Does anybody "pull" color negative film?

[wallpaperviking]

There is an Architectural photographer that I came across recently and I really admire his work. Seems to be shooting on an Arca Swiss with a 67 back and Kodak 160NC film. His images are so flat but still maintains really lovely tones. He clearly aims for flat, overcast light but am wondering if anybody ever "pulls" negative film? I thought I remember reading it was not suggested but am not sure why?

Or is there something else?



Here is a link to his work..

Rory Gardiner

London based photographer.

rory-gardiner.com

Curious to know your thoughts? Thanks!

 

[algrove]

Could he just overexpose and develop normally?

 

[MartinN]

I want quite dense negatives by overexposing a bit and pushing my home dev a bit, but too much density (or too little) gives more grain. So, I think there is some optimum, that needs to achieved.

 

[wallpaperviking]

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated!

I have not shot film in a while, so am a little rusty...

I was under the impression that "pulling" film flattened the image and also increased dynamic range. I can definitely see both of these attributes in some of his shots. Apparently at the risk of the image possibly being a little "muddy".

What would overexposing and developing normally do to the image?

Thanks!

 

[MartinN]

Yes pulling with overexposure in general flattens the image, but if he scans a lot can be done with the scanning software. Color Paper darkroom prints are much trickier, I suppose.

 

[guphotography]

There is an Architectural photographer that I came across recently and I really admire his work. Seems to be shooting on an Arca Swiss with a 67 back and Kodak 160NC film. His images are so flat but still maintains really lovely tones. He clearly aims for flat, overcast light but am wondering if anybody ever "pulls" negative film? I thought I remember reading it was not suggested but am not sure why?

Rory mostly works with portra 400, which allows you to overexpose up to 2 stops, depending on the light.

It's a unique characteristic of the portra 400 film, plus the advantage of flexcolor and flextight for the scanning process.

There is still fine tuning to be done at and after the scanning to achieve the consistency in tone and colour.

I used to call Rory up for advice before he moved down to Melbourne, super nice chap, one of the hardest working photographers I've come across.

 

[wallpaperviking]

Rory mostly works with portra 400, which allows you to overexpose up to 2 stops, depending on the light.

It's a unique characteristic of the portra 400 film, plus the advantage of flexcolor and flextight for the scanning process.

There is still fine tuning to be done at and after the scanning to achieve the consistency in tone and colour.

I used to call Rory up for advice before he moved down to Melbourne, super nice chap, one of the hardest working photographers I've come across.

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated! He definitely seems hardworking, he seems to be all over the globe!

So when you say it can be overexposed 2 stops, you think that is then just being processed normally? In some shots the dynamic range does seem really wide.

Thanks once again!

 

[guphotography]

I came across the same question myself, after speaking with Gary (https://garrysimpson.com/), Rory and some labs, the general consensus is that if you over/under expose, then process normally achieve the look; the technician from Silver Pan film lab (https://www.silverpan.co.uk/) reckon the results may be similar if you shoot normally, but push/pull during development process.

But that was the technican's guess.

When I was shooting portra, I rated iso at 250 and 160 (light depending), with pleasant results.

Rory is definitely one of the most sought after architectural photographers, one of my clients told me most architects would patiently wait for him, then schedule in all the buildings need photographing once he is in the area.

 

[wallpaperviking]

Thanks again, much appreciated!

Hi work is so flat that there is every reason that it should probably suck... Except, it looks awesome!

So you think an amount of overexposure in shooting and then process normal, which should extend the dynamic range if the film has that capability?

I know there is no way of actually knowing but alway glad to hear your thoughts..

Thanks!

 

[guphotography]

In a nutshell, yes, based on my own shooting experiences, that was my method.

What I noticed is that with diffused light, when you overexpose the film, it renders the highlight in an almost velvety texture, very hard to explain.

I also think the contrast is greatly reduced at scanning or post edit stage, I've never scanned an overexposed neg that looks so flat.

