Exposure error - help with developing

[naeroscatu]

In error I have exposed Ilford HP5 400 film at 50 ISO. Is there a way to get printable results? What developer/ developing time would you suggest? Many thanks

 

[loccdor]

Perceptol stock solution at 9 minutes is one I am seeing. It's only a 2 minute reduction from the normal speed. HP5 is very forgiving.

 

[koraks]

In error I have exposed Ilford HP5 400 film at 50 ISO. Is there a way to get printable results? What developer/ developing time would you suggest? Many thanks

Take 30% of whatever development time you would normally use and see what you get. They'll be fairly dense but somewhat flat negatives, and they will likely print beautifully albeit it with somewhat longer print exposure times. If this is 35mm film, you may have some halation around bright areas, but HP5+ is one of the most forgiving films also in this respect.

 

[pentaxuser]

Have a look as this video by Kyle McDougall on HP5+ at various stops of overexposure 3 stops(3mins 40 secs into the video) is far from the best at box speed but looks very usable



pentaxuser

 

[loccdor]

Wow, great video, that's even more latitude than I expected.

 

[Sharktooth]

A lot of it will depend on the brightness range of your scenes. In the video example, it looks like the scene was in overcast outdoor light. There are no sharp shadows, so the brightness range of the scene is relatively low. In cases like that, a 3 stop overexposure still renders the scene on the straight line portion of the film, so it will still look perfectly fine (but with a slightly longer exposure time for the print). The video should provide some comfort that you don't need to worry too much.

If you shorten the development time, you might actually be making things worse. Shortened development will mean lower contrast, and you'll need to use higher contrast in the final print (via printing filter change or different paper contrast grade).

If your subject matter has a wide brightness range, and you have important detail to be retained in the bright highlights, then a shorter development time may be warranted. Otherwise, I'd stick to your normal development, that you're already comfortable with. Switching to an unfamiliar developer or developing time, doesn't warrant the risk.

 

[darkroommike]

400>>>200>>>100>>>50 really only 3 stops overexposed (or for the pedantically afflicted: only three exposure steps from ISO Nominal). You negatives will be relatively dense and with lovely shadow detail, unless you employ a hybrid workflow (there's that word I hate, again) I would process normally. If you soup then scan the negatives might be too dense for some scanners.

 

[koraks]

If you soup then scan the negatives might be too dense for some scanners.

Hardly. Most scanners are intended to be used with all sorts of film, including slide film. They generally don't have much trouble cutting through the density of a rather heavy-handed B&W negative.
For darkroom printing, the rationale to cut back development time is mostly to allow for higher paper grades, which in my experience on some papers (Foma's for instance) are more linear and thus print more pleasingly than the very low grades. Graininess will also be reduced.

 

[loccdor]

My old Epson definitely doesn't do overexposed negative well, pretty bad with contrasty slide like Velvia too. While I was using it, it actually taught me to err on the side of underexposure which doesn't make much sense at all. Maybe the newer ones do a little better. I think there's a big improvement by increasing the intensity of the light source.

 

[retina_restoration]

Take 30% of whatever development time you would normally use and see what you get. They'll be fairly dense but somewhat flat negatives

Agreed. And use a developer that is less likely to create blocked up highlights. Xtol would be a good choice.

 

[naeroscatu]

Thank you all so very much for your suggestions. I think I know now how to develop. Kyle's demo was an eye opener in terms of latitude for this film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Wow, great video, that's even more latitude than I expected.

Unfortunately there was no digital photos of the actual 3 stops-over neg so it was difficult to say if a darkroom print might have been better than that one given to the presenter by his lab who only did a scan, nor, if with more manipulation, a better scan might have been possible

However the video was enough to indicate that it was not an "all is lost" sort of negative at 3 over

pentaxuser

 

[naeroscatu]

Follow up on this. I developed in HC110 dil 1:63 for 8min @21 deg C. The result is acceptable and printable