Are these negatives over exposed? Or overdeveloped?

[Smokwawelski]

Hello all. I noticed that the prints I have been making in the darkroom are very grainy and contrasty, so I decided to scan my rolls and see if I could find out what was wrong with them. After I scanned them I imported the images into photoshop, inverted them, and set the black point to the film base to get some digital "contact prints". I attached the scans below.
The first roll (labelled "1"), was shot with a Minolta SRT101, developed in ID-11 diluted 1+1 for 13 minutes at 20-22C
The second roll (labelled "2") was shot with a FED 2, developed in ID-11 diluted 1+1 for 13 minutes at 20-22C
The third roll (labelled "3") was shot with a Minolta SRT101, developed in D-76 diluted 1+1 for 11 minutes at 20C
All the rolls are HP5 rated at 400 ISO. The development times are the manufacturer's recommended times. I agitated the tanks using the Ilford Method.
It is possible that the shutter of both cameras might not be fully accurate, but from what I can tell just by listening to them they don't sound 3+ stops inaccurate. I haven't had either camera's shutter properly serviced or tested though, so maybe they are that far off and I just can't tell? I later realised that the SRT's meter is off by a stop or two, but the meter I used for the FED seems accurate. Also, the first two rolls went through a few X-ray scanners at the airport, but I don't think this is the cause since the third roll also has the same issue and didnt go through any x-rays. I contact printed another roll in an actual darkroom and it looked pretty much the same, but if you need to see some actual darkroom contact prints let me know.
My questions for you: what could have caused this? I have a couple more rolls to develop, should I develop these any different?Thank you.

 

[MattKing]

It is basically impossible to answer your question based on scans.
Instead, show us backlit photos of your negatives, making sure that we can see the space between the frames, the edge printing and the sprockets.

 

[koraks]

if you need to see some actual darkroom contact prints let me know.

Yes, please. A real (silver gelatin) contact print would help.
It would also help to have a decent photo of the backlit negative strips (e.g. light table) as @MattKing proposes.

Having said that, my wild guess at this point is that you somehow overexpose systematically.

 

[grain elevator]

You guys may be missing that the op set the black point to film base. Based on that we can see some shots look overexposed but most look exposed ok, the problem must be with development or printing. Overexposure causes low contrast anyway. How do you print? On what paper? Still, a picture of the negatives will help judge development.

 

[foc]

Until we can see the negatives, would this help?

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/common-processing-problems/

 

[Ian Grant]

As the OP has used the Ilford recommended development time and there's not a increase in contrast I suspect it's over-exposure, the Fed contact sheet could be given more exposure and proably be OK.

Ian

 

[MARTIE]

Based purely on what you've told and shown, I'll go along with general consensus, and I'm expecting the negatives to be overly dense.
If the maximum black gives a thin image, then your negative frames are too dense, over-exposed and here, consistently across-the-board. Probably by upto about +2 stops.

All of this suggests, mechanical and/or user error. A quick internet search turns up the following;
For your Minolta, think in terms of incorrect metering via wrong battery/voltage/previous user self recalibration etc.
For the Fed 2, "After detaching the back, two screws on the underside of the camera allow you to adjust the spring tension and change the shutter speeds, which will have become slow over time if the camera has not been adjusted periodically."

I presume the ASA/Din dial was set correctly in both instances?

As a general rule, exposure controls density while development controls contrast.

In this instance, I don't believe it has much to do with processing. Although reduced development by 10% of manufacturers data is not uncommon.
The grain, hard contrast, edge effects may have be heightened by the use of a condenser head when enlarging.

But all of this is pure speculation and conjecture on my part.

 

[Smokwawelski]

If the maximum black gives a thin image, then your negative frames are too dense, over-exposed and here, consistently across-the-board. Probably by upto about +2 stops.

That seems likely. But could a two stop overexposure lead to such a dense negative? I haven't printed most of these frames, but just by looking at them their highlights seem blown out. From what I've read black and white negatives have a high tolerance for overexposure, but maybe they're not as resistant as I thought?

 

[grain elevator]

Yes, some of these seem two stops overexposed. But even if the OP printed only those, that doesn't explain excessive contrast. If anything they should print flat.

 

[MARTIE]

That seems likely. But could a two stop overexposure lead to such a dense negative? I haven't printed most of these frames, but just by looking at them their highlights seem blown out. From what I've read black and white negatives have a high tolerance for overexposure, but maybe they're not as resistant as I thought?

Yes, 2 stops overexposure or 2 stops underexposure is incredibly significant in film photography.

Basically, all of the information is bunched up at either end of the scale.

And what isn't recorded, can't be printed.

It's the equivalent of shooting a 400iso film at 100iso film setting. I think we've all made the 'iso' mistake, but in your case, it may be mechanical or electrical.

 

[MARTIE]

Yes, some of these seem two stops overexposed. But even if the OP printed only those, that doesn't explain excessive contrast. If anything they should print flat.

I have no idea what's happening in the darkroom, but just going by the neg scans, I don't see high contrast, just white skies and grey shadows.

 

[grain elevator]

Exactly. Although possibly the scans mask something. But in the OP, one complaint is excessive contrast.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Your black points setting isn't fully on black. Pulling #3 into photoshop and adjusting black point with curves while watching the clipping tells me you are not grossly overexposed, but given the relative lack of black areas in the image area you are over exposing. It's hard to judge the contrast based on a scan especially if you made adjustments in the scanning software. Dropping the middle of the curve a bit improves the midtone contrast a bit. From scans of my own I'd guess you are over developed, which would also explain how at box speed you are somewhat over exposed. Try cutting development down by 15% and keep everything else the same and see what you get.

