Help Me Make the Best of a Bad Mistake

BrianPhotog · Oct 11, 2007

"Wow! I'm surprised I'm getting these kind of exposures on such a dull day!"

...then half a roll later...

"Crap."

So I accidently shot my roll of ERA100 at EI320. Since the mistake has been made, how can I get the bast out of it in processing?

I have a little Rodinal, some HC-110, and some T-Max developer. My thought is HC-110 (B) for ~14 minutes @20C? That's just a educated guess, though. Any other thoughts?

Mike Wilde · Oct 11, 2007

a chance to DBI?

I wouldn't hold a lot of hope that the results would be sterling, but after say 3/4 of your calculated time consider some develop by inspection practice.

I have sold the little brownie safelight that I once had with the deep green filter cup, but that is the kind of light I am talking about.

Stand in the dark the whole time you are developing, with only the dull illumination of your timer to let you feel around. Then fish the film off the reel, and oogle it through the dim green from at least a meter away. Have a properly developed piece of film to look through to use as a reference. Remember that the DBI film has not yet been fixed, so it will appera milky. Look for the deepness of tone, try to ignore the milky white etc.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 11, 2007

When you develop by inspection, dark green light is what you want. And you can leave the film on the reels too if you want, because you want to see the highlights coming through on the film base side, not on the emulsion side, so you can use the frames that are on the outside of the reel for that.
If I were you, I'd shoot another roll of ERA100 at 320 and try it first if you decide to go ahead with this.
- Thomas

BrianPhotog · Oct 11, 2007

As I haven't a darkroom at home, I think I'm going to try and shoot a test roll @320 and develop, then adjust my "guesstimite" as needed.

*fingers crossed*

Steve Smith · Oct 11, 2007

Shoot another roll all of the same subject with the same settings then cut the roll up into short lengths.

Process the first piece with your best guess at a new exposure time and if necessary, try another piece with a revised time based on the previous results.

After two or three goes, you should have a good idea of what to use.

Steve.

david b · Oct 11, 2007

First....how important is this roll of film?

Not important?

Toss the roll and shoot again.

BrianPhotog · Oct 11, 2007

david b said:
First....how important is this roll of film?

Not important?

Toss the roll and shoot again.

Not super-important but there are some cool shots on in from Taiwan's National Day this past Wednesday (10/10). F-16 and EuroFighter flyovers, little kids waving ROC flags, etc... .

Lee Shively · Oct 11, 2007

I'm not familar with the film you used but you've apparently underexposed less than two stops. You should be able to process the film adequately with about 50-60% increase in development times. Expect an increase in contrast and/or grain that might be objectionable but the latitude of most black and white films should get you printable negatives.

Ray Heath · Oct 11, 2007

g'day Brian
i totally agree with Lee, it's less than 2 stops, don't panic, over develop by 50% and you'll get something usable

the other suggestions are too complex and not necessary

waynecrider · Oct 11, 2007

I've used Diafine on HP5+ at a 1 and 2 stop underexposure and was very surprised. Maybe it will work for you being 1 2/3 under?

Ed Workman · Oct 11, 2007

The Sunny 16 rule, with its corrolaries for cloudy brite to Heavy overcast, that used to be printed on the start of roll film backing paper, probly would have got you a stop closer.
Electrons can't be trusted:>)

Ray Heath · Oct 11, 2007

Ed Workman said:
The Sunny 16 rule, with its corrolaries for cloudy brite to Heavy overcast, that used to be printed on the start of roll film backing paper, probly would have got you a stop closer.
Electrons can't be trusted:>)

g'day all

Ed, how does your post address the original question?

BrianPhotog · Oct 11, 2007

waynecrider said:
I've used Diafine on HP5+ at a 1 and 2 stop underexposure and was very surprised. Maybe it will work for you being 1 2/3 under?

I have some diafine and was considerting it, but my thought is that it works better with 400 speed films then 100?

Nokton48 · Oct 11, 2007

Hi Brian,
You're about two stops underexposed, so if it were me, I'd try 100% additional development. And, I'd not expect too much in the way of shadow detail (if that is important). Mainly what will develop are the highlight values.

BrianPhotog · Oct 16, 2007

Thanks Nokton. That's pretty much what I did, but developed a little longer.

I can't judge graniness from the negs, but everything else doesn't look half bad. I can see a little shadow detail (although it's obvious I've lost some) and there's an increase in contrast...but it's not that bad since the day itself was somewhat overcast.

After I develop a shoot and develop a couple more rolls (I need 5) I will run them to the lab to batch scan to CD and post a few examples here.

gainer · Oct 16, 2007

This is one advantage scanning has over enlarging. A very thin negative will require a very long exposure. Any small amount of stray light from the enlarger head will reduce contrast and cause loss of shadow detail as well.

Ray Heath · Oct 16, 2007

gainer said:
This is one advantage scanning has over enlarging. A very thin negative will require a very long exposure. Any small amount of stray light from the enlarger head will reduce contrast and cause loss of shadow detail as well.

ah, please explain

Help Me Make the Best of a Bad Mistake

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency