Developing badly overexposed HP5+

[ntenny]

It's been a rough week for film mishaps at my place. I managed to make a mistake mounting a lens, so that the meter didn't couple properly, and I shot a roll of HP5+ (in 120) at what I would guess was about EI 50-100, with a lot of variation between shots. It's not the end of the world---they're just ordinary photos of my son climbing trees---but I'd like to do what I can to salvage usable images.

I'm thinking HC-110 dilution H, with reduced agitation; basically I want to compensate, compensate, and compensate some more. I realize I'm going to get flattened negatives that may sc*n better than they print, or at least need very hard printing to look decent---I can live with that. I don't care about grain but I'd like to preserve sharpness to the extent possible (hence I don't want to use Perceptol, which seems to be a common recommendation for this kind of extreme pull).

Does anyone have starting-point times for dilution H in this kind of situation? Any general advice or thoughts that might be helpful? Again, this isn't a critical roll so I'm OK with using it for mad-science experiments.

Thanks

-NT

 

[ntenny]

Isn't 3 stops of overexposure likely to blow highlights all over the place, or at least push what should be the midtones up into the shoulder and end up with no midrange contrast?

-NT

 

[Xmas]

If you are only going to scan Perceptol normal dev time sharpen in post...

If you only going to wet print normal dev normal time grain in 120 unless you are doing posters ok.

 

[giannisg2004]

I'd also recommend -1 dev (HP5+ looks good at 200 anyway) with a bit more vigorous agitation to keep contrast from flattening.

Or as Xmas said, Perceptol at normal times, it's gonna look real smooth, maybe lack a bit of accutance, but for portraits maybe that's the look you're after.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A "speed losing" developer like Perceptol is what you need. This should get you to an EI of ~200. Then you are only 1 to 2 stops over well within the latitude of the film. Forget HC-110.

 

[markbarendt]

Isn't 3 stops of overexposure likely to blow highlights all over the place, or at least push what should be the midtones up into the shoulder and end up with no midrange contrast?

-NT

No, You'll have have a lot of shadow detail that isn't needed and thick negs bit that's probably it.

 

[markbarendt]

When choosing minus or plus development the normal reason is to match the SBR to the paper. It isn't a fix for an exposure placement issue.

Given the OP's SBR has not changed why is there a reason to adjust development?

 

[markbarendt]

There isn't. Unless the scenes photographed were very high in contrast, all he's done is move the whole thing up the straight line.

Exactly

 

[ntenny]

All right, I'll give it a go and see if the long shoulder saves me. Thanks for the suggestions, all.

-NT

 

[Regular Rod]

Why HC-110? If you are concerned that you may have blown your highlights, use a compensating developer with a stand or semi-stand agitation regime and you will very likely retrieve the situation nicely and end up with printable prints. Caffenol will act as a compensating developer and you are likely to have the ingredients around the house or at least in your local grocery store. If you want to maintain as much sharpness and as fine a grain as HP5 Plus allows, then OBSIDIAN AQUA will do what you need.

RR

 

[Bob Carnie]

I would try PMK with a drop one stop process and you should be in a good range.

 

[ic-racer]

I I want to compensate, compensate, and compensate some more.

What do you want to compensate for? Do you understand what changes in development time do to the film?

 

[MattKing]

HC-110 doesn't give maximum speed, so it may be a decent choice, but HC-110 dilution H will give compensation, which is exactly the opposite of what you want. You don't want to increase the shadow density relative to the highlight density. You do want to decrease the shadow density relative to the highlight density.

I'd use HC-110 dil B with very gentle agitation, and consider as well reducing the development time slightly.

 

[ntenny]

HC-110 doesn't give maximum speed, so it may be a decent choice, but HC-110 dilution H will give compensation, which is exactly the opposite of what you want. You don't want to increase the shadow density relative to the highlight density. You do want to decrease the shadow density relative to the highlight density.

A couple of people have said this same thing, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it in the context of the cliche "develop for the highlights".

So what I was thinking is something like this: "Oh, crap, I've pushed things way up the curve and the highlights will be blown if I don't do something." (Which people have now questioned based on the long straight-line region, but that's what I was thinking at the time.) "Well, I'd better develop short to get the highlights back down. Lots of compensation to control the highlights, but then I need to make sure the shadows get enough time to have some detail too. I'd better go with something dilute, so it exhausts quickly in the highlights and allows me to give the shadows reasonable time still. Sounds like dilution H."

Can you talk me through the reasoning behind "decrease the shadow density relative to the highlight density"?

Thanks

-NT

 

[giannisg2004]

Reducing dev time will bring down the highlights much more than any compensation effect would.
Having overexposed the film will bring the shadows up much more than any compensation effect would, and shortening the dev time wouldn't affect the shadows.

Once you shorten the dev time, you have the inverse problem, too "dark"/flat highlights, and you want to up the contrast.
Altering the dev time changes the equation completely.

 

[pdeeh]

"... it might be thought that if a film were over-exposed and so gave density very easily it should be developed for a shorter time than if it had received a correct exposure. This idea is quite wrong. What is wanted is not so much correct density, which only affects the time of printing, but correct contrast, and the contrast is controlled by the time of development ... Whatever the exposure, the best result will be obtained by the use of the normal time of development"

 

[markbarendt]

"develop for the highlights".

