On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:50:09 -0600, you wrote:
>> *("Rating" film is a slide/B&W technique).
What I hear him saying is that print film users need to be extra
careful, because they can't rescue the negs in the development
process. One should know the effects of over and under exposure on a
given print film, and quit trying to reclaim over or under exposed
negs by push or pull processing in the developing stage.
IOW, for print film, shoot the ISO speed on the box, and don't worry
about it. It you need higher or lower shutter speeds, just shoot at
those speeds and don't worry if the meter shows over or under exposure
(within the latitude of the film, of course). Develop normally. Don't
pay extra for push processing, because it really does not do anything
significant for the negs anyway. If overexposure super-saturates that
film, that's what you'll get. If underexposure causes that film to be
extra grainy or block up the shadows, then live with it.
Did I get that right?
In my experience with Kodak Max 800 (emulsion from three years ago),
push processing was a complete waste of money. I didn't get anything
out of pushed roll more than I did on the frames from the following
roll, which was developed normally. I got the same extra graininess
from underexposure from both rolls - one pushed a stop at a custom lab
with dip-and-dunk and carefully trained operators, the other developed
and printed normally by lord-knows-who at el-cheapo Sams Club.
Matter of fact, the push processing seemed to burn splotches into my
negs, and I lost a frame as it was cut to fit the dip and dunk
processor. But that experience was not a valid sample - it was just
one roll pushed at one lab, using a film that was notorious for
batch-to-batch emulsion speed changes.
I believe many wedding photogs regularly push process their print
film. I'd like to hear from someone who has done that recently.
Now - is anyone saying that overexposure of color print film does
*not* saturate the colors, or that underexposure does *not* increase
grain and block up shadows? I think no one is making such a claim, but
let me know if I'm not reading this thread correctly.
--
Happy Trails,
Texdance
http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance
http://members1.clubphoto.com/john8202
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
