On Thursday, 1 October 2015 09:44:52 UTC+1, NY wrote:

film. Negative is less critical because they can (and do) correct at
printing - confession time: if room light was fairly dim I didn't even
bother with a blue filter which would have "stolen" about 2 stops of light,
and I used to let the printing take care of the adjustment.

wise, I've suffered the result of too little blue light. At some point you get nothing but noise in the blue, making anywhere near proper colours impossible.

And then there were the joys of push-processing. HP5 push-processed to 1600
ASA resulted in grain that made the pictures look like pencil sketches!
Ektachrome 160 tungsten pushed to 640 was vile: very saturated and very
contrasty, though in fairness the stage lighting was probably a bit harsh
and shadowy as well.

Actually you can make some very nice pictures by pushing that effect to its limit. Get yourself a ton of grain in the negative, then push process the paper print after very heavily underexposing it. The result is many areas/details stay completely white, and what dark you get is extremely contrasty with heavy & saturated grain. It's hard to describe how it looks good, but it really does with the right subject. I used to love it for portrait - you need to get the shadowing right for it to really work well, as a lot of the scene detail is lost completely. It's a technique I've never seen anyone else use.


NT