Professional Web Applications Themes

Pushing film vs underexposing - Photography

A recent comment in the film type thread about pushing 800 film to 1600 led me to wonder about what this really does. I figure pushing say 800 to 1600 will underexpose the film 1 stop. Is there any difference to setting exposure compensation -1 EV? If you are processing the film yourself I gess you can overdevelop, but what if you don't have all the darkroom & equipment and take it to a lab? Dan...

  1. #1

    Default Pushing film vs underexposing

    A recent comment in the film type thread about pushing 800 film to
    1600 led me to wonder about what this really does.
    I figure pushing say 800 to 1600 will underexpose the film 1 stop.
    Is there any difference to setting exposure compensation -1 EV?
    If you are processing the film yourself I gess you can overdevelop,
    but what if you don't have all the darkroom & equipment and take it to
    a lab?

    Dan
    Dan Pidcock Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing


    "Dan Pid" <daniothefishhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:6eb9b2c9.0307170221.7dbe2c25posting.google.c om...
    > A recent comment in the film type thread about pushing 800 film to
    > 1600 led me to wonder about what this really does.
    > I figure pushing say 800 to 1600 will underexpose the film 1 stop.
    > Is there any difference to setting exposure compensation -1 EV?
    Functionally no, you just use different button/dial/dialog. It's just that
    with compensation you have to keep the different reference point for entire
    film and to vary the per-shot compensation with new reference in mind.
    > If you are processing the film yourself I gess you can overdevelop,
    > but what if you don't have all the darkroom & equipment and take it to
    > a lab?
    You tell the lab to overdevelop. Not all labs will do it (probably none of
    one-hour-shops), other will charge extra price, few will do it for the price
    of regular development.
    Leon


    Leon Mlakar Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    "Leon Mlakar" <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote in message news:<kivRa.354$2B6.56826news.siol.net>...
    > "Dan Pid" <daniothefishhotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:6eb9b2c9.0307170221.7dbe2c25posting.google.c om...
    > > A recent comment in the film type thread about pushing 800 film to
    > > 1600 led me to wonder about what this really does.
    > > I figure pushing say 800 to 1600 will underexpose the film 1 stop.
    > > Is there any difference to setting exposure compensation -1 EV?
    >
    > Functionally no, you just use different button/dial/dialog. It's just that
    > with compensation you have to keep the different reference point for entire
    > film and to vary the per-shot compensation with new reference in mind.
    >
    > > If you are processing the film yourself I gess you can overdevelop,
    > > but what if you don't have all the darkroom & equipment and take it to
    > > a lab?
    >
    > You tell the lab to overdevelop. Not all labs will do it (probably none of
    > one-hour-shops), other will charge extra price, few will do it for the price
    > of regular development.
    > Leon


    Extending development seldom accomplishes anything good.
    Michael Scarpitti Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    Dan Pid wrote:
    > A recent comment in the film type thread about pushing 800 film to
    > 1600 led me to wonder about what this really does.
    > I figure pushing say 800 to 1600 will underexpose the film 1 stop.
    > Is there any difference to setting exposure compensation -1 EV?
    "Pushing" is extending the development time to compensate for underexposure.
    So "pushing" will not underexpose your film. You do, and then may need
    "pushing"/"psuh processing" to still get usable results. ;-)

    You can of course underexpose the film by changingthe exposure compensation
    dial. Or by dialing in a higher ISO value.
    > If you are processing the film yourself I gess you can overdevelop,
    Yep! And that ("overdeveloping") is the "pushing" bit.
    > but what if you don't have all the darkroom & equipment and take it to
    > a lab?
    Tell them to "push process" the film and by how much (in stops).
    A good lab will have no problem with that. Some "cheaper" places will try to
    convince you that you don't really need to do that (only because they do not
    want to, or do not know how to, do it).



    Q.G. de Bakker Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing


    "Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti> wrote in message
    news:2fd2ff8c.0307170509.66e7a44aposting.google.c om...
    > Extending development seldom accomplishes anything good.
    I think this seems to be true (I'm no expert though!).. I think in the most
    cases, it's best not to tell the lab anything - they seem to sort that stuff
    out in the print.
    I just got a film of ISO 100 back that I had set to ISO 400 for the first
    six frames by mistake. They look a *little* bit underexposed, kinda like
    they were taken on a cloudy day when it was actually quite sunny - but you
    can only really notice the difference when viewed up against the rest of the
    pictures from the same film. When I got the film back and looked at all the
    shots, I actually completely forgot I'd underexposed those first few
    pictures!
    The film was Superia Reala, which I think has exposure latitude of -1.5 to
    +3, so it's got the range to handle it.