Developing for the highlights is only relevent if you "Shot to the Shadows".

That's not what you did.

 

[MattKing]

A couple of people have said this same thing, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it in the context of the cliche "develop for the highlights".

So what I was thinking is something like this: "Oh, crap, I've pushed things way up the curve and the highlights will be blown if I don't do something." (Which people have now questioned based on the long straight-line region, but that's what I was thinking at the time.) "Well, I'd better develop short to get the highlights back down. Lots of compensation to control the highlights, but then I need to make sure the shadows get enough time to have some detail too. I'd better go with something dilute, so it exhausts quickly in the highlights and allows me to give the shadows reasonable time still. Sounds like dilution H."

Can you talk me through the reasoning behind "decrease the shadow density relative to the highlight density"?

Thanks

-NT

If you just do everything normally, and are not saved by the long straight line portion of the curve, everything will be shoved up into highlight region.

So you do what you can to lower the highlights, and lower the shadows even more.

A developer like HC110 dilution B doesn't achieve quite as much film speed (shadow density) as some others, so that helps a bit with the shadows.

Decreasing the agitation may give you a bit of local exhaustion, so that may help a bit with the highlights.

And a slight decrease in total development time may help a little at both ends.

But Perceptol/Microdol X might help more.

 

[Regular Rod]

HC-110 doesn't give maximum speed, so it may be a decent choice, but HC-110 dilution H will give compensation, which is exactly the opposite of what you want. You don't want to increase the shadow density relative to the highlight density. You do want to decrease the shadow density relative to the highlight density.

I'd use HC-110 dil B with very gentle agitation, and consider as well reducing the development time slightly.

Are you sure about that? Surely there is nothing now to be done about shadow density as that is determined by the exposure, which has already happened. However, by using a compensating process, the highlights, which are influenced by the development, can be kept from blocking out...

RR

 

[removed account4]

nathan

caffenol c is the ideal developer for your situation
it will make your grossly over exposed film look "normal"
i know you want to use it ...
just process it as "normal" and you will be fine.

good luck !
john

 

[MattKing]

Are you sure about that? Surely there is nothing now to be done about shadow density as that is determined by the exposure, which has already happened. However, by using a compensating process, the highlights, which are influenced by the development, can be kept from blocking out...

RR

The problem with approaching the issue this way is that if you develop the film normally, the extra exposure will mean that the shadows are no longer shadows on the film - they are mid-tones.

If you use a compensating developer, you will have as much or more effect on those mid-tones as you will on the highlights.

 

[ntenny]

Well, this has been an educational discussion; thanks for all the knowledge. Unfortunately my darkroom is out of commission for a few days, but I'll get in there once I have the use of it again and see what happens in practice.

No Caffenol, I'm afraid. I've had so much trouble with uneven development that I've kind of drifted away from the stuff; I like it when it works well, but I can't get it to behave consistently.

-NT

 

[removed account4]

Well, this has been an educational discussion; thanks for all the knowledge. Unfortunately my darkroom is out of commission for a few days, but I'll get in there once I have the use of it again and see what happens in practice.

No Caffenol, I'm afraid. I've had so much trouble with uneven development that I've kind of drifted away from the stuff; I like it when it works well, but I can't get it to behave consistently.

-NT

i know what you mean.. that was one of the original reasons i spiked it with ansco130
it brought everything into line ..

good luck !
john

 

[markbarendt]

The problem with approaching the issue this way is that if you develop the film normally, the extra exposure will mean that the shadows are no longer shadows on the film - they are mid-tones.

That isn't really it Matt.

Yes, the shadow tones will be further up on the film curve, but they are still "the shadow tones". The exact placement of each tone on the negative is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the "shadow point" falls at .1 or .4 density on the negative, those tones are still going to be printed as the shadows.

If you use a compensating developer, you will have as much or more effect on those mid-tones as you will on the highlights.

This does bring up placement problem question for those who attempt compensation. How do you decide on how to "fit" your scene when you really don't know where the shoulder is going to round off. Developer usage is tied to subject brightness; a bright scene say mostly snow or mostly the bride's white dress will use up developer more quickly than a dark night setting. There is simply more silver to develop, density to build, in the bright scene and that will use up more developer than a dark scene where the negative ends up with lots of "clear" area.

 

[MattKing]

Originally Posted by MattKing (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
The problem with approaching the issue this way is that if you develop the film normally, the extra exposure will mean that the shadows are no longer shadows on the film - they are mid-tones.

That isn't really it Matt.

Yes, the shadow tones will be further up on the film curve, but they are still "the shadow tones". The exact placement of each tone on the negative is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the "shadow point" falls at .1 or .4 density on the negative, those tones are still going to be printed as the shadows.
.

Mark

Bad choice of words. I should have said that " the extra exposure will mean that the shadows on the film are no longer responding to variations in development like shadows do - they are responding like mid-tones. And mid-tones will increase in density if you increase development time in a compensating developer."