Push processing research

Push processing research

I’ve been researching Push processing film, as I like the way it looks when it is done properly. Push processing is done by underexposing the stock and then keeping it in the chemicals for longer during development. It is sometimes used as a practical tool by photographers who do not have access to enough light, but it is also sometimes used creatively to produce images with a different look. If done well it can increase the contrast of the film, but it will also increase the grain unfortunately. If I choose to use push processing then I will ring the development lab and ask their advice on the matter, but first I am researching it as much as I can.

The part of the film that I have been thinking of push processing is Abraxas’ story, as it seems as though it would be good to have this section of the film look different to other sections.

The film that got me interested in Push processing was, the Stanley Kubrick directed, Barry Lyndon. Barry Lyndon was Push processed one stop to allow Kubrick to light many of it’s scenes with only natural lighting, such as candles and much of the studio lighting was designed to light the room in a way similar to sunlight coming in from windows instead of shining direct lights onto actors. I do not intend to light any scenes in my film with candles and will probably light the actors and scenes in a conventional way, so it is not for these reasons I am interested. I am just interested in how much of an interesting quality push processing seems to give to the image. The picture quality in Barry Lyndon, particularly in daylight scenes, is unlike anything I have seen before.

They seem to get away with the grain issue in Barry Lyndon as well. This is probably because it is a 35mm film and the Cinematographer and Camera Operators are probably experts, due to it being a film with a budget.

I have researched the effects it has on 16mm film as well and found a video of some 16mm film footage that someone had push processed with quite good results visually.

This film was apparently Kodak 7219 500t push processed by 1 stop.

It has some of the same interesting quality as Barry Lyndon, but you can also see the extra grain and resolution does look lower. However, I was originally planning on shooting some of my film on super 8, because of it’s dreamy feel, and this also seems to have a very dreamy feel, but in a different way. It is (like Barry Lyndon) noticeably dull though in lots of shots. Although I like the quality of these shots, I also dislike the fact that you lose some of the brightness that film ordinarily has and I think that the extra grain might be too risky as I’m already planning on taking a risk by using discounted stock.

Another issue is that the stocks I will be using are 64D and 160T which are much less sensitive to light than 500T. I wasn’t sure whether that would make it better or worse. A quick search on google reveals that it will probably make it worse. On this site, http://planetanimals.com/logue/Film-sp.html, I learned a little bit more about film speed.

Things that were pointed out on the website

Grain can be beautiful.

The site points out that, although the general advice given to photographers of how to use film is generally based on getting the least grain possible, sometimes photographs that are grainy can look very good artistically. He mentions fashion photographer Sarah Moon and tells of how she managed to make a name for herself using grainy imagery. I looked up some of her pictures and they are indeed very interesting. The grain and lack of clarity in her photos make them seem like paintings or prints. This is something I’d like to explore in films, but I think I would have to plan for it when choosing which stock to use. As 64D and 160T are quite slow stocks with less dynamic range than a stock like 200T or 250D and therefore will look more clear when exposed properly and are probably more risky to expose in a way which will make them deliberately grainy. I therefore do not think it is a good idea to mess with these stocks in this way. The author of the site I was reading seemed to back this up as well, when talking about pushing film, stating that, “No matter what film type you use, best results are obtained by using the highest film speed possible, and then only pushing it if you must. For example, better results can be obtained by photographing ISO 400 film at EI 400 than from pushing ISO 200 film to EI 400.”(http://planetanimals.com/logue/Film-sp.html)

Conclusion

Overall then, this research has helped me to decide whether or not to push one of the 400ft rolls of film for Maniaframe and I have decided that, in this instance, it is not a good idea. This is because the film I am using is too slow for it to give good results and also because it is the first time I have ever used discounted stock to shoot a film and therefore do not fully understand what risks I am already taking by using film that is not necessarily the best quality stock to begin with.