious need a long time ago when there was only one standard speed emulsion available: it was the only way to get results in lower light levels.

Pushing and pulling are simply changes to the amount of development the negative is given in the processing machine. Usually it's a change in dev time, some labs get the same effect with temperature.

But clearly, you can't get genuine increase in sensitivity by developing for longer. If the exposure was too low to catch a shadow detail, then you can't bring it up by developing more. Pushing does increase negative density, allowing you to make a better print from underexposed negative: but it comes at the expense of increased graininess: and, as John describes, it will eventually show up the lack of shadow exposure.

Although pushing does increase graininess, the converse does not follow. Pulling (reducing development time) doesn't reduce graininess: in fact extreme pulling can also increase apparent graininess as the smallest, slowest grains don't get developed as much, while the larger ones are still there.

The main benefit of pushing or pulling comes if you are finishing on film: you can achieve a non-standard look (grain, contrast, etc) without a DI. Or you can rescue a negative that was exposed incorrectly: but unless you are a couple of stops out, that's not worth doing: neg has enough exposure latitude that you can correct on the print (or on telecine).
  • 0

#8 ben jones

ben jones
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • winchester

Posted 24 May 2006 - 03:35 AM

Dear Dominic and John.

Thankyou also for you response - You have helped my understanding of this process. I imagine you cannot ask people to push or pull super 8 stock? I just thought it may be a cheep way of testing this process on the vision 2 stocks.

John, Yes that was the software I meant. Thankyou for your links. I watched your acceptance speech too! congratulations (5 years late!).

Thankyou both once again.

regards Ben Jones
  • 0

#9 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 24 May 2006 - 09:31 AM

Dear Dominic and John.

Thankyou also for you response - You have helped my understanding of this process. I imagine you cannot ask people to push or pull super 8 stock? I just thought it may be a cheep way of testing this process on the vision 2 stocks.
John, Yes that was the software I meant. Thankyou for your links. I watched your acceptance speech too! congratulations (5 years late!).

Thankyou both once again.

regards Ben Jones


If you are shooting exposure and processing tests, you don't really need to shoot that much film, regardless of format. Usually best to test with the camera and lenses you actually intend to use, rather than extrapolate from a different format.

Thanks for the congratulations. The Academy Technical Achievement Award I received for developing the Laboratory Aim Density (LAD) control method was a highlight of my career. That, and receiving the "2003 Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award" from the EPA for leading the Kodak team that developed Particle Transfer Roller (PTR) film cleaning technology for cleaning motion-picture film without using solvents. B)
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Opal

Tai Audio

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

The Slider

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post