How to get a “pushed film” look without actually push-processing it.
Push-processing means adding development time or temperature to your film so it acts as a more sensitive film than it’s marked on the box. For example, you can push an ISO 100 film to EI 200 by simply metering it as if it were an ISO 200 film (giving it one stop of light less) and then either asking your lab or, by yourself, keep it in chemicals for a set time longer so that the shadows and highlights develop more.
Pushing film helps get action shots with low-ISO film and photographing in dimmer light than the film is designed for. But pushing film typically increases contrast and, if it’s a colour film, saturation — which can be a desirable effect.
Unfortunately, not all labs can push-process your film. Or if they could, it might add to your total costs. Even if you develop at home, there isn’t always enough time to push-process something, or you may be mixing films in a single tank and don’t want to alter the development times for just one film.
That’s a good point. A better comparison should probably examine that baseline directly (the differences in batches of the same film).
So far, I’d say the evidence I have points to the differences between ProImage and Kodacolor 100 being greater than batch variation, but it’s not 100% conclusive. I’m referring to my earlier test: Kodak ColorPlus vs. Kodacolor 200 vs. Kodak Gold (analog.cafe/r/kodak-colorp…). I’m assuming that since ColorPlus and Kodacolor 200 use the same formula (as the above article explains). They are also quite likely to have been produced in separate batches (due to different production dates). And yet, both films render images that appear identical in my scans, whereas the third film in the mix — Kodak Gold — looks identifiably different.
All of that, of course, comes with a huge caveat: age, dev chemicals and methods, and, even more so, the scanning process, can erase or exaggerate the slight differences I found.
Subtle differences might be caused by different production batches. Back in the day, photographers used to use the same batch stock for any given work. While the same stock from different batches will behave in the same way, mixing it would lead to small (but potentially perceptible) differences in tone and contrast.
Anyways, Kodak has dozens of film patents, many of them versions of the same film. So it’s not crazy to think that they used different versions for their own brand, very close to Proimage and identical in practice to ColorPlus for legal purposes.
I thought that it would be cool to see some photos of negatives pushed/pulled to extreme ISO. I’m very curious how negatives turn out, what’s their density etc.
In general it may be a good idea to include pictures or maybe even scan samples of negatives in your future reviews. It could help to better understand how emulsion behaves.
If you Google my full name, you’ll find articles, like “This is the First Photograph to Ever Be Developed With Weed,” the existence of which is owed to the incredible versatility of the Ilford HP5+ film and the three friends who helped that experiment come to life.
Another world’s first was when I pushed HP5+, an ISO 400 film, to behave like an ISO 100,000 film (+8 stops of push processing). And no one, to my knowledge, had before shot it at EI 3 — which I also tried, succeeded, and published on this blog.
Whatever I threw at HP5+, it handled it like a champ. Sure, it would take some work to get this film to perform unusual tasks, but when it comes to being a reliable partner in creating black-and-white images, there may be no stock better than this. Whether you’re a pro, an experimental photographer, or maybe this is the first film you’ll ever shoot — HP5+ just works.
I am looking forward to seeing the photos taken with the Kodak Snapic A1. I shoot 50% of my photos with a RETO Ultra Wide And Slim and about 25 % with the Kodak M38. I have been wanting to get a “nicer” point and shoot film camera.
Really hard to tell from this monitor but I’d be amazed if this had the resolving power of Technical Pan (which also had a bespoke low contrast dev ie Technidol). Plus it also came in 5x4 in sheets…..
Analog.Cafe Podcast s1/e4 “OKTO35: Make Movies on 135 Film with Blaž Semprimožnik!”
In this episode, Daren and I sit down (remotely¹) with Blaž Semprimožnik — a Slovenian engineer who invented a new way to shoot movies on regular 35mm film — the kind we buy for our still cameras!
¹ — Please note that this is our first podcast interview — expect some echoes and a few hops around the topic 😅. We’re still learning. That said, the episode delves deep into the inner workings of the camera and Blaž’s ideas behind it. As we warm up, the conversation gets more interesting!
Another sample made with Kodak Snapic A1 (courtesy of RETO Production Ltd.). This camera has a built-in double-exposure switch that makes photos like this possible.
Kodak Snapic A1 is a new film camera with a 3-element glass lens and automatic film transport.
RETO Project has released their new affordable ($99 MSRP) yet practically unique camera with a 𝒇9.5 25mm ultra-wide lens, built-in flash featuring red-eye reduction, and fully automatic film transport. The camera comes in two colours: Rhino Grey and Ivory White.
It has a fixed 1/100 shutter, which means you’ll need to be mindful of your exposures — this is not a point-and-shoot camera. You can, however, estimate your ideal film type using the Sunny 16 calculator (analog.cafe/app/sunny-16-c…) — set it to 𝒇8, 1/125.
The onboard flash is GN8 (here’s how to use it to get precise exposures in all light conditions: analog.cafe/r/a-simple-gui…).
I’ve done a fair bit of Kodak Infrared Ektachrome, and so when I upgraded my digital body and had a spare, I converted it to full-spectrum, with the plan to digitally simulate KIE.
I use an internal filter holder that STC Optics kindly sold me, and a 28mm diamond hole saw to make internal filters, such as the #12 that Kodak recommends, as well as other yellow/orange filters. This allows me to change lenses without having to purchase a filter for every lens filter size.
But now, I’m struggling with converting the resulting images into something resembling KIE/Aerochrome. I’ve been playing with the ImageMagick channel-swapping technique, but have not had satisfactory results, and would like to fine tune that.
Does anyone have a nice scan (hi-rez unnecessary) of a standard colour target (like Q-60 or IT-8) shot with KIE/Aerochrome that I could use to help fine-tune my process?
Last week, I wrote about a project that hopes to make shooting movies on regular 35mm film cartridges a reality for anyone interested (analog.cafe/r/okto35-a-gen…).
This week, I found a video by a YouTuber who attempted (and succeeded) to replicate the technology inside 16mm movie cameras using his skills, 3D printing, and a few extra parts.
Hey Samu, I presume you’ve read this, thinking of me as a younger person. I’m at the age where this feels flattering — so thanks for that!
That said, C-41 is a standardized process. It’s meant to produce identical results, although temperatures and development times can indeed vary.
If you have evidence of these kits differing in some meaningful way from what you consider a standard, I’d love to publish your findings — or you can post them right here in the comments.
Dmitri
Dmitri
Andrés PB
Dmitri
Dmitri
Robert Pustułka
Dmitri
Dmitri
Dmitri
hnswick21
nikko9thou
Dmitri
Dmitri
Dmitri
Dmitri
Dmitri
Dmitri
jan.steinman
Dmitri
Dmitri