Interesting mistake...

[Usagi]

Something really unexpected happened.

I developed couple rolls of PanF+ (120) with XTOL 1+1 using my normal contrast time and agitation.

When I hung them for drying, I noticed immediately that something is really wrong. The negatives were so dense! I can't recall when I have seen so dense B&W negatives last time.

I have overexposed, damn - I thought. But after I looked the negatives closer, I saw that shadow values were at their places, zone III was ok. But everything above that was way out of bounds.

These negatives are highly unprintable, thanks for computer and scanners - something can be saved though.

My densitometer tells me that the III tones are ca. 0.42 above base fog which is within tolerance, perhaps a little bit on upper side.

VII runs on 1.70 above BF!


But what caused this? I really don't know.

I used same can for Tetenal Emofin solution 1 just before using it for XTOL. Ofcouse I washed it as I normally do. But could it be that something remained from Emofin and contamined XTOL such way that it's working speed/strenght got super boost?

 

[Eric Rose]

I am sure you checked for this, but could it be your fixer?

 

[CBG]

Any chance you used straight Xtol rather than diluting it 1 to 1?

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I have overexposed, damn - I thought. But after I looked the negatives closer, I saw that shadow values were at their places, zone III was ok. But everything above that was way out of bounds.

Go check your light meter just to double check you had it set to the proper speed.

 

[Tim Gray]

Any chance you used straight Xtol rather than diluting it 1 to 1?

I've done this before. Fortunately it was with TMZ (long dev times) and I realized about half way through, so I just pulled it out at the correct time.

 

[jeffreyg]

As I recall the XTOL powder is to make 5liters which would then have been diluted 1:1. Perhaps USAGI only mixed the powder with 1liter and then diluted 1:1 making for a potent soup ???

 

[thisismyname09]

I'm not sure if you'd be able to mix 5L worth of powder into 1L of water without making it really hot.

 

[Usagi]

XTOL was mixed to 5L and I had used already most of it without any problems. These two rolls used actually the last of my prepared stock solution.

And it was surely 1:1 because I have to dilute it always to get it cool down to 24 degree celsius.
Also if it had been straight stock solution, then the amout would have been 500ml which is enough for only one roll, another roll that was developed in same Paterson tank would have been mostly without developer.

It cannot be exposure error because it affects all frames, also some photos that I took with flash using different meter.

Another frames shot with different films (Acros 100 and Neopan 400) and film backs were exposed correctly. So if it would be metering error (wrong ISO number), then it should be under exposed.
Over exposure would raised the density of shadows also a lot more dense areas (as the VII went to the density where X or XI would normally be, I should have over exposed at least 2 or 3 stops and that would have raised the III to the V or VI where density is 0.75 or more above base fog but the density of III is ca. 0.40).


So I am still wondering what caused this? :confused: :confused:

One thing could be simply overdevelopment, but moving from N to N+2 or N+3 would require so much more developing time that it should not be happen without noticing anything during development.

My time for N is 8:30 and extending from that to N+2 level would have been something like 11 minutes or more.

 

[mattmoy_2000]

"Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights"
You've got normal shadow density, but massively blown out highlights. Sounds to me like you've massively overdeveloped, either by time, temperature or (lack of) dilution.

 

[jfish]

These negatives are highly unprintable, thanks for computer and scanners - something can be saved though.

:rolleyes: sigh...

 

[David William White]

These negatives are highly unprintable, thanks for computer and scanners - something can be saved though.

Not so fast. Printing times may be long, and you will need grade 1 filtering or paper, but it will work, whereas a scanner may not be able to read through these negatives.

I recently made the same mistake (I concur that it's overdevelopment): they couldn't be scanned, yet they were still printable.