cant tell underexposed or overdeveloped

[shawnf5]

new to self processing, Neopan 400, in xtol 1+3 15:45 @ 20. The film has a slight pink haze to it. Highlights are completely crushed but shadows seem to have detail... here's a scan http://www.flickr.com/photos/21596001@N08/4319472723/

 

[Arvee]

Looks underdeveloped to me.

How much developer (stock) was added to water to make the final developer solution?

-F.

 

[shawnf5]

250ml stock 750ml water... could be underdeveloped, is there any other way to tell?

 

[Bruce Watson]

new to self processing, Neopan 400, in xtol 1+3 15:45 @ 20. The film has a slight pink haze to it. Highlights are completely crushed but shadows seem to have detail...

Judge exposure by shadow detail. You want just enough exposure to give you the shadow detail you want. No more.

Judge development time by highlight density. You want enough density in the highlights to make it easy to print your film on a #2 paper in the darkroom. No more.

The pink haze is left over dyes that didn't wash out properly during fixing / washing of the film. See (there was a url link here which no longer exists) for more.

 

[Arvee]

Did you process the film in the entire liter?

I had similar results with my Xtol but I have crappy water and my Xtol started deteriorating virtually immediately after mixing.

I had to go to distilled to keep the developer half way fresh.

 

[Denverdad]

The scan is dark, but if you adjust it with levels and curves in Photoshop it seems to show a nice tonal range. There is lots of shadow detail and I don't see any crushed highlights. I am somewhat new to this myself so maybe I am missing something, but I have to say it looks fine to me! I could post an adjusted version if you like.

 

[shawnf5]

thanks guys... yea I processed two rolls, 1L fresh xtol and filtered water, looks like underdeveloped. Tough to tell how long it should be. Looked on the dev chart but that seems a little off. Is there a way to dial it in?

 

[shawnf5]

yea, adjusted a couple stops the detail comes in... weird. should I try longer times?

 

[Arvee]

Steve Anchell recommends using 250 ml of stock per roll for full development. According to his suggestion, one liter (1:3) is enough developer for one roll.

Possibility that the developer exhausted before development was complete.

 

[Denverdad]

"yea, adjusted a couple stops the detail comes in... weird. should I try longer times?"

No I don't think so. Well not if you are thinking to compensate for what you are seeing in your scan. Depending on the scanner software and the workflow you employ, you generally have to make adjustments to the scan to finish the image properly anyway. That discussion is probably out of bounds here on APUG. But if you can look at the negative on a light table with a loupe you should be able to examine your shadows and highlights to see what is actually on the film. My guess is that you have right about what you want. Its a nice image by the way.

 

[Anscojohn]

new to self processing, Neopan 400, in xtol 1+3 15:45 @ 20. The film has a slight pink haze to it. Highlights are completely crushed but shadows seem to have detail... here's a scan http://www.flickr.com/photos/21596001@N08/4319472723/

********
Detail in shadows and over-dense highlights indicate overdevelopment.

 

[sanking]

To my eye the print appears to have adequate detail in the shadows, but highlight contrast is very low.

If I am seeing right the film was exposed correctly, but time of development was too short.

Sandy King

 

[cowanw]

Humour alert
"Detail in shadows and over-dense highlights indicate overdevelopment"

"If I am seeing right the film was exposed correctly, but time of development was too short"

To paraphrase Lincoln, one of us may be right or we both may be wrong but we cannot both be right

 

[mikebarger]

 

[Anscojohn]

Humour alert
"Detail in shadows and over-dense highlights indicate overdevelopment"

"If I am seeing right the film was exposed correctly, but time of development was too short"

To paraphrase Lincoln, one of us may be right or we both may be wrong but we cannot both be right

**************
Tell me what "crushed" highlights are.

 

[sun of sand]

I think he means crushed as in depressed not clipped/blocked


The shadows are fine really but depends and the highlights are depressed but its also very overcast
I think it may be slightly underexposed
hmm

I'd try a little more exposure and more development
maybe shoot at 320 and develop same time and another 18min?
then try same 400 but 18min or agitate more for same time

 

[shawnf5]

thank you for all the insight... what I mean is that the shot doesn't have range. I think the clearing might be contributing... but the shadows do look ok
I'm gonna try the same dilution maybe 20 min?... but fixing for 10 min instead of 5 (I don't use rapidfix). Washing for at least 20 min instead of 10 might help too! I'll post from the next roll...

 

[sun of sand]

Don't know about neopan but 5 minutes is still somewhat short

I still think you could check exposure while at it
the skies seem too dark even for a day such as that and the darker areas within it won't brighten up much with increased development

im thinking you can make white snow look dark if you expose incorrectly and eventhough you have adequate detail in that dark snow doesn't mean snow was exposed "properly"
to me that rock looks like it could/should be a zone higher ..may be wrong
more middle values won't raise that much in comparison
If you like the rock/skies where they are
enough said ..development is the sole fix

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Start with a 7 stop range subject. The correct exposure is the fastest one that will give you printable detail in the third stop under middle grey, IE just less than black.

Then adjust development time so the whites print with detail being neither blown out or grey.

The rule is expose for the shadows, develope for the highlights. Always was. Always will be.

When theer is a short range subject of say 4/5 stops, user a higher contrast paper. If you have a longer scale subject, develope 15% less and or use a diffusion enlarger or flash the paper.

This is enough to get you started. It can get very sophisticated but this will do for 99.9 percent of every pic you want to do.