I think my negatives might be underdeveloped

[bedrof]

at this settings - HC-110 at Dilution E (1:47) @ 68 degrees F - I would develop for 9 min

 

[bernard_L]

A number of comments to the effect that the negatives shown are "usable", "workable, "can be fixed".
All this through digital renderings of these negatives. It had an experience with negatives that gave very encouraging images through the digital process, bur required 3+ grade when printing -- desert sun-and-shadow scenes (and you know that once you are at grade 4, you're up against the wall because the difference 4-5 is mostly notional). Ultimately I processed them with chromium intensifier, and made two dozen 12"x16" prints for an exhibition. Sold three.

Bottom line: "good enough" from scans may not be optimum for wet printing. YMMV

 

[otto.f]

Depends very much on your light source. From condensor, through cold light, to leds, the negative goes from soft to harder.

 

[NB23]

Those look perfect. Thicker no good.

 

[gone]

I'm constantly surprised by how often iffy looking negs often come out fine when printed. You could always try giving the shots another 1/2 to 1 stop of exposure and see if that works better. I usually rate Tri-X at 250-320, but get plenty of contrast due to a Y. filter that lives on the front of the lens. Recently tried shooting it at 640/800/1000 on the same roll and the negs looked really nice when souped in Rodinal, so I actually don't pay much attention to what the negs look like anymore. All that matters is what kind of print I can get.

 

[NB23]

Tmax and new tri-x have to look thin to print the full range. Even underexposing a full stop does not necessitate pushed development.

it was tested that compensating in printing was better than to over develop.

 

[Luis-F-S]

I use my Intelifaucet K 250 and Kodak process thermometer and I’m done with it! What’s your Zone I negative density? That’s the first thing I’d check! Should be around 0.1 to 0.15 above film base plus fog. You have way too many variables.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

The test for determining if your negatives are correctly developed or not is to print them. Period. Yes, with experience, one can recognize underdevelopment, underexposure, etc., but, as this thread so clearly shows, there is a wide range of exposure and development parameters that will deliver negatives that print well. And, individual taste plays a large role as well.

So, if you make darkroom prints, fire up the old enlarger and make some prints. If you consistently have to use the higher contrast settings to get good prints, you're underdeveloping. Increase you development time by 20% increments till you get negatives that consistently print at medium contrast settings for the most part with excursions to the extremes for those negatives made under contrastier or flatter than normal conditions or special effects.

If you scan and print digitally, then a similar method for determining optimum exposure exists. I can't help you with that, though.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You can't say your negatives are underdeveloped, but you can say they're underdeveloped for a certain enlarger.
Some of them look more underexposed than others, though. But not by a wild amount.
You really need to print in the darkroom a strip of the same scene bracketing under overcast, and a strip of a scene bracketing under direct sunlight: half stops would be better than whole stops. 5 or 7 frames will be fine, or even 3 is you do whole stops.
Then, with the minimal enlarger time for reaching pure black on paper from the negatives' borders, you'll see you need -for printing- different contrast filters, depending on the type of scene contrast: all that's what lets you see if your exposure and/or development should be changed for the next roll.
I use a condenser enlarger, and some of your negatives look perfect. A few of them look a little underexposed. Harsh direct sunlight on scenes including whites and skin, will let you know if your metering/exposure and your development are in both cases good enough (not too high) as for mixing different types of contrast in the same roll.
But asking a lab to do it, won't help in any way.
This is all about the same person checking metering, exposure, development, and printing both low and high contrast scenes.
First step: see those negatives together (contact print) on silver paper when borders reach pure black with filter 3, or even better, do that with a new roll including some strong direct sunlight scenes mixed with overcast scenes, bracketing with a bit more and a bit less exposure than the exposure you consider appropriate. You can start with whole stops just to see big changes, say +2, +1, your exposure, -1 and -2.

 

[logan2z]

You can't say your negatives are underdeveloped, but you can say they're underdeveloped for a certain enlarger.
Some of them look more underexposed than others, though. But not by a wild amount.
You really need to print in the darkroom a strip of the same scene bracketing under overcast, and a strip of a scene bracketing under direct sunlight: half stops would be better than whole stops. 5 or 7 frames will be fine, or even 3 is you do whole stops.
Then, with the minimal enlarger time for reaching pure black on paper from the negatives' borders, you'll see you need -for printing- different contrast filters, depending on the type of scene contrast: all that's what lets you see if your exposure and/or development should be changed for the next roll.
I use a condenser enlarger, and some of your negatives look perfect. A few of them look a little underexposed. Harsh direct sunlight on scenes including whites and skin, will let you know if your metering/exposure and your development are in both cases good enough (not too high) as for mixing different types of contrast in the same roll.
But asking a lab to do it, won't help in any way.
This is all about the same person checking metering, exposure, development, and printing both low and high contrast scenes.
First step: see those negatives together (contact print) on silver paper when borders reach pure black with filter 3, or even better, do that with a new roll including some strong direct sunlight scenes mixed with overcast scenes, bracketing with a bit more and a bit less exposure than the exposure you consider appropriate. You can start with whole stops just to see big changes, say +2, +1, your exposure, -1 and -2.

Thanks for the advice/feedback. I've recently shot a test roll similar to the one you've described based on the description in this article:

https://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html

I haven't developed it yet but I will in the next day or so, and then I'll make some prints using my enlarger (also a condenser) to try and hone my exposure/development over subsequent rolls.

 

[snusmumriken]

The highlights (dark areas in the negatives) on some frames look plenty dense enough to me. Surely if the roll was under-developed the highlights would lack density all frames?

 

[250swb]

I'm worried by the OP's use of the word 'about' when it comes to describing the accuracy of the processing but ostensibly the negs look underdeveloped either through too weak a solution and/or not enough time or the right temperature.

 

[otto.f]

You can't say your negatives are underdeveloped, but you can say they're underdeveloped for a certain enlarger.

IMO this is the first factor you should consider. I am worried about the OP not having made a wet print in the first place. You cannot judge a negative without having it printed on paper with your own specific enlarger. And it depends on your paper developer too.

 

[Arvee]

The negatives look very printable to me.

I agree! They look fine for either diffusion or condenser enlarger; maybe a tad slightly hot for condenser. They should fit on most papers without much manipulation. I don't understand why folks would want a 'thicker' neg; doesn't make sense to me. (I print with Durst condenser so thinner negs print straight without any dodging/burning and are superb).

 

[foc]

I don't know if this will help but here are two guides to visually troubleshoot B&W negatives and processing.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/common-processing-problems/
https://www.olympus-lifescience.com...e/primer/photomicrography/bwprocessingerrors/

 

[newtorf]

For 1:47, I used to develop for 9 min at 68F. 6.5 min sounds too short to me, but I guess it's because you exposed at 200? Develop it a bit longer, e.g., 8 min, and see if you like the result. I don't think the developer is exhausted. 2.5ml syrup is adequate for a single roll of 35mm 36exp.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thanks to everyone for chiming in, really helpful responses.

Perhaps I've become used to seeing the heavier negatives from the lab I've been using so these looked thin by comparison. I think I will try a bit more development time for the next roll to bump up the density just a bit. But I'll also take @MattKing's suggestion and make a few darkroom prints from these negatives and see how that goes. Maybe thinner is better after all...

Matt makes a good point.Yry to get started with a grade 3 exposure and see how that works for you.