9 instead of 6...

ChristopherCoy · Apr 14, 2012

Does it hurt things to develop longer than prescribed?

I ran a roll of TriX 400 through my newly received Brownie Hawkeye. I flipped the lens in the camera and couldn't wait, so I blew a roll around the house.

I developed it in XTOL which states to develop at 6.25 mins for the 120 roll. Well I went nearly 2 minutes longer than I should have... I figured if I was experimenting, why not try this too?

The negs seem much denser than I'm used to. Is this a good thing or bad?

I didn't check temps of the chemicals but the house is between 70-75 so I should be near the prescribed temp.

removed account4 · Apr 14, 2012

i love bullet proof negatives.
some are hard to SKn, but they print like a dream.

xtol, for me at least, was nearly impossible to over develop ..
when i used to use it, sometimes i would over develop my film
by more than what you did, and it seemed like it didn't do anything ...

have fun !
john

Rick A · Apr 14, 2012

It makes for luscious slightly dense and contrasty negatives that beg to be printed.

cliveh · Apr 14, 2012

I would suggest that development charts should be considered only as a guide, rather than a rule. A variable number of factors can affect any given development of film or print. As you increase temperature and/or time, you not only increase density and contrast, but grain size. My advice would be to determine what works for you, refine and fine tune it and then stick with it, over and over and over again.

ChristopherCoy · Apr 14, 2012

I've always gone by what the box prescribes, and never varied from the instructions. But I'm seriously liking the look of these negs so far. I'm hoping they are dry enough for a scan this evening.

Rick A · Apr 14, 2012

Someone used the "S" word, tut-tut. Negatives were meant to be printed in the traditional manner.

ChristopherCoy · Apr 14, 2012

And normally they would be, however because of my impending relocation, my darkroom has been packed up waiting on the move.

Rick A · Apr 14, 2012

If you were a tad closer you could just pop over and use my DR.

Bill Burk · Apr 14, 2012

Well, negatives from a simple camera are meant to be dense... So it probably is a good strategy to develop long...

I'd only caution you to make separate test strips for each print, I made a few too many 11x14 test prints last weekend because I assumed two shots adjacent to each other would print the same.

Newt_on_Swings · Apr 14, 2012

I like a denser negative myself too, and Xtol is some yummy soup. It should be fine, nice and contrasty, which would help if you didnt use a filter.

MattKing · Apr 15, 2012

The image formed by the optical system () of the Brownie will probably be low in contrast.

Developing the film longer will increase the contrast.

Christopher, you may have inadvertently discovered for yourself the reason why it is best to fine tune your technique to the conditions you are working with.

I'd warn you though that the results you get doing this with film from a Brownie Hawkeye are much more likely to be satisfactory than results you might get doing this with film from something like a top quality lens on 35mm or 120.

And by the way, did anyone else see the thread title and think the thread was going to have something to do with Jimi Hendrix?

RalphLambrecht · Apr 15, 2012

can i come and pick it up?

ChristopherCoy · Apr 15, 2012

RalphLambrecht said:
can i come and pick it up?

Pick up my Brownie?

removed account4 · Apr 15, 2012

chris

do you have any negative sleeves and photo paper handy ?
make a sun print of your negatives no darkroom needed.
sandwich under a sheet of glass or in a contact frame, it really doesn't matter ...
it will take anywhere between 45mins to a few hours, and you will have
low tech traditional prints to skn rather than film.

nworth · Apr 15, 2012

Overdeveloped negatives are dense and contrasty and usually hard to print. You overdeveloped by some 40 percent, equivalent to over two paper grades for printing most film. Highlights may be a bit blocked. Those negatives will be difficult. Scanning (sorry about the S word) may be a good way to evaluate them and possibly get a hold on the situation.

ChristopherCoy · Apr 15, 2012

nworth said:
Scanning (sorry about the S word) may be a good way to evaluate them and possibly get a hold on the situation.

See the gallery.

Bill Burk · Apr 15, 2012

Your shots in the gallery are great!

I think what MattKing is saying is, developing film 40% longer as a general rule, is not necessarily a good idea even though it is spectacular for the Brownie.

That's because the optics of the Brownie reduce your contrast.

I had a couple sets of film jump around on me. The shots from the Ikonta with bellows leak needed Grade 3 1/2 or higher while the shots from Spotmatic F w/SMCT lens are going to need Grade 2 or lower... Even though the films were developed to similar contrast index. The different "contrast" of the different cameras made a big difference in my case. And I always wondered what they meant when they said Pentax lenses were "contrasty"... Now I know.

ChristopherCoy · Apr 16, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I think what MattKing is saying is, developing film 40% longer as a general rule, is not necessarily a good idea even though it is spectacular for the Brownie.

Sure. What I understood was, with the cheap Brownie lens this much over development may work, but this probably wouldn't work as well if it were a roll that I shot with my Hassy. As I understand it, 'professional' grade lenses produce better micro-contrast in images to begin with, so the over-development is not needed. This was something that I first noticed when I went from a kit lens to Nikon's 'pro' lenses.

I think I may have pushed the development time a little too much on this roll, but it was an experiment and something that I hadn't done previously. More than likely I'll only go a minute more next time, although I do like the extra contrasty images from this first roll, even if a few of the highlights are a little too light.

removed account4 · Apr 16, 2012

christopher

i regularly over develop my film, and over expose my film ( sometimes 4-5 stops over exposed )
i use some vintage optics and some expensive schneider optics, and i really can't say that one works better
than the other.
if you you are trying to get "clinical" images over developing by 40% ( or in my case 400% ) probably isn't going
to give you that sort of look, but if you want to push your equipment to what some may suggest is
lunacy, and the unknown, by all means keep over processing your film, even more than your 40%.
get some expired photo paper and make lumen contact prints ( as i described earlier ) or
a cyanotype kit, and make more permanent prints ( lumen prints i described are a lot of fun to make, but are ephemeral / can't be fixed ).

john

Mike Wilde · Apr 16, 2012

David Vestal in his great to learn photography from book, called The Craft of Photography, a mid 70's book does the test of under and over expose film, and encourages you to do the same.

I did so back around 1982, and boy, it shows you good (not necessariliy great) things can be wrung out of very over exposed film, and somewhat the same with over developeed film.
The testing shows you what to expect when you vary from the nominal normailzed marks for exposure and developement with your equipment.
It also quickly dispells the quality claims espoused at the time for the beneifits of 'pushing' (ie under exposing and over developing) a film.

9 instead of 6...

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency