Help! I'm an idiot! (Need advice for pulling APX400)

So, basically I'm an idiot.

Irrelevant background:
I went to the Met today (I'm currently home from school in the Philly area, so it was a haul but worth it) and of course dragged along a camera with some B&W loaded. I have some of the Arista-branded APX400 that is more or less my go to film for most situations (come on, $1.25 a roll? That's a crime). However, I ran out of fixer a few weeks ago and so I threw some of the "Premium 100" Plus-X in the cart to meet the $25 minimum. I was planning on a decent walk to the museum, so I loaded some of the PX for some street shooting. Unfortunately, we ended up parking right under the museum, so I swapped back to the APX400. Unfortunately, I left the meter at 125.

Relevant question
By the time I discovered my mistake, I was 2/3 of the way through the roll, so I finished it at 125. My question is how in the world am I going to attempt to save this? I am using Clayton F76+, and there are definitely no times for a 1 and 2/3 stop pull (or any pull processing at all). The normal starting point time is 8 minutes in 1+9. Should I knock some time off, dilute more, or both? Is there any sort of a rule of thumb for pull times?

As always, thanks for your help. You guys and girls have been so helpful in my attempts to figure out how to make this film thing work.

I don't think it is such a horrible mistake. I actually shoot the film at 200. If 8 minutes is good for 400 then I would try it maybe at 6.5. The issue is not only density but also the contrast curve. You might be a little better off to leave some extra density on the film and just have longer print times than try to bring the highlights all the way down to normal density and result in a flat looking print.
Dennis

Hello.
APX400 has a very long straight curve in the highlights. Did you shoot under contrasty light (e.g. indoors with bright windows)? If yes, pull a little (10-20%), otherwise just develop normal. But expect quite grainy results.
Alternative suggestion: Try to get a package of Perceptol or Microdol-X, and develop normally at 1+1. I would not rate APX400 higher than 160ASA for good shadow separation in this metol-based developers anyway, so your APX400 negs could look better than in ever before.

Regards
Georg

Hi, Agfa suggested shooting APX400 at 320 ISO if you planned developing in Rodinal. 320 is 1,33 stops more that 125. If I were you (and could find Rodinal) I'd do stand development. Someone more experienced that me can probably give some details.

In general, that should be perfectly manageable in the darkroom if you develop it normally. In fact, depending on how you meter, you might find that some of your exposures, if not more, are easier to print than normal. It is not idiotic. Don't worry.

Thank all of you for your good advice. There is, however, one more wrinkle I forgot to mention (I had a 101 fever last night, which is saying a lot for someone whose normal body temperature runs in the 96s). Since I've been unable to get my hands on darkroom equipment (and have nowhere to put it in my crappy college town apartment anyway), these negatives will be destined for the cold and unforgiving scanner. Yes, I know. It's as analog as I can get for the time being. Any advice on scannability?

Since you have F76+ I assume you need advice with this developer.
Pulling APX400 is not bad at all actually, it will help with printing, not sure about scanning.
If you plan to use the 1+9 solution cut the time from 8 to 5 or 6 minutes
I would use F76+ diluted 1+19 to keep those highlights in check then use a 10-11 minutes time (based on 2X 5 min at 1+9)

luckycharms said:

Thank all of you for your good advice. There is, however, one more wrinkle I forgot to mention (I had a 101 fever last night, which is saying a lot for someone whose normal body temperature runs in the 96s). Since I've been unable to get my hands on darkroom equipment (and have nowhere to put it in my crappy college town apartment anyway), these negatives will be destined for the cold and unforgiving scanner. Yes, I know. It's as analog as I can get for the time being. Any advice on scannability?

Click to expand...

luckycharms said:

My question is how in the world am I going to attempt to save this?

Click to expand...

Use a developer which yields decidedly less film speed. One I believe
is Microdol. Others may exist. Anybody, suggestions? Dan

titrisol said:

Since you have F76+ I assume you need advice with this developer.
Pulling APX400 is not bad at all actually, it will help with printing, not sure about scanning.
If you plan to use the 1+9 solution cut the time from 8 to 5 or 6 minutes
I would use F76+ diluted 1+19 to keep those highlights in check then use a 10-11 minutes time (based on 2X 5 min at 1+9)

Click to expand...

Thank you. I am trying to stick with F76+. Life is just easier with one chemical combo (F76+, Clearfix, water), and I like the low-tox stuff because, well, why not. At my current skill level, it doesn't really matter what chemistry I'm using as long as I stick with it. This sounds like a pretty solid guesstimate, so I'll probably go with it. I'm glad to hear APX pulls well- I tried pushing it in F76+ not too long ago with really unimpressive results (moral: Poorly pushed negatives do not scan well).

