Aaarrrgghhhh!!! Metering blunder- negs salvagable?

[mobtown_4x5]

Guys- I did something really dumb today with my new (to me) Pentax analog spotmeter...

The first warm day of the year here in Charm City, and I'm out shooting my "ghetto-scapes"TM with T-max, rated at EI 50...

My notes look like this-

Shot 1, House on B street-
Sun on roof - meters 9
Dark window- meters 6
Window on II= 1 sec @ f16, Roof falls on V

Great, right? NO Matt you idiot! 1 sec @ f16 in the sun? what are you thinking! THE METER HAS 2 SCALES, when you are not using the button, you read the top scale- the window didn't meter 6, it metered 11.5! You placed your shadow on zone VIII ! (that's what I call "high key!")

The two meter scale divisions don't exactly line up, but it looks like everything was overexposed by about 5-6 stops.

So anyone have any ideas for N-6 development? ops: I need to lose a whole lot of film speed if possible, or maybe I should just not bother processing these negs at all. But perhaps I could give up on a normal treatment and get some interesting results with something experimental; for example, I have gotten interesting prints before from gross printing overexposure combined very quick devepopment, vice/versa...hmmm

Well anyway, one good thing is I will never make this mistake again, but I'm sure there will be others...

-Matt

 

[glbeas]

Try a developer that naturally loses some film speed like Rodinal, the add stand developing to that so the highlights don't go visiting the next dimension. Alternately a two part developer or compensating like D-23. Other than that Tmax can take a lot of abuse. Good luck!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That's a start. Also cut development time, and if the negs are still bulletproof try a reducer.

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

Let's suppose it's lost, so anything is better than the round archive.

Try a VERY dilluted dev (Rodinal?) for a short time, but agitating a lot so contrast (that has been flatered by the overexposure) may come a bit back.

Jorge O

 

[gainer]

Maybe this would be a good time to experiment with post fixation physical development. (If you take me seriously, you have only yourself to blame.)

You might find that you will have something printable if you develop normally. I dropped a roll of Tri-X coil spring sometimes called film while loading it. I finally had to flash the lights on to find it. Said What the Heck! and developed it anyway. Figured some shots in the center might be usable. There was so much fog you could NOT cut it with a knife, But I got a few grainy but good pictures.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Hmm... Camera and Darkroom .. once had a *very informative article about using extremely "de-rated" film speeds to expand tonal range ... I think it was entitled "Taming Extreme Contrast" - or something like that. If memory serves -- essentailly, the film was overexposed by six or seven stops and processed *very* dilute developer.
I don't remember what film was being used - I do remember effective film speeds of ISO 3 - 6.

When I get a chance, I'll try to look it up.

You didn't say what film format was used. Is it possible to cut a piece off and try it?

 

[Konical]

Maybe nothing will salvage so much overexposure, but why not try Technidol (six? eight? minutes).

Konical

 

[mobtown_4x5]

Yup- these negs sure have "tamed contrast" alright, I'd say they pretty much have the shit tamed out of them all-around! I guess the author of that article must have been on to something, Ed!

Tried D76 1:1 and a bottle of DD-X I bought on a whim a while back...Jorge, you were right about agitation, tried some near-stand development in both developers, but the best (relatively speaking) results came actually from throwing the remainig 8 negs into my Nikor 4x5 tank for constant agitation at 1/2 normal time in the DD-X. Flat and bulletpoof, but really not as bad as I expected. Some people might consider them printable.

One thing, it sure says something about the tolerance of TMY for BIG-time overexposure!... If I HAD to pull a print from these negs , I think I could come up with something passable.

Not a totally wothless exersize in my book, at the least I figure every time I see a composition in the real-world, then see it in 2-D monochrome, my brain gets more acclimated to visualizing how things translate (I hope)...

Thanks to all who responded-

 

[happysnapper]

There is always "fume" development if you do that again.
:whistle:

 

[Ed Sukach]

Yup- these negs sure have "tamed contrast" alright, I'd say they pretty much have the shit tamed out of them all-around! I guess the author of that article must have been on to something, Ed!

Found it!!

The article was featured on the cover of the March 1989 "Darkroom Photography" (Later- "Camera and Darkroom); "How to Handle High Ratio Shooting" a.ka. ""Taming Contrast" in the table of contents - p.40, by Roy Flamm.

The introduction, in part:

"My firmly held conviction is that a photographer should not make changes in the lighting designed for the interior spaces of a building by bringing in lights. If the intention of a photographer is to be objective in architectural work, it becomes paramount that no concepts are introduced other than those of the designer. Good architectural photography is mostly good documentary photography."

He talks about contrast ratios of 2,000 to 4,000 to 1, as measured with a S.E.I spot meter (log 3.30 to 3.60).

Essentially he exposes Plus-X Pan sheet film (ISO 125) "at EIs of 12 and 25, and rarely, as low as 6". Development is listed as:

"All times given are for 68 degrees F. Developer dilution is 4 parts water to 1 part working solution.

High Contrast: EI 25 in FX-4 @ for 8-12 minutes
Very High Contrast: E.I 12 in FX-4 for 7-9 minutes

EI 25 in FX-18 for 9 minutes
EI 12 in FX-18 for 9 minutes

EI 25 in ID-68 for 10-12 minutes
EI 12 in ID-68 for 9 minutes."

He specifically lists Phenidone-Hydroquinone developers.

Hmmm: "There has been too much attention in photographic literature about retaining detail of shadows and highlights in the negative, and it is often ignored that this usually results in negatives with density scales so high as to makes them unprintable or printable only with great difficulty. It doesn't matter what density scale your negative has if it can't translate into a quality print."

Damn, but I miss that magazine.

 

[glbeas]

Yup- these negs sure have "tamed contrast" alright, I'd say they pretty much have the shit tamed out of them all-around! I guess the author of that article must have been on to something, Ed!

Tried D76 1:1 and a bottle of DD-X I bought on a whim a while back...Jorge, you were right about agitation, tried some near-stand development in both developers, but the best (relatively speaking) results came actually from throwing the remainig 8 negs into my Nikor 4x5 tank for constant agitation at 1/2 normal time in the DD-X. Flat and bulletpoof, but really not as bad as I expected. Some people might consider them printable.

One thing, it sure says something about the tolerance of TMY for BIG-time overexposure!... If I HAD to pull a print from these negs , I think I could come up with something passable.

Not a totally wothless exersize in my book, at the least I figure every time I see a composition in the real-world, then see it in 2-D monochrome, my brain gets more acclimated to visualizing how things translate (I hope)...

Thanks to all who responded-

Nows your chance to play with some reducers! Folks, which one is it that is not proportional so some of the contrast can be regained?