Here is an example of how the highlight behaves in soft light, it doesn't break in the way that digital capture might do, just to give you an idea.

As you can see the sun have already risen above the horizon, but sky was still soft enough before became too contrasty, borderlining the end of morning magic hour, portra 400 rated at iso 160, normal processing.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

In a nutshell, yes, based on my own shooting experiences, that was my method.

What I noticed is that with diffused light, when you overexpose the film, it renders the highlight in an almost velvety texture, very hard to explain.

I also think the contrast is greatly reduced at scanning or post edit stage, I've never scanned an overexposed neg that looks so flat.

Here is an example of how the highlight behaves in soft light, it doesn't break in the way that digital capture might do, just to give you an idea.

As you can see the sun have already risen above the horizon, but sky was still soft enough before became too contrasty, borderlining the end of morning magic hour, portra 400 rated at iso 160, normal processing.

View attachment 202723

Gu – are you saying it is all about overexposing and soft light or are you saying that AND scanning it in a certain manner with a Flextight, say?

Did you meter on the street with a Sekonic?

Great shot!

 

[guphotography]

Hi Paul, both definitely.

The over exposure lightens up the shadow area, without breaking highlight, but contrast is still there, this way it captures right amount of light to allow you decrease contrast without losing information in the scanning/editing stage.

I use a minolta VI meter with spot built in, for the above photo I measured it with the sphere.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Thanks a lot, so to paraphrase so to make sure I understand your train of thought correctly:

Effectively, what you are saying is that a) because of the latitude of neg. film and its log response in the highlights making it nigh impossible to be overexposed, one can first create a lower contrast base with "bright" shadows and b) then with a high DR scanner such as the flextight, which has a powerful light source and DMAX of 4.9, further decrease contrast in the software while still having enough information to create fine detail?

I suppose it is a combo of shooting in soft light, overexposing and scanning the right way then ... which is why Rory once posted a story on his IG of a sunray shining into a balcony calling it "his enemy"

 

[guphotography]

I couldn't have phrased it better, Paul!

 

[wallpaperviking]

Thanks to everybody for the contribution and the breakdown.. Really helpful!

 

[guphotography]

looking forward to seeing your results!

 

[wallpaperviking]

Just viewed some of Rory Gardiner's prints hanging at a local clothes store here in Melbourne.

Really amazing work! Such lovely tones in them..

They were of a decent size as well and am just wondering if there is anything to prevent Adobes "Super Resolution" feature working with scanned film images? Am not saying that is what he did, just curious if there was a way to uprezz scanned film negatives?

Thanks

 

[guphotography]

what print size are we talking about? 6x7 should let you make 60"x70" sized print, but it will depend on viewing distance.

irrespect of the working medium, a lot of post production still goes into fine tuning the colour and tone.

shooting film and shoot it well is definitely not walk in the park, many other known film shooters are also working digitally nowadays, hardly anyone does it like rory.

 

[wallpaperviking]

what print size are we talking about? 6x7 should let you make 60"x70" sized print, but it will depend on viewing distance.

irrespect of the working medium, a lot of post production still goes into fine tuning the colour and tone.

shooting film and shoot it well is definitely not walk in the park, many other known film shooters are also working digitally nowadays, hardly anyone does it like rory.

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated!

Obviously, maximum print size is very subjective. I would never push a 6 x 7 negative to 60" x 70" and still think the quality was acceptable. For me, even shooting 4 x 5, I am thinking 40" x 50" is sorta the max.

That is why I am wondering about this new "Super Resolution" feature. Any reason why it would not work with scanned film?

I agree with you on his work, very unique.

Thanks

 

[buildbot]

That is why I am wondering about this new "Super Resolution" feature. Any reason why it would not work with scanned film?

It does not work too well with film grain is my experience, it tends to think it's noise and remove it. Though I have only played around with it a bit in Topaz and Photoshop.

Perhaps some models are tweaked for film scans but I am not aware of any.