adox chs 100 @ 1600 ISO...what to do?

[pierods]

I think it was not a great idea, but now the roll is shot, what do I do?

At home I have: Rodinal, Neofin Blue, d-76, perceptol.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Throw it away. 4 stops underexposed is not fixable at all. I wouldn't waste the time to even develop it, really.

 

[Klainmeister]

Hmmm, that's a helluva underexposure. You'd think Rodinal at 25 minutes or something might pull some images out. Who knows, never tried it that far.

 

[pierods]

Hmmm, that's a helluva underexposure. You'd think Rodinal at 25 minutes or something might pull some images out. Who knows, never tried it that far.

Ok I'll try. 1+?

 

[pentaxuser]

You might want to learn how the negs will look at 4 stops under and enjoy the experience/ education of trying to print from the best of them. It won't cost a great deal to process the negs. Have a look at them then decide what to do.

There should be a few suggestions as to which of the developers you have, will be the best and what processing regime will have the best chance.

If Kodak 3200 has a real speed of 1000 but acceptable prints can be made at an EI of 12,500 then there might be some chance of something coming out. Treat it as a learning experience, expect nothing at all from the negs and treat anything more than nothing as a bonus.

pentaxuser

 

[J Rollinger]

I pushed Adox 25 4 stops and they were not printable.. Had to toss the negatives..

 

[brianmquinn]

You could develop it in Dektol or some other paper developer. You may get more of a lith negative as a result. Worth a try.

What type of lighting was the film shot under? If it was higher contrast lighting I think you may get some interesting negatives.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

That is have of hell a difference. Give up!

Jeff

 

[Roger Cole]

Yeah give up.

In the old days I think some folks used HC110 replinisher to push Tri-X to something like 25,000 but as far as I know it's not even available anymore.

 

[michaelbsc]

Go ahead and figure out the development time for +5, not like you'll blow out the high lights, then get some help on dpug to scan them.

Scanners, despise them or not, can get image out of almost airy thinness.

At worst you get nothing, which is the same as you get by giving up.

 

[hobbes]

No! wait.. don't throw it away... and don't use Rodinal! Neofin Blue should be most suitable, as it raises the box iso of the given film by half. Also D76 1:1 may be a help. I pushed tx400@4000 with D76 1:1 and obtained quite printable frames, but mind that Adox CHS 100 is a traditional single layer film and can be reacting to pushing process way different than Kodak Tx .

 

[ntenny]

A lot of people shoot it at 200 normally, don't they? I know the slower Efke emulsions are often uprated by a stop. So it may be more like a 3-stop push---which is still, however, pretty extreme. IMHO, what you want to do is develop the film to completion while keeping fog as low as possible.

Donald Qualls's "Super Soup" recipe---basically it's HC-110 dil A mixed with Dektol stock in place of water, plus some ascorbic acid and washing soda---does this quite well with faster films, but I've never tried it with a slower single-layer film and I have no idea what would happen.

If the roll in question is of any importance, I think you should do a test roll first with whatever developing regime you want to go with.

-NT

 

[dynachrome]

If I had to try this I would use undiluted Ilford Microphen. In High School if film really needed a push we woulod say "Boil it in Dektol!"

 

[Gerald C Koch]

This has been said before but I will say it again. No developer or developing method can produce detail where none exists.