HP5+ over exposed by 4 stops, will my recovery plan work ?

[HowardDvorin]

It would be very nice if Peter could post his results.

HowardDvorin

 

[PeterB]

>Peter - Congrats! I am a mere mortal and don't get all this N-x talk, though, I do know AA's texts contain the whole explanation, however, in an effort to make this thread something mortals can follow, would you mind "101'ing" it? Like real brief,​

​

Zsas, while the negs look printable, it wont be until I actually print them that I will know for sure if I am subjectively happy. Objectively speaking unfortunately I am not able to offer a lot of advice for others to follow unless I perform some more testing to determine the exact location of the curve's shoulder - and even if I did that my results/advice would only apply to people also using a similar combination of film + developer + target gamma. So in summary Zsas, in non Zone System speak, in response to over exposing my film by 4 stops I reduced my normal development time by about 10% in order to ensure my white puffy clouds would retain their detail.


**** DISLAIMER - I have not (yet) proven this dev time reduction was necessary ****

>Forgive me for being devil’s advocate here, but if you are over exposing by 4 stops, isn't the rest of your post irrelevant, as you should concentrate on exposing correctly.​

Cliveh, the whole point of my post was to ensure success for a roll that I accidentally over exposed by 4 stops. OF COURSE I will also concentrate on not doing that again. That is a given. For the record here is how it happened. My hand held light meter (as would every other non ZS/modified light meter) gives readings to place the object I meter at Zone V whereas I wanted to place it at Zone III. That is a two stop difference. Instead of giving 2 stops LESS exposure than what the meter read, I gave 2 stops MORE exposure. I opened my aperture up two stops instead of closing it down two stops. I won't be making that mistake again in a hurry.

>It may also be worth mentioning it is difficult to say how much "overexposure" was given. Based on what? And how did we meter the scene? Etc.​

Michael, I have calibarated my Exposure and film development process according to the "Elaborate and Precise" method described on p.217 of WBM 2e. I think it closely matches the methods described by AA in The Negative. Also Michael, below I address your comment about 2.1 probably not being where the shoulder lies.




For those interested in my observations/results so far here are some more details:


I actually had two rolls of film which I overexposed by four stops. The first roll of film (which up until now I haven't mentioned) I exposed and developed to N-1, and after inspecting the negs I realised my over-exposure error which prompted me to start this topic. A few of you suggested I run a test roll, well I decided that was a sufficient test roll as I made good notes of the meter readings at many zones in the image on that roll along with my exposure details. So last night before developing my second roll I measured the density of some Zone IX regions in that first roll (white puffy clouds) to be about 1.85 which turned out to be very close to my theoretical calculation of D_zone_IX_end = 1.74, in fact the reason it was a tad higher was because I accidentally over developed that 1st roll for a 7% longer period. So my theory was matching my practice. This then told me that I would indeed come close to 2.1 if I developed the 2nd roll as intended to N. As a quick aside, Michael suggested the value of 2.1 might not actually be the point my curve shoulders at owing to a different contrast index and developer etc (the HP5 datasheet shows a CI of 0.65 using ID-11), and he is correct, but it was what I used and only my own testing will ascertain the exact shoulder for my process.
So while my presumption about the shoulder point is not water tight, it served as a guide to me to want to slightly reduce my dev time to lower the gamma of my curve to possibly avoid the should should I have otherwise run into it. Until I do further testing to exactly locate the shoulder and how it responds to reduced dev time, I won't actually know if my method had merit or not.
So as I mentioned I proceeded to develop the 2nd roll to N-0.5 and this morning I measured a Zone VIII point on it to have a density of 1.74. this matches very close to my theoretical calc of where it should fall if I target a gamma of 0.45 (=N-0.5 in my process)

0.45=(D_zone_VIII_mid - 0.3)/((4+6.5)x0.3)​

D_zone_VIII_mid = 1.72​

regards
Peter

 

[zsas]

^Thanks Peter for making this thread approachable to all! I look forward go seeing these puffy clouds you've saved

 

[StigHagen]

I have tested HP5+ in Xtol and ABC Pyro. It is really an 180 ISO film in Xtol and 125 ISO in ABC Pyro to get the best out of it. Yes in ABC pyro it is almost 2 stops slower than it states. So 4 stops I dont think would do any harm, probably it will even look better than if it was rated as 400 ISO. ABC Pyro is grainy though, but how big prints do you want? Many love using Pyrocat HD, it builds a lot of contrast with stain and has finer grains. Maybe this is the right moment to try it? Test with some test rolls first. Maybe you will stick with Pyro forever.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have tested HP5+ in Xtol and ABC Pyro. It is really an 180 ISO film in Xtol and 125 ISO in ABC Pyro to get the best out of it. Yes in ABC pyro it is almost 2 stops slower than it states. So 4 stops I dont think would do any harm, probably it will even look better than if it was rated as 400 ISO. ABC Pyro is grainy though, but how big prints do you want? Many love using Pyrocat HD, it builds a lot of contrast with stain and has finer grains. Maybe this is the right moment to try it? Test with some test rolls first. Maybe you will stick with Pyro forever.

With all due respect to your own findings about your chosen developers and Ilford HP5+, I must say that suggesting to change developer to fix an exposure mistake may not be ideal, because other factors come into play when you do. The OP already has one variable that is way out of bounds from his normal work flow; if you add another variable to the mix you're totally in the unknown.

If you want to try a new developer, my suggestion is to do so when all other variables are under control.

Also, many factors play into what you find as an Exposure Index for your chosen film. Metering technique, lighting conditions, light meter accuracy, film developer, film developing technique, lens contrast, lens shutter accuracy, water quality, bellows draw calculations, etc.
Using HP5+ I find that I get the best results with full shadow detail at EI 400 in normal contrast lighting, using modern high contrast lenses, and replenished Xtol developer. More than a stop different from your 180, and we are both correct. I know those who use it at EI 800 as 'normal' too, and Dr5 reversal process has EI 1,000 as 'normal' for HP5+. Go figure.

 

[sun of sand]

everyone has heard that before
most have ripped that tag off the cord long ago
-whether or not they should have isn't the point

I think the problem with that statement is that a 4 stop overexposure is not ideal, either ..and that is the reason for finding a developer+ which might possibly help
i think most would agree that certain developers and certain ways of developing lose you speed while others give "full" speed
It's pretty clear if you've overexposed and you're worried about it
use a lower film speed developer etc and perhaps there is no reason to worry
lemonaid from lemons
obviously if his original film speed stems from a speed loss developer then another film speed loss developer won't do anything for him

If you make potato salad and the salad isn't tasting right what do you do?
just hope a day in the fridge will make it better
just eat it anyway
eat less? lol
trash?
or experiment
you may make it worse
you may remedy it
if you already consider it "ruined" or "not good enough"
what's to stop you?


this guy should develop a snip of film- or another roll shot the same
test it out
if not to liking
experiment

he is experimenting by doing whatever he's doing in this thread
but it falls short of true remedy
and he's already "in the unknown"

I'm suite sure you can lower film speed by 2 stops rather easily especially if your normal developer is a normal developer

how about let it sit around for a few years? That might have lost it a stop in speed.
develop it when your're 55
probably right on!

 

[markbarendt]

sun of sand,

Sure I've thought of switching to my WD2D+ instead of using my normal DD-X when I've used more exposure than planned, yep even tried it, especially when I was really green at printing. I was still looking for that elusive magic bullet. That never really fixed my problem.

With a bit more experience I realized that chasing magic bullets to fix self inflicted injuries, is simply misguided.

The materials available to us have reliable characteristics: given inputs, provide given outputs almost without fail. The negative materials I use (like HP5) have lots of latitude, they are very forgiving; as HP5's use at mass-market scale in single use cameras demonstrates.