    Chris.


    Chris Barnard Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    Find out first if your lab can or will push the film. Some labs do the
    "push" in the printing stage - which is nice but no cigar. Others will
    extend the development time for the film or raise the chemical temps. This
    is a real push. I have experience only with the extended development time
    and it seems to work.

    --
    [url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com[/url]
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    [url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html[/url]
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "Dan Pid" <daniothefishhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:6eb9b2c9.0307170221.7dbe2c25posting.google.c om...
    > A recent comment in the film type thread about pushing 800 film to
    > 1600 led me to wonder about what this really does.
    > I figure pushing say 800 to 1600 will underexpose the film 1 stop.
    > Is there any difference to setting exposure compensation -1 EV?
    > If you are processing the film yourself I gess you can overdevelop,
    > but what if you don't have all the darkroom & equipment and take it to
    > a lab?
    >
    > Dan

    Tony Spadaro Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:37:49 +0000 (UTC), "Chris Barnard"
    <chrisNOSPAMdentalserve.net> wrote:
    >
    >"Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti> wrote in message
    >news:2fd2ff8c.0307170509.66e7a44aposting.google. com...
    >> Extending development seldom accomplishes anything good.
    >
    >I think this seems to be true (I'm no expert though!).. I think in the most
    >cases, it's best not to tell the lab anything - they seem to sort that stuff
    >out in the print.
    >I just got a film of ISO 100 back that I had set to ISO 400 for the first
    >six frames by mistake. They look a *little* bit underexposed, kinda like
    >they were taken on a cloudy day when it was actually quite sunny - but you
    >can only really notice the difference when viewed up against the rest of the
    >pictures from the same film. When I got the film back and looked at all the
    >shots, I actually completely forgot I'd underexposed those first few
    >pictures!
    >The film was Superia Reala, which I think has exposure latitude of -1.5 to
    >+3, so it's got the range to handle it.
    >
    >Chris.
    >
    Chris, maybe you just answered a question i was about to ask. I had
    tried pushing some film (800 to 1600) in order to gain some shutter
    speed when taking pictures of hummingbirds. I would like to get up to
    4000 shutter speed if I could. When i took the "pushed" film to a
    local "superstore" they could not compensate for the "push" because
    the film processing machine could only do what the film was DX coded
    for. I ended up taking the film to the city, to a regular photo shop,
    which u know charged almost twice as much. I was wondering if one
    could fool the DX coding ( I think I seen or read somewhere about DX
    labels?) In which case i could put 1600 labels (or whatever) on the
    film cannister and the machine would process accordingly. But after
    seeing your response I wonder if i would be better off telling them
    nothing. And furthermore 1600 ISO film here, which you can only get at
    a photography shop is at least twice as expensive as 800 or anything
    else. IF IF IF I could get away with telling them nothing? Then how
    much leway would I have? Dare I push a 800 all the way up to 3200?
    I'm using Fuji Superia.
    Ken
    ken@usenet.ca Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    On 17 Jul 2003 03:21:40 -0700, [email]daniothefishhotmail.com[/email] (Dan Pid)
    wrote:
    >A recent comment in the film type thread about pushing 800 film to
    >1600 led me to wonder about what this really does.
    >I figure pushing say 800 to 1600 will underexpose the film 1 stop.
    >Is there any difference to setting exposure compensation -1 EV?
    >If you are processing the film yourself I gess you can overdevelop,
    >but what if you don't have all the darkroom & equipment and take it to
    >a lab?
    >
    A pro lab will expect to be told "Push one, Push 2, normal exposure",
    etc as the case may be. Strictly speaking, saying "ormal" is
    unnecessary, but I say it anyway because they may get used to me
    saying "push 2" and assume I always do that. Being explicit is safe.





    Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

    "That idiot Leibniz, who wants to teach me about the infinitesimally small! Has he therefore forgotten that I am the wife of Frederick I? How can he imagine that I am unacquainted with my own husband?"
    Rodney Myrvaagnes Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:23:21 GMT, [email]kenusenet.ca[/email] wrote:
    > I was wondering if one
    >could fool the DX coding ( I think I seen or read somewhere about DX
    >labels?) In which case i could put 1600 labels (or whatever) on the
    >film cannister and the machine would process accordingly. But after
    >seeing your response I wonder if i would be better off telling them
    >nothing. And furthermore 1600 ISO film here, which you can only get at
    >a photography shop is at least twice as expensive as 800 or anything
    >else. IF IF IF I could get away with telling them nothing? Then how
    >much leway would I have? Dare I push a 800 all the way up to 3200?
    >I'm using Fuji Superia.
    >Ken
    All normal color neg film, regardless of speed, is processed by C-41.
    Exactly the same conditions. So changing the DX coding will do nothing
    to the processing.

