Talk:Push printing
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]In reality, the article confuses two types of "push":
- Push developing (where the film is "pushed" from ISO 400 to ISO 800 by leaving it in the developer bath for a longer time)
- Push printing, which is what the (excellent) example image show: The same process performed on the photo paper.
Push developing gives the best results, but may have problems with grain. It also increases contrast.
Push printing will not have grain, but has less potential for "push". When prints are made manually (not by a machine), "push" development is performed as a matter of course.
-- Egil 08:09 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)
- Ouch. I should stop with the photo articles then. Can you help correct the article? Koyaanis Qatsi
- I have never heard of 'push printing'. All negatives print differently, and while you can under-develop a print, you can't over-develop as the paper develops to finality. RA-4 is a standardised process where you 'could' over-develop, but why would you? The resulting print will be pants. I think what this article is referring to is under-exposure in printing to compensate for a thin neg, and since there are no references, I wonder if it's a hoax article. Can someone prove me wrong? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've never heard of the term either. Shortening exposure of the paper is part of the normal process of fitting a negative's content within the confines of the paper's dynamic range. The article Push processing also provides a better explanation of pushing film. I suggest simply replacing this pages content with a redirect to Push processing. Reub2000 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have never heard of 'push printing'. All negatives print differently, and while you can under-develop a print, you can't over-develop as the paper develops to finality. RA-4 is a standardised process where you 'could' over-develop, but why would you? The resulting print will be pants. I think what this article is referring to is under-exposure in printing to compensate for a thin neg, and since there are no references, I wonder if it's a hoax article. Can someone prove me wrong? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, Reub2000; I'll re-direct in a week, if nobody objects. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)