FP4 Exposure Mistake: Developing Suggestions

[HiHoSilver]

'No help to give, Svenedin, but hope it goes well & can't wait to see the results. Best of luck!

 

[cliveh]

You messed up, develop as normal and save half the film.

 

[Svenedin]

Thanks HiHo. This area of the Alps is extremely beautiful. It was Austrian until 1919. Now it is Italy but still 96% of the population speak German as their first language. The Italians changed sides in 1915 after they were promised this territory in secret talks in London. There are many ruins of WW1 forts, trenches etc at very high altitude. The aim was to shell the enemy from the peaks and to interdict passes and valley routes. Brutal and a forgotten front. Everyone remembers Flanders but forgets the Alpine Front.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Probably the easiest thing to do is to take advantage of the film's latitude. For most films this is from 4-1/2 stops over to 1 stop under exposed. Develop the film for the EI 400 exposure. The other frames will be a bit denser than usual but it is easy to just print through the extra density. In doing so you don't really sacrifice anything.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

I would try a compensating developer, like Moersch MZB. According to its description, it can handle overexposure without a problem.

Interesting side note: In the past, when the glass plates were home-made or of unknown / unsteady sensitivity, it was common to develop them in glycin-based compensating developers. But I doubt that these old recipes will work out fine with a modern film, and you would have to know the right development time, too.

 

[darkroommike]

NEXT TIME if you start a roll at the "wrong" ISO finish the roll at the same setting and then push the roll. FP-4 should push fine to 400, it's not optimal but it is doable, changing your exposure index mid-roll is what put you in this dilemma. (Been there done that)

 

[Svenedin]

I got back from my trip this evening and I have developed the film in question. In the end I developed the whole roll for EI 250 in Xtol using Kodak's times. So effectively some frames are overexposed by a stop and the others underexposed by around 2/3 stop.

Looking at the wet negatives it looks like I have got away with this. The frames exposed at EI 125 are a bit dense but show very nice detail in the shadows and some loss of contrast (which is not a bad thing for this subject). The frames exposed at EI 400 look a bit thin, appear to be rather high in contrast and may lack some shadow detail (but the subject for these frames was brightly lit in full, high-altitude, Alpine sun with such dark shadows that I could not see detail in the shadows when I took the pictures).

I've had rolls that look similar to this without making film speed setting mistakes.

I will know more when I try to print these negatives but thank you for all of your suggestions.

 

[Harry Stevens]

Well if it was mine it would get stand developed.

 

[removed account4]

I got back from my trip this evening and I have developed the film in question. In the end I developed the whole roll for EI 250 in Xtol using Kodak's times. So effectively some frames are overexposed by a stop and the others underexposed by around 2/3 stop.

Looking at the wet negatives it looks like I have got away with this. The frames exposed at EI 125 are a bit dense but show very nice detail in the shadows and some loss of contrast (which is not a bad thing for this subject). The frames exposed at EI 400 look a bit thin, appear to be rather high in contrast and may lack some shadow detail (but the subject for these frames was brightly lit in full, high-altitude, Alpine sun with such dark shadows that I could not see detail in the shadows when I took the pictures).

I've had rolls that look similar to this without making film speed setting mistakes.

I will know more when I try to print these negatives but thank you for all of your suggestions.

glad to hear it might have worked out.
still .. you might consider, doing a film test for your own laughs
so the next time you have a mistake ( similar or different )
you have a guide (exposed film ) and the experience to go by, instead of winging it ...

good luck !
john

 

[Svenedin]

Thanks. I've been getting on with developing the films from my trip. I shot 19 rolls of film during the 12 day trip. 7 rolls are now hanging up to dry. It was a mixture of 35mm and 120 6x7 including infrared. It sounds like a huge number of pictures but I did a lot of bracketing, especially with the Rollei IR 400. I'm using up the 5 litre batch of Xtol I had for the FP4 and Rollei IR but for the 400 Delta I will probably use DD-X which I like a lot.

Is Xtol good with Delta 400? I have not tried that particular combination

 

[Svenedin]

Thank for your help with this. I attach the contact sheet (sheet too big for scanner so chopped off). I developed the whole roll as EI 200 and, although I haven't printed any yet, it seems like I got away with it.

Frames 1-7 inclusive were accidentally exposed at EI 400 (by forgetting to change the dial on the camera). Frames 8-10 were exposed at EI 125. It was not the 50:50 division I thought it was. The extra density of frames 8, 9 and 10 can be seen as they printed "light" on the contact sheet as compared to the others.

In truth they are not really a very exciting bunch of shots!

 

[flavio81]

Looks like a successful end to the story to me!

 

[Svenedin]

Yes and hello, that's me on the contact sheet.

 

[Doc W]

It looks like you got away with it but don't do it again or we will have to report you!

Some of those frames look quite good, I think. Don't be so hard on yourself. Also, let's see some prints!

 

[Svenedin]

Thanks. I've been printing some 35mm this evening but the bathroom is now wanted for more usual bathroom activities (like bathing). I don't have water in my darkroom so I have to wash prints in the bathroom. I'll get on to this film tomorrow evening and I'll upload print scans to the "experimental" (balls-up) gallery.

 

[Svenedin]

A couple of photos from this roll as requested. Both of these accidentally exposed at EI 400. There is actually detail in the shadows but this has been lost in order to print the highlights which are white limestone and very bright. These negatives were noticeably thin and needed the lens stopped down in order to print at a reasonable time (they printed too fast). The tonal range seemed a bit bunched up needing 0.5 increase in grade from my usual. These were printed at grade 2.5. In the gorge photo, on the right, the thing that looks like a "J" shaped fault is actually a tree growing at a crazy angle. I have so far printed 3 photos but the third print was unacceptably spotty from dust (on my scanner I think, I can't see it on the print).

Somehow I am underwhelmed but it is always difficult to be objective when I know I made a mistake. Low quality Jpegs.