    Pushing is overrated. Some would rather push 400 ASA film than shoot
    800 ASA to begin with. Gives you something to brag about. Do it if you
    want, it might be fun, and it is not very harmful.

    The extended development time increases density in the parts of the
    neg that were well exposed, but does practically nothing to the shadow
    areas which received little exposure. So the result is a higher
    contrast picture.

    Also the color curves will probably cross with changed development
    conditions (giving highlights and shadows with color bias), but I
    don't know how serious this is.

    Avogadro
    Avogadro Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    [email]kenusenet.ca[/email] wrote in message news:<g9pdhv4rucp373t088ba2foqpt9hlu239b4ax.com>. ..
    > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:37:49 +0000 (UTC), "Chris Barnard"
    > <chrisNOSPAMdentalserve.net> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti> wrote in message
    > >news:2fd2ff8c.0307170509.66e7a44aposting.google. com...
    > >> Extending development seldom accomplishes anything good.
    > >
    > >I think this seems to be true (I'm no expert though!).. I think in the most
    > >cases, it's best not to tell the lab anything - they seem to sort that stuff
    > >out in the print.
    > >I just got a film of ISO 100 back that I had set to ISO 400 for the first
    > >six frames by mistake. They look a *little* bit underexposed, kinda like
    > >they were taken on a cloudy day when it was actually quite sunny - but you
    > >can only really notice the difference when viewed up against the rest of the
    > >pictures from the same film. When I got the film back and looked at all the
    > >shots, I actually completely forgot I'd underexposed those first few
    > >pictures!
    > >The film was Superia Reala, which I think has exposure latitude of -1.5 to
    > >+3, so it's got the range to handle it.
    > >
    > >Chris.
    > >
    > Chris, maybe you just answered a question i was about to ask. I had
    > tried pushing some film (800 to 1600) in order to gain some shutter
    > speed when taking pictures of hummingbirds. I would like to get up to
    > 4000 shutter speed if I could. When i took the "pushed" film to a
    > local "superstore" they could not compensate for the "push" because
    > the film processing machine could only do what the film was DX coded
    > for. I ended up taking the film to the city, to a regular photo shop,
    > which u know charged almost twice as much. I was wondering if one
    > could fool the DX coding ( I think I seen or read somewhere about DX
    > labels?) In which case i could put 1600 labels (or whatever) on the
    > film cannister and the machine would process accordingly. But after
    > seeing your response I wonder if i would be better off telling them
    > nothing. And furthermore 1600 ISO film here, which you can only get at
    > a photography shop is at least twice as expensive as 800 or anything
    > else. IF IF IF I could get away with telling them nothing? Then how
    > much leway would I have? Dare I push a 800 all the way up to 3200?
    > I'm using Fuji Superia.
    > Ken


    The DX code has nothing to do with PROCESSING the film. All speeds of
    C41 take exactly the same times and chemistry.

    Pushing color negative film is generally useless and should be
    avoided. Slide film and B&W are different, because the first stage is
    a B&W negative (yes, color slide films start out as a B&W negative).
    Michael Scarpitti Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing


    <kenusenet.ca> wrote in message
    news:g9pdhv4rucp373t088ba2foqpt9hlu239b4ax.com...
    > Chris, maybe you just answered a question i was about to ask. I had
    > tried pushing some film (800 to 1600) in order to gain some shutter
    > speed when taking pictures of hummingbirds. I would like to get up to
    > 4000 shutter speed if I could. When i took the "pushed" film to a
    > local "superstore" they could not compensate for the "push" because
    > the film processing machine could only do what the film was DX coded
    > for. I ended up taking the film to the city, to a regular photo shop,
    > which u know charged almost twice as much. I was wondering if one
    > could fool the DX coding ( I think I seen or read somewhere about DX
    > labels?) In which case i could put 1600 labels (or whatever) on the
    > film cannister and the machine would process accordingly. But after
    > seeing your response I wonder if i would be better off telling them
    > nothing. And furthermore 1600 ISO film here, which you can only get at
    > a photography shop is at least twice as expensive as 800 or anything
    > else. IF IF IF I could get away with telling them nothing? Then how
    > much leway would I have? Dare I push a 800 all the way up to 3200?
    > I'm using Fuji Superia.
    > Ken
    Hi Ken,

    I can get 1600 film here (in the UK) for the same price as 800 speed film. I
    can't find the recommended exposure latitude for Fuji Superia 800 but 3200
    is only two stops away (is that right?). You might be able to get away with
    it. I think the true answer is to try it out and see what happens. I know
    it's kinda annoying if you get the photograph of the century and it's
    underexposed, but hey, ISO 800 is gonna be grainy at any rate. I'd take the
    risk.
    Actually, to be honest, I'd just get the correctly-rated film. Surely
    there's not that much difference in price - not enough to sacrifice a good
    shot, anyway?

