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

[markbarendt]

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

View attachment 69649

And the criteria for that judgement was _______________

 

[Bill Burk]

The graph is from Todd-Zakia, Photographic Sensitometry

And the criteria for that judgement was _______________

The criteria for that judgement was __ folks who picked pictures of thousands of nerds __

 

[markbarendt]

The graph is from Todd-Zakia, Photographic Sensitometry



The criteria for that judgement was __ folks who picked pictures of thousands of nerds __

Well if you can make nerds look good, its gotta be good.

 

[sun of sand]

that last post of mine wasn't my best ever. If the range is comletely accounted for then there is not z10 -z12 to burn in
I still wonder if the clouds will become gritty upon burning in -not they NEED to be burned in- but for artistic reasons
If grain shows mostly in the darker tones and you darken some tones within in a cloud and the overexposure has already increased grain quite a bit it would seem to make for very grainy skies

The "Nuclear" highlights seen in many movies stem from overesposure of hard highlights causing halation with as little as 5 stops and with some form of diffusion on the lens
I was wondering when halation could begin to occur
if 5 stops over guarantees it then it may be seen slightly earlier in lesser form
and any error along the way from variable seen or unseen might push the overexposure into that range
but there was wiggle room given that should absorb any of this
still
this "practical shoulder" I don't understand. There is the true shoulder of the film and this one of imortance in actual photography that acts as if a shouldering
don't know


and while ansel certainly did use d23 and knew it's strengths before moonrise
i don't believe he stood there while calculating the moons luminance or whatever that he's use d23 in the development
only afterards in order to save any overexposure of the moon
He knew what he had and used what he had judiciously
that is what is relevant
I've shortened the learning process by mentioning something that MIGHT work. no fiddling about with hudnreds of potential things ..just experimenting with one

and so while OP might not be worried about "saving"
there is still the optimization of the image and if it were truly an "important" shot like ansel thought of moonrise
I'm sure ansel would be thinking hard of how to lessen the effects of overexposure
NOT just "well, throw away snapshot cameras rely on the latititude of film to produce something on paper"
..even if he had HP5+ back then

it does seem an awful lot like settling ..perhaps that's all that can be done
ansel may have had lots of time and practice with such things
but it's not hard for the OP to test for speed loss, either

"I don't believe there is anything could be done to improve"
nobody has as of yet said anything about the effect of restrainers on speed/development
everyone knows there is speed loss associated wit htheir use
maybe contrat increases
but nobody has said anything of it here
if you could reduce emulsion speed by even 2 stops and simply develop for less time to account for any contrast gain

wouldn't you do it? for such an important photograph you -know- is overexposed by -at least- 4 stops?


and I still don't buy the curve shape argument. compensated compressed highlights is one thing
but the rest
i don't think anyone truly cares when a different curve shape would rescue an image from nothingness
that's optimization talk
but again, nobody has yet disproven my idea for restrainer/speed loss for optimization



I was going to do a simplified test yesterday evening but my rear window shattered from a rock while out mowing the grass
and a little too windy

maybe this evening
looks like blue sky and clouds but might become too overcast

 

[markbarendt]

Sun of sand the idea of using a speed reducing developer is reasonable. I agree that testing is worthwhile and doable, even suggested that way back.

My only concern with changing developers is one of learning the new combo. That takes time, one roll does not make an expert.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Well? I'm dying here.

 

[PeterB]

Well? I'm dying here.

The first scene on this roll of film has printed very easily using a MG II 1/2 filter. As I bracketed, the frame I chose to print was 'only' 3 stops over. I haven't found the need to expose the print for much longer at all compared to my normal times which is unusual. There is no lack of sharpness from halation. I will endeavour to scan and upload an image of the print on the weekend.

As I mentioned previously I had already developed another roll that was 4 stops over exposed before posting this thread, well it turns out the images on that roll look very dense because the scene had a much larger SBR and I intentionally didn't care about the sky blowing out/losing detail as I was mainly exposing for other areas in the scene. The light grey clouds were going to fall on Zone XI with my intended N development. With 10 stops from Zone II to Zone XI this would have comfortably fit onto HP5+'s characteristic curve permitting me to dodge those clouds if I wanted to. However with another 4 stops of exposure accidentally given, there needed to be 14 stops of linearity in the straight line section and that probably wasn't going to happen. Another effect I saw on this particular roll (very pronounced due to the unusually high level of light) were artefacts outside the frame area - something peculiar to my camera in high light conditions that I have previously documented and explained (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Thank you for your patience.

regards
Peter

 

[removed account4]

LOL

and we all thought you were going to post your results here to this thread
silly us !

 

[cowanw]

Well, I did the same thing doing pictures of my new puppy on 8x10 HP5. The pictures were at f4.5 by mistake or f22 by planning and lighting . Both developed the same and the prints were only different in there DOF and the print times which were 2 minutes and 10 sec for contact prints.

 

[markbarendt]

However with another 4 stops of exposure accidentally given, there needed to be 14 stops of linearity in the straight line section and that probably wasn't going to happen.

How do you know? We're prints made, curves plotted?

Another effect I saw on this particular roll (very pronounced due to the unusually high level of light) were artefacts outside the frame area - something peculiar to my camera in high light conditions that I have previously documented and explained (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Thank you for your patience.

regards
Peter

This may very well be the effect of flare. It's always there, in every shot, in every camera system, and effects areas of lower exposure most; you are partially right in that the exact magnitude and effect is unique based on the tools in use.

As general exposure increases the effect of flare becomes more evident because it rises over the fog level. It has the effect on compressing shadow detail, highlights are only marginally effected. Essentially the same effect as pre-flashing.

 

[PeterB]

LOL
and we all thought you were going to post your results here to this thread silly us !

I said I will, you just need to be patient.

 

[PeterB]

How do you know? We're prints made, curves plotted?

I said probably, not definitely. Probably based on the latitude of HP5 showing 'only' 10.5 stops in the linear region [1]. If HP5+ really can do 14 stops in the straight line region targeting grade 2 or 3 then Ilford would want to brag about it. They might be able to achieve 12 stops.

[1]
latitude approx. = (4.15-1.0)/0.3=10.5 stops

 

[markbarendt]

Peter,

That curve is simply representative of a certain set of conditions;



Use something besides Ilfotec HC developer, change the dilution, modify the agitation scheme, adjust temperature, or adjust any combination of the factors and you get a different curve, each one unique.

Ilford's ID-11 curve actually shows to shoulder sooner.



The published curves I've seen all seem to fit in a given box, they show the toe and what I might call the normal exposure print range. Kodak is a bit better than Ilford about showing alternative condition curves but they still don't show what happens farther to the right. We simply have no info from Ilford about what happens with more exposure.

 

[PeterB]

Hi Mark,
If you can show me an hp5+ curve with 14 stops in the linear region then I will concede you this point. Of course there are different curves, but none of them show 14 stops. If you still think it is possible then I invite you to tell me how, rather than simply claim that it isn't impossible.
Regards
Peter

 

[markbarendt]

I wasn't suggesting that HP5 would have 14, in fact the example I used actually showed a shoulder that started earlier than what you planned on. I was simply suggesting that the number isn't a known.