To pull or not to pull
Mark
or is there little difference in the outcome?
Mark
Comrade
> I shot a roll of 200 ASA at 100. Should I have this pulled one stop,
> or is there little difference in the outcome?
without the capabilities of time travel, there is little difference, at
this point
--
Comrade
see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
Arisocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
"Does God want goodness? or the choice of goodness?
Is the man who chooses bad, somehow better,
than the man who has the good forced upon him?"
a quote from the movie, A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick
Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.
Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding
without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when
its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution
and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude!
"Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto
of enlightenment.
Kant -- What Is Enlightenment? 1784
"It all sums up into one single purpose,
the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live...
and I traveled the United Front road to get it."
-- Roger Baldwin, Co-Founder ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
"Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in
Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in"
MOODY BLUES
see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
David Nebenzahl
> I shot a roll of 200 ASA at 100. Should I have this pulled one stop,
> or is there little difference in the outcome?
Let me be the first to ask you for an obvious piece of missing information:
what kind of film? Makes a difference.
I'd say if it's color print or black & white, don't bother. On the other hand,
if it's color reversal film (slides), you might want to pull it.
--
We are receiving alerts about a worm that is spreading around the Internet
contained in a .zip archive file. What is surprising to security analysts
is that this worm is spreading at all since it cannot execute without user
intervention. Security analysts believe the rapid spread indicates that
recipients are still opening email attachments even after they have been
warned many times that it is unsafe to do so.
- Description of the "Sobig.E" worm, ca. June 2003
Richard Knoppow
"Mark" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
news:vi0Ta.3659$Fy1.169009@localhost...
Because of the way ISO speeds are measured for B&W film the
exposure is a minimum. Many find exposing an additional stop
yields better shadow detail.
Development time really affects contrast. While it also
affects effective speed it does so indirectly by varying the
low densities a small amount. No amount of pushing, for
instance, will compensate for severe underexposure, there
just isn't any image recorded. Recucing devlopment for
severe overexposure can make the negagives much easier to
print but higher contrast paper must be used to get the
contrast back up.
Exposure errors for reversal color are more serious
because there is not much range of compensation for the
reversal image. However, adjusting first development of
reversal materials can sometimes give a useable result where
there is an exposure error large enough to be unusable
otherwise.
Again, if this is B&W negative material develop it
normally, the results will be fine.
zeitgeist
pulling film can cause far more problems than you are hoping to prevent,
Paul Attreides
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:20:52 -0600, Mark wrote:
>
> > I shot a roll of 200 ASA at 100. Should I have this pulled one stop,
> > or is there little difference in the outcome?
>
> without the capabilities of time travel, there is little difference, at
> this point
You really are a goofball.
--
There was a man so wise he jumped into a sandy place
and burnt out both his eyes. And when he knew his eyes were
gone he offered no compliant. He summoned up a vision and made himself a saint.
Paul Attreides
If its Color slide and you bracketed your exposures
a 1/2 stop pull will saturate the colors somewhat at
the top of the bracket. If you did not bracket run it normal.
BW film you could pull half a stop but should only if the
highlights are close to the maximum you could print like Zone
8-9
--
Comrade
> In article <pan.2003.07.22....@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:20:52 -0600, Mark wrote:
>>
>> > I shot a roll of 200 ASA at 100. Should I have this pulled one stop,
>> > or is there little difference in the outcome?
>>
>> without the capabilities of time travel, there is little difference, at
>> this point
>
> You really are a goofball.
if he didn't consider exposing for pull, it is not a pull situtation,
unless he screwed up the exposure, which he didn't say, so I assumed he
has normal exposures and wants some sort of condolescences that he didn't
expose them differently
David Nebenzahl
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:14:53 +0000, Paul Attreides wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2003.07.22....@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:20:52 -0600, Mark wrote:
>>>
>>> > I shot a roll of 200 ASA at 100. Should I have this pulled one stop,
>>> > or is there little difference in the outcome?
>>>
>>> without the capabilities of time travel, there is little difference, at
>>> this point
>>
>> You really are a goofball.
>
> if he didn't consider exposing for pull, it is not a pull situtation,
> unless he screwed up the exposure, which he didn't say, so I assumed he
> has normal exposures and wants some sort of condolescences that he didn't
> expose them differently
Methinks you're needlessly confusing a simple situation.
As I read the OP's question, he accidently [over]exposed ASA 200 film at 100
(the assumption being that he *correctly* exposed it as if it were ASA 100).
Therefore, it's a perfect candidate for pull processing.
What part of this are you having problems with?
Comrade
> As I read the OP's question, he accidently [over]exposed
WRONG, he did not eludidate the exposure at all
he said he had exposures and asked whether to pull them, and I said he
should pull his pud instead because he should have thought about pull
beforehand, and thinking of pull afterwards, is only applicable to
incorrect exposure, which he did not elucidate
touche, arrogant ruffian dog
--
Comrade
see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
Arisocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
Statements of supposed science, without statistics, are just as much religion,
as any religion, except they profess the supposed scientist is God, even more
dangerous than religion or God. There is no science, without a statement
statistics, AND any statement without statistics, is a conjecture of faith
by the professor of such statement, and the "believer". An ethical
house cleaning of science and government is in order.
"Does God want goodness? or the choice of goodness?
Is the man who chooses bad, somehow better,
than the man who has the good forced upon him?"
a quote from the movie, A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick
Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.
Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding
without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when
its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution
and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude!
"Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto
of enlightenment.
Kant -- What Is Enlightenment? 1784
"It all sums up into one single purpose,
the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live...
and I traveled the United Front road to get it."
-- Roger Baldwin, Co-Founder ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
"Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in
Timothy Leary's dead, No No No No, He's outside, looking in"
MOODY BLUES
"Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."--Matthew 16:6
(religious and political leaders that are hypocrites)
(leaven is yeast, AIR IN BREAD, bullshit, fluff, marketing, snake oil - HYPOCRISY)
"How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."--Matthew 16:11-12
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."--Matthew 23:13
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."--Matthew 23:14
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."--Matthew 23:15
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."--Matthew 23:23
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."--Matthew 23:25
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."--Matthew 23:27
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,"--Matthew 23:29
"And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod."--Mark 8:15
"And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,"--Mark 12:38
Paul Attreides
secondly you all are a bunch of cross posting idiots,...
I am only here to set the record straight.
Third since when does pull processing soley hindge on how
the film was exposed Third learn to spell. Its "elucidate".
Lastly if anyone knows how to pull their PUD its proably
you, you seem to be an expert on that.
Good day.
In article <pan.2003.07.23....@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:23:40 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:
> > As I read the OP's question, he accidently [over]exposed
> WRONG, he did not eludidate the exposure at all
> he said he had exposures and asked whether to pull them, and I said he
> should pull his pud instead because he should have thought about pull
> beforehand, and thinking of pull afterwards, is only applicable to
> incorrect exposure, which he did not elucidate
> touche, arrogant ruffian dog
> Comrade
Serge Kozak
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:3F1DC77C...@but.us.chickens...
Comrade
> Third since when does pull processing soley hindge on how
> the film was exposed
the man did not say he was seeking an abtract art effect, which is the
ONLY time processing is not directly tied to exposure, touche, ruffian dog
--
Comrade
see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
Arisocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
Statements of supposed science, without statistics, are just as much religion,
and ONLY statements of faith as any religion, or statement of faith,
except they profess the supposed scientist is God, even more
dangerous than religion or God. There is no science, without a statement of
Peter De Smidt
"Paul Attreides" <blu-...@arrakis.com> wrote in message
news:blu-iyzr-220...@pool-151-196-172-51.balt.east.verizon.net...
> First and foremost your a goof ball as stated previously,
> secondly you all are a bunch of cross posting idiots,...
>
> I am only here to set the record straight.
>
> Third since when does pull processing soley hindge on how
> the film was exposed Third learn to spell. Its "elucidate".
> Lastly if anyone knows how to pull their PUD its proably
> you, you seem to be an expert on that.
>
> Good day.
>
Wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure that one does not make grammatical
or spelling mistakes in a post complaining about the mistakes in kind of
others?
-Peter De Smidt
Comrade
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure that one does not make grammatical
> or spelling mistakes in a post complaining about the mistakes in kind of
> others?
establish where I criticized grammer, semantics, or spelling
ruffian dog
--
Comrade
see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
Arisocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
Statements of supposed science, without statistics, are just as much religion,
and ONLY statements of faith as any religion, or statement of faith,
except they profess the supposed scientist is God, even more
dangerous than religion or God. There is no science, without a statement of
Peter De Smidt
"Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.23....@mysolution.ws...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:48:03 -0500, Peter De Smidt wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure that one does not make
grammatical
> > or spelling mistakes in a post complaining about the mistakes in kind of
> > others?