    Chris.


    Chris Barnard Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing



    Dan Pid wrote:
    > A recent comment in the film type thread about pushing 800 film to
    > 1600 led me to wonder about what this really does.
    > I figure pushing say 800 to 1600 will underexpose the film 1 stop.
    yep.
    > Is there any difference to setting exposure compensation -1 EV?
    same thing, all right ...

    Pushing has two "parts"
    -1: underexpose the film by some amount
    -2: overdevelop the film by some amount

    Usually the amount is the same, eg: if you rate the film -1 stop (by
    doubling the ISO), then you "push" 1 stop (expose in developer 1.414
    times as long, or raise the temperature of the developer by so much).

    But some people are adept at varying the amounts...

    The difference between indexing the film as 1600 and setting the EV to
    -1 is that __usually__ when we set the film speed we leave it well
    enough alone for the films stay in the body; and we offset the EV as
    often as we want to compensate how the meter sees the scene and how we
    think the meter is being fooled.


    > If you are processing the film yourself I gess you can overdevelop,
    > but what if you don't have all the darkroom & equipment and take it to
    > a lab?
    When you get your film developed ask for a "push" of so many stops. If
    they don't understand, don't leave your film...

    >
    > Dan
    Alan Browne Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:39:38 GMT, "Chris Barnard"
    <lord_waymaster> wrote:
    >
    ><kenusenet.ca> wrote in message
    >news:g9pdhv4rucp373t088ba2foqpt9hlu239b4ax.com.. .
    >> Chris, maybe you just answered a question i was about to ask. I had
    >> tried pushing some film (800 to 1600) in order to gain some shutter
    >> speed when taking pictures of hummingbirds. I would like to get up to
    >> 4000 shutter speed if I could. When i took the "pushed" film to a
    >> local "superstore" they could not compensate for the "push" because
    >> the film processing machine could only do what the film was DX coded
    >> for. I ended up taking the film to the city, to a regular photo shop,
    >> which u know charged almost twice as much. I was wondering if one
    >> could fool the DX coding ( I think I seen or read somewhere about DX
    >> labels?) In which case i could put 1600 labels (or whatever) on the
    >> film cannister and the machine would process accordingly. But after
    >> seeing your response I wonder if i would be better off telling them
    >> nothing. And furthermore 1600 ISO film here, which you can only get at
    >> a photography shop is at least twice as expensive as 800 or anything
    >> else. IF IF IF I could get away with telling them nothing? Then how
    >> much leway would I have? Dare I push a 800 all the way up to 3200?
    >> I'm using Fuji Superia.
    >> Ken
    >
    >Hi Ken,
    >
    >I can get 1600 film here (in the UK) for the same price as 800 speed film. I
    >can't find the recommended exposure latitude for Fuji Superia 800 but 3200
    >is only two stops away (is that right?). You might be able to get away with
    >it. I think the true answer is to try it out and see what happens. I know
    >it's kinda annoying if you get the photograph of the century and it's
    >underexposed, but hey, ISO 800 is gonna be grainy at any rate. I'd take the
    >risk.
    >Actually, to be honest, I'd just get the correctly-rated film. Surely
    >there's not that much difference in price - not enough to sacrifice a good
    >shot, anyway?
    >
    >Chris.
    >
    I'd love to be able to get 1600 ISO film at the same price as 800 but
    it is just not available in the many different places where i watch
    for film on sale. It's only available in the camera shops which are in
    the city about 45 miles away. Of course anything in the photo shops is
    going to be more expensive, in this case about double. Anyways I'm off
    to Newfoundland later today for a two week fishing/scenery trip. Have
    26 rolls of film (may not be enough) that i have gathered over the
    last few months whenever it was on sale.
    Ken
    ken@usenet.ca Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    Michael Scarpitti wrote:
    > Pushing color negative film is generally useless and should be
    > avoided. Slide film and B&W are different, because the first stage is
    > a B&W negative (yes, color slide films start out as a B&W negative).
    Now guess what is actually being developed in a colour negative film... ;-)

    The difference is that in colour negative films the colour image is formed
    by coupling action simultaneously with the B&W silver image. The B&W silver
    image is then bleached, and the image fixed.

    Push processing colour negative materials is possible, and achieves the same
    thing as with B&W negative and colour reversal film.




    Q.G. de Bakker Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    Avogadro <com> wrote in message news:<com>... 
    >
    > All normal color neg film, regardless of speed, is processed by C-41.
    > Exactly the same conditions. So changing the DX coding will do nothing
    > to the processing.
    >
    > Pushing is overrated. Some would rather push 400 ASA film than shoot
    > 800 ASA to begin with. Gives you something to brag about. Do it if you
    > want, it might be fun, and it is not very harmful.
    >
    > The extended development time increases density in the parts of the
    > neg that were well exposed, but does practically nothing to the shadow
    > areas which received little exposure. So the result is a higher
    > contrast picture.
    >
    > Also the color curves will probably cross with changed development
    > conditions (giving highlights and shadows with color bias), but I
    > don't know how serious this is.
    >
    > Avogadro[/ref]



    If you need a faster film, buy a faster film. Don't push.
    Michael Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    Dan Pid wrote: 

    Now that seriously fast film can be purchased, there's much less need for
    pushing. The historical or traditional reason for pushing was to achieve
    speeds that were otherwise unattainable (we're talking nearly half a
    century ago and beyond) when there was no film rated at 800 ASA and up. In
    fact, I seem to recall that Tri-X was 200 back then. Who remembers Ethol
    UFG (maybe it's still around)?

    Oh, and the reason those speeds were desired was for available light
    photojournalism and candid photography, typically with RF Leicas.
     

    Home developers and those with access to pro labs.

    --
    John Miller

    "Elves and Dragons!" I says to him. "Cabbages and potatoes are better
    for you and me."
    -J. R. R. Tolkien

    John Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    com (Dan Pid) wrote in
    news:google.com:
     [/ref]
    > ...
    >
    > Thanks for all the informative replies.
    >
    > So the reason for pushing is to use cheaper lower rated film at higher
    > speeds? But if it costs more to develop it's probably the same cost
    > anyway?[/ref]

    I starting pushing slide film (never print or negative film) because
    a two-stop push of Provia 100F was much, much better in quality than Provia
    400. This also allowed me to carry fewer rolls of film in the bag, and not
    have to guess at what kind of shooting situation I might have on any given
    day.

    Since this time 400F has come out, but (with A&I mailers) it's still
    cheaper to push, and lazy sod that I am, I haven't tried out the newer 400F
    film. The old Provia 400 was ridiculously grainy and ruled out any use
    after a few test rolls.

     

    Sometimes. It's certainly cheapest that way, and if you're good, you
    have ultimate control. Then again, it's time spent in the darkroom.

    But since I'm building up stock for publications, slides are the way
    to go (still). And there are times and subjects when you need decent 400
    speed.

    With print film, the exposure latitude and the ability to make
    exposure corrections with the second step of printing makes pushing far
    less useful, but saturation and shadow detail/grain changes in off-exposure
    may cause some people to want to push print film.

    Basically, it's whatever works for you. If you don't think it has any
    use, then it probably doesn't, at least for your needs.

    - Al.

    --
    To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
    Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
    Al Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    "Dan Pid" <com> wrote in message
    news:google.com... 
    I can't speak for anyone else, but the reasons I "push" film are :-

    I find Fuji Superia X-tra 800 pushed to 1600 to give better results than
    Fuji Superia 1600

    I have yet to find a slide film rated at higher than ISO 400 that compares
    favourably at it's rated speed with Provia 400 F pushed to the equivalent
    speed


    Tony Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    com (Dan Pid) wrote in message news:<google.com>... 

    If they announced a 50,000 ISO film, the next day someone would ask 'can I push it'?
    Michael Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Pushing film vs underexposing

    Michael Scarpitti wrote:
     
    push it'?

    Why, of course!
    It only is 5 stops faster than ISO 1600 film. And there is lots going on in
    the dark that will even elude an ISO 50,000 film.


    Q.G. Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pushing Flash 8 using SMS
    By ukjoe in forum Macromedia Flash Player
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 30th, 10:54 PM
  2. Pushing the Envelope....
    By George_McKim@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Illustrator Macintosh
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 29th, 01:32 PM
  3. Film Scanner or Flatbed with Film Adaptor??
    By Jan Philips in forum Photography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 22nd, 05:37 AM
  4. what film slide film to use (best ASA)
    By David Mills in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 30th, 05:20 AM
  5. Digital Film / Silicon Film(tm) - for real ?
    By Ken Chandler in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 26th, 10:30 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139