The real wildcards in my system (like for most people) are me, my understanding, and my craftsmanship; not my tools.

In my experience, the big problem with jumping to "reset the film speed" or to "try a whole different curve" by switching to a different developer is that it messes with the whole film curve, not just the problem we want to fix.

The first question that should be asked is "is there any benefit to changing my development?" With experience and practice under our belts we can actually answer that question.

The OP actually provided all the info I needed to answer that question for myself in his first post. He actually had all the info he needed to decide for himself too, he did the math and the math said "you are fine in the normal process." The only piece of the puzzle that was apparently missing was that the OP had not tried this before.

 

[Bill Burk]

Funny I didn't lead off my advice by telling that I once tested and rated TMY-2 at 64.

I let some negatives sit four years undeveloped because they were so important.

I finally developed and one print from the set is on my wall here and looks as good as anything else I've done at any other speed. (It was 4x5 in my case).

 

[markbarendt]

Funny I didn't lead off my advice by telling that I once tested and rated TMY-2 at 64.

I let some negatives sit four years undeveloped because they were so important.

I finally developed and one print from the set is on my wall here and looks as good as anything else I've done at any other speed. (It was 4x5 in my case).

So were you waiting for the latent image intensity to fall off a bit to save the highlights?

 

[removed account4]

Thanks Bill. I'm curious as to why films are rated with so much latitude for over exposure but virtually none for under exposure ?

regards
Peter

i am sure if you go to forums that deal in astro-photography they have information regarding gross UNDER exposure.
some discussions here on apug have touched upon this sort of thing. what i have read ( here )
it is done by steaming the film in a bath of hydrogen peroxide ( H2O2 ) either before or after exposure
and then developed "normally"... ( whatever that means since my normal is different from ... yours for example )

i have never done this so i can't say how useful it is, or the correct mechanics of it all ... and i don't know if anyone has "charted the curve"

i hope you post the results of your over exposed film ... 7 pages is a long wait

 

[zsas]

^^^haaaa J, in with ya! 7 pages of theory, with theoretical curve charts, etc., etc,. Yep the OP's yet to post a measly neg scan to us all waiting with bated breath.....

 

[removed account4]

^^^haaaa J, in with ya! 7 pages of theory, with theoretical curve charts, etc., etc,. Yep the OP's yet to post a measly neg scan to us all waiting with bated breath.....

andy, its 8 pages now !
i bet there isn't any film at all, it
was all a "hypothetical situation" thread

 

[Bill Burk]

You can't make this stuff up... I believe PeterB has the film to prove it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

everyone has heard that before
most have ripped that tag off the cord long ago
-whether or not they should have isn't the point

I think the problem with that statement is that a 4 stop overexposure is not ideal, either ..and that is the reason for finding a developer+ which might possibly help
i think most would agree that certain developers and certain ways of developing lose you speed while others give "full" speed
It's pretty clear if you've overexposed and you're worried about it
use a lower film speed developer etc and perhaps there is no reason to worry
lemonaid from lemons
obviously if his original film speed stems from a speed loss developer then another film speed loss developer won't do anything for him

If you make potato salad and the salad isn't tasting right what do you do?
just hope a day in the fridge will make it better
just eat it anyway
eat less? lol
trash?
or experiment
you may make it worse
you may remedy it
if you already consider it "ruined" or "not good enough"
what's to stop you?


this guy should develop a snip of film- or another roll shot the same
test it out
if not to liking
experiment

he is experimenting by doing whatever he's doing in this thread
but it falls short of true remedy
and he's already "in the unknown"

I'm suite sure you can lower film speed by 2 stops rather easily especially if your normal developer is a normal developer

how about let it sit around for a few years? That might have lost it a stop in speed.
develop it when your're 55
probably right on!

You don't just change film speed when you change developer. Lots of other things change too. Some time, when you have time to kill, expose, process, and develop two films to the same shadow detail and the same contrast index, and go into the darkroom to print them. Then tell the world what you found.