>
>
> establish where I criticized grammer, semantics, or spelling
>
> ruffian dog
>
The complete post that you're referring to went as follows:
<original post>
"Paul Attreides" <blu-...@arrakis.com> wrote in message
news:blu-iyzr-220...@pool-151-196-172-51.balt.east.verizon.net...
> First and foremost your a goof ball as stated previously,
> secondly you all are a bunch of cross posting idiots,...
>
> I am only here to set the record straight.
>
> Third since when does pull processing soley hindge on how
> the film was exposed Third learn to spell. Its "elucidate".
> Lastly if anyone knows how to pull their PUD its proably
> you, you seem to be an expert on that.
>
> Good day.
>
Wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure that one does not make grammatical
or spelling mistakes in a post complaining about the mistakes in kind of
others?
-Peter De Smidt
<end original post>
Thus, unless you (ruffian dog) are Paul Attreides, I was not addressing my
comments to you. How was this unclear?
-Peter De Smidt
Comrade
> How was this unclear?
matter of proletarian vigilance, I will apologize, but not concede my
justice in such matters until proletarians do not need to be as vigilant
Al Denelsbeck
news:pan.2003.07.23....@mysolution.ws:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:23:40 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> As I read the OP's question, he accidently [over]exposed
>
> WRONG, he did not eludidate the exposure at all
He said he shot 200 speed film at 100. That's called an exposure
difference here on planet Earth, to the english-speaking community.
That's two threads where you not only had no idea what you were
talking about, you got arrogant about your ignorance as well. You've got
some good company now, down there...
[Plonk]
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Comrade
> He said he shot 200 speed film at 100. That's called an exposure
> difference here on planet Earth, to the english-speaking community.
apolly pologies
--
Comrade
see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
Arisocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
Statements of supposed science, without statistics, are just as much religion,
and ONLY statements of faith as any religion, or statement of faith,
except they profess the supposed scientist is God, even more
dangerous than religion or God. There is no science, without a statement of
Comrade
> apolly pologies
now, that is a 1 stop difference
color negative films have PLENTY of over exposure latitutude so it is best
to overexpose some, they haev 3 or more stops over latitude and just a
little under, maybe 1, 2 possibly
so, it all really depends on his lighting and aperture too
but 1 stop over, would even be better than a normal, CERTAINLY if we
weren't dealing with a scene of dynamic range like a wedding dress and
tuxedo situation, and if you pull then, the curves are going to cross all
over the place, no pushable/pullable film, can deliver real good color,
certainly not wedding quality,
push is really a speed getter of old that died with photojournalism digital
and pull is just a resort to save real bad exposures
and I am sure the fine art community will speak up about B&W applications,
etc. .... all of which abstract art is much better done in photoshop, or
even better www.gimp.org, support a BRAVE GNU WORLD
Ken Hart
> or is there little difference in the outcome?
>
>
> Mark
>
Probably not an issue. If it's (actual, not C-41) B&W, you might consider
it; the contrast will probably be a bit low, otherwise it will probably be a
bit dense to print. If color print, pulling will probably cause more of a
problem with color balance. In either case, I wouldn't sweat one stop. If
it's slide film, you're screwed (sorry!).
Ken Hart
David Nebenzahl
> "Mark" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
> news:vi0Ta.3659$Fy1.169009@localhost...
>
>> I shot a roll of 200 ASA at 100. Should I have this pulled one stop,
>> or is there little difference in the outcome?
>
> Probably not an issue. If it's (actual, not C-41) B&W, you might consider
> it; the contrast will probably be a bit low, otherwise it will probably be a
> bit dense to print. If color print, pulling will probably cause more of a
> problem with color balance. In either case, I wouldn't sweat one stop. If
> it's slide film, you're screwed (sorry!).
You mean you can't pull-process color reversal film? I thought you could, but
have never done it, so I could be wrong.
Gregory W. Blank
a half stop less than the rated asa if not a full stop. If he bracketed the exposures he'll
be fine without the pull, at worst case maybe pulling a 1/4 or half stop will
actually decrease contrast and increase the saturation.
In article <bfnjo5$3u9$1...@news.chatlink.com>, "Ken Hart" <kwh...@aec.nu> wrote:
> If it's slide film, you're screwed (sorry!).
>
> Ken Hart
--
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Considering eating out?; You may end up spending a fortune in cookies.
Gregory W. Blank
In article <3F1F55D...@but.us.chickens>, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> You mean you can't pull-process color reversal film? I thought you could, but
> have never done it, so I could be wrong.
--
Comrade
> Check out my website
some images not found
Gregory W. Blank
I must rebuild the site else where when time permits.
In article <pan.2003.07.24....@mysolution.ws>, "Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:58:14 +0000, Gregory W. Blank wrote:
>
> > Check out my website
>
> some images not found
--
Mark
Thanks for everyones responses. I will have the film processed normally.
To end the speculation, I wasn't trying to bracket etc., I simply
forgot to change the settings when I put in a new roll of film.
Mark
Dave Scott
adjustments if needed.news:%0RTa.3994$Fy1.177654@localhost...
Comrade
> Simple solution is to tell the lab what you did. They will make the corect
> adjustments if needed.
implies a reliable trust relationship .....
consumer education and awareness is VITAL
Pieter Litchfield
meant cross posting) spamming whiners. You could process as N-1 time to
correct (I guess). I seem to always underexpose, so after exposure tests, I
set the exposure index of my Tri-x to 200 and develop normally for best
results. There's legitimate reasons to do what you did.
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:3F1DC77C...@but.us.chickens...
Dave Scott
Comrade
> Why don't you get a fucking life.
be gone, arrogant ruffian aristocratic pig
Dave Scott
David Nebenzahl
> Bite me you communist pig!
>
> "Comrade" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.25....@mysolution.ws...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:39:53 -0400, Dave Scott wrote:
>>
>> > Why don't you get a fucking life.
>>
>> be gone, arrogant ruffian aristocratic pig
[humungous, rambling, astruse & mostly meaningless sig nuked]
My mama alays told me to eware posters whose sigs outweighed the actual
content of their posts by a ratio of more than 10:1.
Or as they say in Texas, "big hat, no cattle".
Comrade
> Texas
this what I have to say about the cowboy and his flag waving hooligan
sportsfans http://www.mysolution.ws/operation.htm
--
Comrade
see my ROAD TO THE UNITED FRONT http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776, the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
Aristocrats CRUCIFIED Jesus
Kevin
>
> He said he shot 200 speed film at 100. That's called an
> exposure difference here on planet Earth, to the english-speaking
> community.
I don't wish to jump into the name-calling aspects of this thread,
but I am curious about how this push/pull stuff works. Is it true,
as you seem to imply, that if I accidentally shoot a roll of 200
film at 100, I can simply fix it in the processing stage, and the
prints will turn out just fine?
If this were true, then why would anyone ever use 800 speed film?
Why not just use 100 speed film (for the superior grain) and
*shoot* it as it if were 800 (for the speed), thus getting the
high-speed shots with superior grain?
Surely *something* is lost in the push/pull process?
Kevin.
Gregory W. Blank
> If this were true, then why would anyone ever use 800 speed film?
> Why not just use 100 speed film (for the superior grain) and
> *shoot* it as it if were 800 (for the speed), thus getting the
> high-speed shots with superior grain?
>
> Surely *something* is lost in the push/pull process?
>
> Kevin.
Pushing increases contrast, so you increase the film speed
but printing is then more of a problem at very dramatic pushes.
Small pushes 1/4,1/2 3/4 and full stops especially for slide films boost the highlights somewhat
without increasing the contrast dramatically. Beyond a point if film is not exposed properly
there will never be detail in the shadow areas. 800 speed films are really 400 asa ones in disguise
400 are rather like 200 asa a manufacturers game of how high can we rate the film before
people complain,...but not always an absolute its just about what you like
to see and what the Manufactures standards define where the film speed is measured from.
Karen Nakamura
> 800 speed films are really
> 400 asa ones in disguise
> 400 are rather like 200 asa a manufacturers game of how high can we rate the
> film before
> people complain,...but not always an absolute its just about what you like
> to see and what the Manufactures standards define where the film speed is measured from.
That isn't correct. Manufacturers all test via standardized methods
under the ISO methodology. That was the point of the ISO standard, to
make sure that consumers could rely on film speeds being standard.
Karen Nakamura
--
Karen Nakamura
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/
Randall Ainsworth
> under the ISO methodology. That was the point of the ISO standard, to
> make sure that consumers could rely on film speeds being standard.
But with B&W, it depends on your personal technique for development
as related to agitation, etc..
Michael Scarpitti
> Al Denelsbeck wrote:
> >
> > He said he shot 200 speed film at 100. That's called an
> > exposure difference here on planet Earth, to the english-speaking
> > community.
>
> I don't wish to jump into the name-calling aspects of this thread,
> but I am curious about how this push/pull stuff works. Is it true,
> as you seem to imply, that if I accidentally shoot a roll of 200
> film at 100, I can simply fix it in the processing stage, and the
> prints will turn out just fine?
No, it will not.
>
> If this were true, then why would anyone ever use 800 speed film?
> Why not just use 100 speed film (for the superior grain) and
> *shoot* it as it if were 800 (for the speed), thus getting the
> high-speed shots with superior grain?
>
> Surely *something* is lost in the push/pull process?
Yes, shadow detail. Sahdow detail is the measure of speed.
>
> Kevin.
Gregory W. Blank
Actually he is going to benifit if he pulls the film
some what shadow detail is unaffected by a top end
decrease in development time, in other words
it will lower the contrast index somewhat. The only question should be: how much
development decrease is appropriate.
Try to follow along.
--
Michael Scarpitti
> What the hell are you talking about?
He asked if 'pushing' works. I said 'No'
See his question:
> >
> > If this were true, then why would anyone ever use 800 speed film?
> > Why not just use 100 speed film (for the superior grain) and
> > *shoot* it as it if were 800 (for the speed), thus getting the
> > high-speed shots with superior grain?
> >
> > Surely *something* is lost in the push/pull process?
>
> Yes, shadow detail. Shahow detail is the measure of speed.
I said, no, there will be a loss of shadow detail.
Try to follow us, OK?
Gregory W. Blank
In article <2fd2ff8c.0308...@posting.google.com>, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> Try to follow us, OK?
--
Michael Scarpitti
> No thanks.
If you shoot your 800 film at 50, you can't 'fix it in the
processing'.
If you shoot your 100 film at 800, you can't 'fix it in the
processing'.
OK?
Film speed is determined by the nature of the emulsion at
manufacturing and is 'more or less' inflexible.
Gregory W. Blank
--
Michael Scarpitti
> No one pushes or pulls that much, and you know it.
Here was his question, in case you can't scroll:
"If this were true, then why would anyone ever use 800 speed film?
> > Why not just use 100 speed film (for the superior grain) and
> > *shoot* it as it if were 800 (for the speed), thus getting the
> > high-speed shots with superior grain?
> >
> > Surely *something* is lost in the push/pull process?"
That was his question!
Gregory W. Blank
I save or mark it unread. I think in this particular case I would
say pushing 100 speed film that far is not a good choice at all.
Btw upon the suggestion of someone else I pushed 400
C41 & 800 one and two stops both to 1600
As I have said in the past pushing film in general sucks.
C41 is even worse, these pushes were done by my local reputable
Pro Lab, Luckly I clipped half the roll and shot with flash
on the normal part.
By my own experience, film contraction works 100% better.....
pushing is not something I have a particular need to do.
In article <2fd2ff8c.03081...@posting.google.com>, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> Here was his question, in case you can't scroll:
>
> "If this were true, then why would anyone ever use 800 speed film?
> > > Why not just use 100 speed film (for the superior grain) and
> > > *shoot* it as it if were 800 (for the speed), thus getting the
> > > high-speed shots with superior grain?
> > >
> > > Surely *something* is lost in the push/pull process?"
>
> That was his question!
--
Gregory W. Blank
examination it appears they may have pushed the the wrong
half of the roll. I told them push the front, it looks like they did the back.
In article <WhoWill-1108...@pool-151-196-176-143.balt.east.verizon.net>, Who...@hear-who.net (Gregory W. Blank) wrote:
> Btw upon the suggestion of someone else I pushed 400
> C41 & 800 one and two stops both to 1600
> As I have said in the past pushing film in general sucks.
> C41 is even worse, these pushes were done by my local reputable
> Pro Lab, Luckly I clipped half the roll and shot with flash
> on the normal part.
--