 

[Smokwawelski]

Yes, please. A real (silver gelatin) contact print would help.
It would also help to have a decent photo of the backlit negative strips (e.g. light table) as @MattKing proposes.

Having said that, my wild guess at this point is that you somehow overexpose systematically.

Ok, I printed contact sheets of the negatives. I only had 5x7 paper but I think it should be enough to see what's wrong. I printed them on "Multitone" VC RC paper at f/16 without a filter using my condenser enlarger. I might have over exposed the sheets a little so I included the test prints I made with each sheet as well for reference.

 

[koraks]

Thanks; that looks quite promising.
Is there a possibility of seeing a photo of some of the backlit negative strips?

Maybe the grainy & contrasty look off your prints is alleviated by simply printing at a lower grade? There's always the possibility that the negatives aren't all that bad.

 

[Smokwawelski]

Thanks; that looks quite promising.
Is there a possibility of seeing a photo of some of the backlit negative strips?

Still, a picture of the negatives will help judge development.

It is basically impossible to answer your question based on scans.
Instead, show us backlit photos of your negatives, making sure that we can see the space between the frames, the edge printing and the sprockets.

Here are some photos of my negatives on my brightly lit monitor. Hopefully this helps with diagnosing the problem.

 

[MattKing]

Assume subjects that display a reasonably wide range of tones, from shadows that are dark but show a bit of detail, to highlights that are bright, but show a bit of detail. Don't base your analysis on subjects with an extreme range of tones like sunlit sand and deep shadows in the same subject.
To check exposure, look at the shadows - the thinner parts of the negative.
If they are thin and there isn't enough usable detail in there, and your subject needs to show some detail there, then your negatives are under-exposed.
If there is some usable detail in those shadows, you have enough exposure. If your subject has shadows that ought to turn out quite dark, but the negatives show lots of density there, you may have over-exposed the shot.
To check your development, look at the highlights - the denser parts of the negative.
If they are dense and there isn't enough usable detail in there, and your subject needs to show some detail there, then your negatives are over-developed .
If there is some usable detail in those highlights, you haven't over-developed them. If your subject has highlights that ought to both show detail and turn out quite bright, but the negatives show only moderate or low density there, you probably have under-developed the film.
Looking at your negatives, and without knowing a lot about the subjects in them, my initial reaction is that the exposure looks pretty good, but they may very well be over-developed.

 

[MARTIE]

I agree, the negatives do look pretty usable.

This might then lead one to question;
The enlarger, bulb, contrast filter age, degradation, etc.
The darkroom, the safelight, light spill, etc.
The photographic paper, age, storage, handling and potential fogging, etc.
The paper developer, age, strength, capacity, storage, temperature, development time, etc.

 

[koraks]

my initial reaction is that the exposure looks pretty good, but they may very well be over-developed.

Yes, maybe a bit heavyhanded on the development, with some frames having been exposed rather generously, but most seem OK.

This might then lead one to question;

Yes that, but initially mostly the question: what exactly is the perceived problem?

 

[MARTIE]

Yes, maybe a bit heavyhanded on the development, with some frames having been exposed rather generously, but most seem OK.



Yes that, but initially mostly the question: what exactly is the perceived problem?

All said and done, there are too many variables with the most obvious one being x-rays.

I would therefore suggest shooting a roll of fresh, new film as a control measure.

 

[koraks]

with the most obvious one being x-rays.

I don't agree with that. Three rolls, all similar behavior, only two of which have been exposed to x-rays. That proves that of all factors, the x-rays are way at the bottom of the list of suspects.

 

[MARTIE]

Root cause analysis.

If you wish to rule our x-ray defects.

Can you also rule out film provenance, expiration date, storage and handling defects?

There are still too many unknowns, for me.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hello all. I noticed that the prints I have been making in the darkroom are very grainy and contrasty, so I decided to scan my rolls and see if I could find out what was wrong with them. After I scanned them I imported the images into photoshop, inverted them, and set the black point to the film base to get some digital "contact prints". I attached the scans below.
The first roll (labelled "1"), was shot with a Minolta SRT101, developed in ID-11 diluted 1+1 for 13 minutes at 20-22C
The second roll (labelled "2") was shot with a FED 2, developed in ID-11 diluted 1+1 for 13 minutes at 20-22C
The third roll (labelled "3") was shot with a Minolta SRT101, developed in D-76 diluted 1+1 for 11 minutes at 20C
All the rolls are HP5 rated at 400 ISO. The development times are the manufacturer's recommended times. I agitated the tanks using the Ilford Method.
It is possible that the shutter of both cameras might not be fully accurate, but from what I can tell just by listening to them they don't sound 3+ stops inaccurate. I haven't had either camera's shutter properly serviced or tested though, so maybe they are that far off and I just can't tell? I later realised that the SRT's meter is off by a stop or two, but the meter I used for the FED seems accurate. Also, the first two rolls went through a few X-ray scanners at the airport, but I don't think this is the cause since the third roll also has the same issue and didnt go through any x-rays. I contact printed another roll in an actual darkroom and it looked pretty much the same, but if you need to see some actual darkroom contact prints let me know.
My questions for you: what could have caused this? I have a couple more rolls to develop, should I develop these any different?Thank you.

Your three rolls of negatives are perfect.

I have a lot of experience with negatives that look the same. My times for Kodak film is 13:30 minutes in D-76 1:1… essentially the same as you. The result is full speed 0.62 contrast.

If you dislike the 400 speed film grain, try a 100 speed film. There are times I love grain and times when I wish for less. Sometimes larger format 120 or 4x5 gives me what I want with a 400 speed film.

Your contact prints show various exposure deviations. Exposure variations are trivial to correct when you print.

You explore the scenery, so you have various subject lighting. So you are going to have a variety of negative qualities in the same roll.