My own approach is that I LIKE to know what to expect when I print. That makes the practice a lot less expensive, because it takes much less paper and time to get to a finished print. Less swearing, and a lot less darkroom gymnastics means that I have a LOT more time to focus on the pictures, which in my mind is what's most important.
Changing developers, in my case, always screws me up, because I have to fight the process until my negs are the way I like them. Others might find that interesting. But for people like it's tremendously frustrating.

 

[markbarendt]

You don't just change film speed when you change developer. Lots of other things change too. Some time, when you have time to kill, expose, process, and develop two films to the same shadow detail and the same contrast index, and go into the darkroom to print them. Then tell the world what you found.

My own approach is that I LIKE to know what to expect when I print. That makes the practice a lot less expensive, because it takes much less paper and time to get to a finished print. Less swearing, and a lot less darkroom gymnastics means that I have a LOT more time to focus on the pictures, which in my mind is what's most important.
Changing developers, in my case, always screws me up, because I have to fight the process until my negs are the way I like them. Others might find that interesting. But for people like it's tremendously frustrating.

Yep, since (mostly) standardizing on "normal contrast" by the book developing, my life in the darkroom got a lot easier, costs went down, and prints got a lot better regardless of the camera exposure. Just set the enlarger with its meter and I'm essentially ready to print an 11x14 truly expecting something close to right on the first try, no not finished but close enough that the second one darn well might be.

 

[sun of sand]

I was still looking for that elusive magic bullet. That never really fixed my problem.
With a bit more experience I realized that chasing magic bullets to fix self inflicted injuries, is simply misguided.


how is all this math and plotting whatever that's being done to find out whether or not you're outside the latitude window of the film not also chasing magic to fix injuries
seems to me with that attitude you should be in the " just do better next time camp"





In my experience, the big problem with jumping to "reset the film speed" or to "try a whole different curve" by switching to a different developer is that it messes with the whole film curve, not just the problem we want to fix.

I guess I'm going to have to be shown examples where "messing with the whole film curve" ruins an "important" photograph more than 4 stops overexposure

The first question that should be asked is "is there any benefit to changing my development?" With experience and practice under our belts we can actually answer that question.

why can't the 2nd question be
or even the first
Can i benefit from the artificail loss of film speed through different developer or additives and does this "risk of curve shape" outweigh the chance I've blown what could be important high values by proceeding normally and hoping
4 stops. what if he was actually 5 or more overexposed and outside of this acceptable window
then what?


to me for such an important photograph the real question is which is less risky/less desirable
altered film curve
loss of detail

knowing what little I know but guided primarily from instinct I'd rather get the film well within bounds and get to work in the printing of the negative then hope I metered correctly the overexposure perhaps missing something that would then be unavoidable loss -like bright snow/sand

This exercise will provide all of us with valuable insights to apply next time we accidentally overexpose a roll of film by at least 3-4 stops. If my approach turns out not to work I suppose I could spend the time taking them again, but at least I want to give this roll

the best opportunity for success.


guess you have to define success
we need photographic evidence of all development strategies in roder to make that call on which is best

 

[sun of sand]

i don't think you can look at the first post here and tell me there is no chasing of something
he himself called it a recovery plan
whether the film has enough latitude to absorb the overexposure or not you had to chart out to find out

what if you don't know how
what if the internet didn't exist
to me, it still seems easist and will likely produce the better results of the two options to try and reduce film speed if you know at the very least you've quite overexposed the film