If these were pictures I wasn't willing to jeopardize, I might be willing to try another developer, but since they're not all that important and it's a one-time mistake (err, hopefully), I think I'll roll the dice on the F76+.

APX400 pulls very well, actually shooting it at 400 is a push already IMHO.
I have not tried it in f76 sinc ethat is a speed enhancer developer should give the 400 easily.

Good luck and let us know what "develops"

luckycharms said:

Thank you. I am trying to stick with F76+. Life is just easier with one chemical combo (F76+, Clearfix, water), and I like the low-tox stuff because, well, why not. At my current skill level, it doesn't really matter what chemistry I'm using as long as I stick with it. This sounds like a pretty solid guesstimate, so I'll probably go with it. I'm glad to hear APX pulls well- I tried pushing it in F76+ not too long ago with really unimpressive results (moral: Poorly pushed negatives do not scan well).

If these were pictures I wasn't willing to jeopardize, I might be willing to try another developer, but since they're not all that important and it's a one-time mistake (err, hopefully), I think I'll roll the dice on the F76+.

Click to expand...

You've got lots of good advice already.

I'll only add that almost all films that I've ever used do not measure up to the manufacturer's recommended speed. Most often they are 1/3 to 1 whole stop slower. If I have to use a film I've not tested, I'd be inclined to divide the ISO in half; that is more likely to be close to what's real than what the mfr. recommends.

Your use of f76+ will probably be ok, but it isn't ideal simply because it is a PQ formula. Phenidone is better at pulling out the maximum speed. Ideally, you would want to lose a bit. But just go ahead. It'll be ok.

Since you over exposed, you really aren't into any real dangerous territory. 1&1/2 stop over isn't really a deal breaker, because I doubt you were ever getting 400 out of the stock. I do what some would call "overexposing" on purpose all the time. I would develop normal, or shorten development time about 20%. It's not a huge deal, your negs will just be a little thick compared to what you are used to (which are likely a little thin) with your "normal" development. You may even like them better.

It could be a happy accident..

Sorry to resurrect an ancient thread, but I finally developed the film last night and I wanted to share the results.

Based on the advice I got in this thread, I set the the film up for 6 minutes in F76+ 1+9 and 20C, which was a 25% reduction in the time suggested for ISO 400. Not only did the negatives look excellent, they scanned wonderfully (yes, I know I am treading on hybrid ground here, I just wanted to share the results). Though many of them are blurred (1/30-1/15 f/2 is not exactly handholding or low-light manual focusing friendly), the tones are fantastic, and the gentle falloff in shadow detail is worlds better than what I was getting at ISO 400. Here's an early favorite, though it doesn't really have any shadows in to speak of:



Even the ugly aliasing seems to have been cut down on. I immediately loaded a roll into my borrowed XD5 and set the speed dial to 200. I can't wait to try more of this.

I understand that F76+, as a speed increasing developer, isn't really ideal for this. As I see myself trying more of this in the future, can anyone recommend a developer type or specific developer that is more pull-friendly?

Thanks again for all of your excellent advice.

Looks like some decent negs, I'd like to see a print of them even more than a scan. It looks like you didn't block up your hilights at all or loose too much shadow detail, good job.

Ben

P.S. Nice to see someone shooting a minolta (Unless that's a different XD5).

drazak said:

Looks like some decent negs, I'd like to see a print of them even more than a scan. It looks like you didn't block up your hilights at all or loose too much shadow detail, good job.

Ben

P.S. Nice to see someone shooting a minolta (Unless that's a different XD5).

Click to expand...

Nope, it's the Minolta. One of my roommates kept saying that his parents had 35mm SLRs in the closet, and I went over one day and found a Ricoh KR-10 with a Rikenon 50 f/2 (easily the worst prime I've ever seen, can't possibly share anything with the Asahi SMC version) and an XD5 with a 45mm f/2, 135 f/2.8, an 80-200mm "macro," and a 2x teleconverter. Aperture priority is a nice feature on the XD5, but I hate the manual metering. I am spoiled by the +/- LEDs and needles on my manual bodies.

Regardless, it's a well put together and nice little camera.

Oh yes, that wonderful discovery back in the "old days" when someone told me about pulling development (instead of push). All of a sudden there were a greyscale which I hadn't seen before. Less grain and very easy to print. My mother asked me if I had bought a new camera! (... as the pictures were so much different, i.e. better.)

//Björn