4x5 E6 developing troubleshooting: underexposed or underdeveloped?

[himself]

Hi,

Before I begin, I've had a look through the forum, but couldn't find a thread, so I hope I'm not repeating someone. Sorry if I am...

I've recently started doing some E6 developing at home and it's been going well, until today that is. Up until now I've done a few 120 films which have come out great, as perfect as I could hope, but today I tried my first couple 4x5 sheets which are terrible.

They have both come out very very dark and due to my lack of experience I'm not sure if they're underexposed or underdeveloped. Other than being very dark they look ok, that is to say, with lots of light shining through them they look ok, there's plenty of shadow detail and the colours look good, but they look almost opaque otherwise.

So my question is, what are the tell tale signs of underdevelopment/exposure beyond the basic "too dark"?

A couple details about the process - Both types of film were done with the Tetenal E6 kit in a Paterson Auto Colortherm using the kit's instructed times, the difference being the 4x5's are done using the rotary print drum. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any volume amounts for using the tank in this way, but it recommends 75ml for a print, and max 150ml, so I used 100ml as a guess (does anyone know what would be the correct fluid amount for this process? I can't find an answer online).

Both sets were shot on Provia 100 using a this (link to LF forum) camera, which up until now using different film, under different conditions, has exposed very accurately.

thanks for any suggestions and here's one of the negs.

 

[Rudeofus]

If your slide is underdeveloped, its contrast would be lower. The detail I can see looks normal in contrast to me, therefore I would suggest underexposure as the culprit.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

We're eyeballing a very small scan on the web where many variables can also come into play.

That said, it does look like gross, muggy underexposure to me, and an uncommon result from RDPIII exposed competently in MF or LF. Did you take notes of your exposure to refer back to?

If this was a long exposure (evening?), was allowance made for reciprocity?

A well-exposed, evenly-toned slide does not resemble the sample you have posted, irrespective of the viewing illumination. Also, it would not need, nor benefit from, lots of concentrated bright light, certainly not a 4x5 sheet. In fact that can make critical assessment of highlights, mid-tones and shadows problematic and misleading. If there is little detail visible in great swathes of black shadow, the exposure is grossly out.

Provia and Velvia are designed for ideal exposure in diffuse light, where shadows are softened/filled. In such conditions, highlights can also be preserved. Thus, if shadows are close to or solid black in either RVP50 or RDPIII (the former has a bit more forgiving leeway with contrast but it can still be tipped over without care), the films are being compromised; pulling at development only further compromises the film. It's best to nail the exposure in-camera than resort to a lower-rung quick fix after the event. The erroneous exposure of these two films in conditions known to hobble their capacity to handle both highlights and shadow is a maddenly recurring theme.

At this time though, without a full brief of background information about exposure and conditions, a definite answer cannot be provided. It is suggested you shoot your scene again, recording notes of what you are doing as a very valuable way of referring back to any problems that are immediately obvious. It's not just about development of E6, but critically, how individual sheets and whole rolls were exposed, shot-by-shot.

 

[himself]

thanks very much for the info so far. I actually just developed another roll of 120 film and it again has come out great. That roll was also taken with the same camera, so I'm don't think it's the camera at fault.

A well-exposed, evenly-toned slide does not resemble the sample you have posted, irrespective of the viewing illumination. Also, it would not need, nor benefit from, lots of concentrated bright light, certainly not a 4x5 sheet. In fact that can make critical assessment of highlights, mid-tones and shadows problematic and misleading. If there is little detail visible in great swathes of black shadow, the exposure is grossly out.

this is what has me confused, not what you're saying - that makes total sense and exactly what I would suspect from an underexposed slide, but with enough backlight the slide has even tones and there is the amount of detail in the shadows you would expect. The file that I attached is a scan without any corrections and probably looks worse than when you're looking through it. The only way I can describe it would be to imagine looking at a scene through tinted windows - all the tones and detail are there, it's just that they appear to be behind a dark shroud.

and just some extra info, the image was taken at around midday in early spring on a slightly overcast day, so certainly not difficult conditions.

thanks again, and I'll try to reshoot the other slide I took and see what happens. Sadly this image is no longer possible, the tree you see is no longer the pink and purple it was.

 

[wiltw]

t

and just some extra info, the image was taken at around midday in early spring on a slightly overcast day, so certainly not difficult conditions.

This is where the Sunny 16 rule should -- at the time of shooting -- tell you if you are 'in the ballpark' or totally crazy in your exposure! With ISO 100, sunlight shot should be 1/100 f/16. Heavy overcast shot should be about 1/100 f/5.6. Depart too far from those guidelines and you most likely will have a poorly exposed result. If you can recount what settings were used for your darkish shot, that would give an immediate indication of the source of poor exposure.

 

[himself]

If you can recount what settings were used for your darkish shot, that would give an immediate indication of the source of poor exposure.

unfortunately the camera is a modified polaroid land, so has auto exposure (essentially aperture priority), so there isn't much I can know other than it was f8. The exposures on the 5 rolls of 120 film I also shot have been dead on tho'.

that said it's certainly not infallible, so I'll shoot some more and keep a better eye on exposure.


so but then, assuming that it's the exposure that's gone wrong this time - would that mean that 100ml of liquid is enough to develop the sheets (in a rotary drum) correctly, if exposed correctly?