" But that's the price you pay"
If they were truly "important" photographs
would you rather have to pay multiple prices
or fewer prices

depends
test


it seems that much overexposure will need quite a bit of burning in to get the clouds on paper
that would seem to cause even more grain ..and i nthe sky tones
and since burning in is normal for most prints with correctly exposed film
it -seems- it would be even tougher to burn in that close to the edge of detail
don't know
some localized higher tones might go plain flat instead of burning in to detail

i was suggesting Rodinal more than Pyro and normal development more than compensating or stand
I was actually stating a belief that film speed could be dropped solely with the addition of restrainer to any developer
I don't know how far it can be dropped
only that you can lose speed ..at perhaps the cost of increased contrast ..which is why I also pointed/suggested the use of a compensating or decreased development time to counteract
pyro or minimal agitation only as other possibilities



don't know
seems ther emust be a reason people use a meter and try really hard not to overexpose by that much
and just because it can be done in those simple throw-away cameras with no controls and get SOMETHING doesn't mean someone interested in photography and best print "success" would be accepting of those snapshot results


Did Ansel graph and plot before developing moonrise, hernandez? maybe. didn't he just figure the moon could blow out so made sure to save it with divided d23
he says he'd have given another stop for the foreground ..meaning d23 still would kept the moon in check

is that magic bullet chasing? choosing a developer to suit the exposure rather than choosing exposure to suit the negative
am i thinking about that correlation correcty? I'm so tired i can't type

or just that he knew what d23 would do having fully tested it out
well
so could this poster test it all out before developing these negatives





lets see the print

usable is not the same as fine

 

[removed account4]

son of sand

a lot of people chase magic bullets, it is what makes them happy, and more power to them!

in the end experience seems to be the magic bullet, nothing else.
i have more experience now and know what i would do now to salvage film that is grossly under or over exposed
but that is only because i have been forgetful enough or dumb enough or befuddled enough to make the same mistakes
more than once and have had to figure things out on my own.

even thought the internet is great for tapping into the collective-experience ...
a lot of times people who have no experience make suggestions as if they are experts ( this thread has lacked that element ! )
but it also makes it easy to be lazy and not learn by one's own experience, but by someone else's experience ...


=====

You can't make this stuff up... I believe PeterB has the film to prove it.

i don't know bill, i have read some crazy stuff here on apug
maybe you're right, i have to be patient, i am sure i can wait until page 15 to see the results
... and who knows maybe they will have been taken in a week

 

[sun of sand]

even if he knew isopan f -i believe- had less to work with does that negate the fact he chose a developer to suit the exposure. he chose a developer with the right characteristics to keep the moon in check in order to remedy any exposure error/already tough to print values
Do we know for a fact that his shorter scale WOULD HAVE CAUSED the moon to blow out without d23
if not, and the film was capable of handling it
then it fit's very neatly
or did he choose d23 because it gave the exact curve on the whole of the negative he desired
turns out he didn't have enough shadow detail
would another developer/method with a bit more shadow detail -film speed- with near the same ability to tame highlights have made his use of intensifier that much more unnecessary


maybe he didn't do the graphing and plotting
should he have if he didn't

he did it based on experience?
if he chose a developer to possibly save important highlights and not because it gave the overall "look" he desired
maybe there isn't much to the whole "i wouldn't try that" negativity
maybe it's useful to know how to lessen overexposure through use of different developer/additions/methods

if it's good enough for him and we've all learned however much we know almost directly from him
maybe it's OK. maybe it's better to not have to deal with potential metering error that blocks certain areas of highlights because they're 4.4 stops off instead of 4, increased grain whether in shadows or highlgihts, increased printing times, less sharpness and/or whatever else is possible

it just
sounds like you're settling instead of trying for optimization
which isn't what i'd expect

maybe my theory needs experimentation while doing nothing causes no increase of work ..except for all the fact checking, learning how to do the fact checking etc

will any burned in areas be grittier due to the already increased graininess in the negative?

in checking AA Negative he points out that while the straight line extends higher than we'd expect it to
blocking may result from extra xposure caused from scattering of light within the emulsion -less/more halation?
creating an "effective/false" shoulder of importance in actual photography
would this cause -if not outright loss of detail- a washed out look?
a cine site had a discussion on this but can't find it and not in my history
5-6 stops overexposure produces a "nuclear glow" caused by halation in the film
used in Casino


no idea
sure you know this
like the "effective" threshold of the film due to fb+f obscuring the tone otherwise produced by true threshold of the film ..but in reverse
what about a filter on the lens or light at certain times of day causing an unaccounted/incorrectly metered for speed change
slow shutter

would any or combination of these other variables push the exposure onto the actual shoulder of the film seeing as it's close already
if so, maybe a good reason to N- development

 

[sun of sand]

he's built in some wiggle room, right?
But i nthe end his zone 9 is still right at the shoulder
right?
so anything above that gets compressed even more after his slight N- development

Normally when you burn in a normally exp/dev negative don't you burn in information that is higher than z9? maybe z10 and 11 information that certainly can't make it onto the paper without

 

[sun of sand]

so in that case would those normal zone 10s and 11s and 12s be uncompressed due to this straight line of info 4 stops above where'd you think it ends
but in burning in anything higher than z9 on this 4 stops overexposed negative means youre burning in compressed values when you do so

correct it if wrong
i'm just teaching myself here

 

[markbarendt]

Sun of sand,

Michael pretty much said what I would have in response to your posts.

Two thoughts that I might add though.

First, is that it is pretty obvious that Ansel tested his materials thoroughly, we have the books and such to prove it.

There is no doubt in my mind, that the instant Ansel figured out he had underexposed the Moonrise shoot, he understood exactly the challenges he would face and the options he had available. Peter did not have that same luxury so he asked for help.

Second, is the thought/fact that "perfect exposure placement" is a subjective thing that falls within a range defined by a specific photographer for a specific shot. There is no universal standard for best exposure.

This morning I have the great good luck to have a gorgeous Iris in the garden that has just unfolded. Got TMY and Portra 400 in the backs for my RB and playing with both from 400 down to 12 depending on the DOF. Both rolls will be developed normally. I have no doubt that every frame will be nicely printable clear out into the highlights

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Acceptable overexposure has a lot to do with degree of enlargement. Generally the larger the format, the greater the overexposure range.

 

[markbarendt]

Sun of sand, burning in by itself does not compress tones. It simply prints the content/subject matter in the burned area of the print, darker.

The glowing look in my experience is typically caused by flare, spillover bouncing around coming from the bright areas affecting the darker areas. It reduces contrast by bringing the low tones up. It is dependent on both the tools in use (lenses, shades, studio lighting, scrims) and technique being applied (like shooting backlit vs front lit).

That glow/flare is simply a "characteristic" or "quality" of a given set of circumstances. It is neither good nor bad. Adding flare can be quite useful for certain types of photos, some portraiture for example. Reducing flare can be just as important in other shots.

 

[Bill Burk]

markbarendt,

Thanks for taking the time to test, it's going to help. I'm planning to adjust my future sensitometry tests in response to this thread, I'll add an exposure without a 6-stop filter in the well. To date, I've "never" seen a shoulder so I want to see it too.

sun of sand,

I agree halation is going to wreak havoc - good example you mention. But halation occurs on exposure, not development.

Highlights burning, would depend on the shoulder and I still don't think PeterB is even within 2-stops of the shoulder (a guess - must... see... sensitometry... I really must begin testing). But even if not shouldering... Burning highlights will certainly be less "convenient" because PeterB may not feel like giving 80 second burns (another guess). PeterB did the right thing for highlights, by developing a little less he will have shorter burn times in the highlights than if he had developed normal.

I also feel that switching to a speed-reducing developer - for the purpose of this shot - wouldn't have been wise. It would be the right approach ONLY IF the developer is already in his repertoire (If he already knows what he might get - like the shape of the curve and the quality of the grain of a different developer like Rodinol or Caffeinol) AND if that is the look that he knows would work for this shot. That's what I think Ansel Adams did for Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico - he already knew it would work for the shot.

Just a side point, I'm not looking for a magic bullet, I've already found a working combination - and "slight" overexposure is an important part of my magic bullet.