ISO Mistake, how to correct in development ? profesional advised needed.

I was shooting ISO 100 film and spot metering with hand held Light meter. I had my light meter set to ISO 100. all good. I was metering middle gray so I expect my mettering to be accurate for my scene. Then I decided to switch to another film ISO 400 but forgot to set my light meter to match the ISO. I shot almost the entire new roll metering with light meter set to ISO 100. The camera however was set correctly at ISO 400 (which is irrelevant since I was using light meter to set my exposure manually). This translates that I am pretty much ~two stops overexposure for most of the roll. I was shooting Kodak Tri-X 400 . The scene I was shooting was an overcast morning with very dense fog at sunrise. Light did not make it through the fog, so in general it was a low contrast scene as it is.

My question is: How can I correct this mistake in development ?. I think the answer is PULLING two stops during development (assuming I still have detail in the highlights). As I am no expert on this, I'd like to get some advise. Is this the right solution. ? I believe I have to lower development time to accomplish this, but this will cause lose of contrast, right ?. I am hoping not to lose too much more contrast due to already low contrast scene as described above. Should I pull one stop only ? then I am thinking I will need to use a higher contrast paper/filter to increase the the contrast during printing ? I print on VC Ilford B&W paper. I use Kodak D-76 as my developer, is there another developer that can help in this situation and how ?
I also heard of intensification and reduction processes but not sure if that can play a roll here ?

These should be good images of the Everglades in Southern Florida. I have to do what it takes to rescue the images.

Thanks in advance.
Luis

[h=2][/h]

So you over exposed Tri-X by 2 stops and the scene was low in contrast to begin with. (meaning tonal range was narrow)

If you PULL this, meaning develop shorter, you will end up with really flat negative - even flatter than the scene itself.
If you process this normally, you will end up with dense negative but with expected contrast. On the plus side, you'll have good shadow detail.
On the negative side, you risk losing highlight - BUT you said it was a low contrast scene, so I assume there were no extremes. Tri-X can do much more than 10 zones, you may just be taking advantage of this...

Recalling your scene, were there any extreme in highlight? If so, was it sufficient to reach the high end of tonal range of the negative itself?? You said low contrast and foggy. So I'm guessing no.

If no, I'd just develop it normally and just expect long exposure in printing time.

Oh, yeah, welcome to APUG, fellow Floridian!

tkamiya said:

I'd just develop it normally and just expect long exposure in printing time.

Click to expand...

What I was going to say...

pulling is the proper thing to do, you're contrast will be different that it should be, but you'll get your image back to a better exposure, the thing about pushing and pulling is that you won't fully get the same image, changing the development messes with the highlighs but not the evenness of a photo so you may have a really non-contrasty image

I also may be off on exactly what the development does to the film, but that's basically it, so yes, pull two stops and save the image.

Well....

Tri-X has something like 16 stops of usable exposure range.
OP said foggy flat scene which probably means like 8 or less stops of range.
Properly exposing it will place it in the lower half of the film's total range....
He over exposed it so it shifted UP by two stops which really isn't a big deal.

Development time changes the contrast of the film. If he pulls it by 2 stops, it'll really be flat.... it was flat to begin with. He will have to compensate it when printing, if that's even possible.

Assuming my assumption about the scene is right, he isn't hurting anything by developing it normally.... it's still well within the film's capability. He'll have a bit longer exposure at the printing time but contrast will be pretty normal. He may have to boost it just a little, if that's necessary.

As your scene is a low contrast scene in the first place, you probably don't want to reduce the contrast further.

You indicate that you were metering on the middle grey values. With a low contrast scene, that means to me that with normal exposure, you won't come close to "using up" the highlight room that Tri-X gives you.

Two stops of extra exposure will just push everything up the curve, but as your scene was low contrast to start with, most likely there is room up there for your highlights (if you develop normally).

What film format were you shooting? I ask, because the increased exposure may increase the grain - not a great problem for LF, but of concern if you are shooting half-frame 35mm.

EDIT: I need to take typing lessons.:confused:

Listen to them not me, they know more than I do...

If I did this in bright sun with harsh shadows (the kind of light I often get shooting street photos), I might pull one stop, or develop normally and expect my highlights to be a little crispy. But for foggy/overcast scenes, I think Tri-X should be fine developed normally.

StoneNYC said:

Listen to them not me, they know more than I do...

Click to expand...

I agree with the develop normally. Two stops should work and if printing on multigrade paper adjust contrast by filters. Also you mentioned that you switched back to 400 for part of the roll.

I'm a Miamian as well.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

I would develop normally in Ilford Perceptol which is a speed-reducing, ultra fine grain developer. Tri-X 400 in Perceptol is rated at ISO 200 for normal contrast (see http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml and the Ilford Perceptol data sheet). So your negatives would only be one stop over-exposed, less dense and with finer grain to boot. The images shot at ISO 400 might suffer, though.

(Note that a speed-reducing developer is not the same as pulling the film. Using a speed-reducing developer will get you the lower speed but at normal contrast. Pulling will reduce contrast.)

Just be thankful you didn't under-expose by 2 stops...

andrew.roos said:

I would develop normally in Ilford Perceptol.

Click to expand...

That is what I would use.

Pull 35%.. Better to have a flat neg than one with to much density that will not print well.

Were all the negs vital? If so and based on what you have said and what you have been told I'd go with the majority view and especially what Andrew Roos, backed by Keith Tapscott has said.

However if you can afford the risk(small in my opinion)to have some of the negs produce more difficult prints than they should then clip a few negs off the roll and try the Andrew Roos solution. If they produce good negs and prints then do the rest the same way. If not then try what Ronald Moravec has said or try it anyway. That way you won't be left wondering if Ronald's way might have worked better.

Often learning by doing is best.

pentaxuser

develop normallyand hope for multi-grade paper to save your contrast.don't'pull. that will make it worse. i'm also thinking about low-temperature development in combination with a pull, but i have not experimented with that yet.

just process normally, don't do a thing.

wow, Many different opinions and solutions for the same problem. Since any of them may potentially be the correct solution, I think the best learning experience for me would be to try them all, although I like the perceptol idea with no pulling. I think it would be good idea to run some test exposing a couple of more rolls emulating the same problem best possible. Then decide based on results. I will store this important roll on fridge in the meanwhile.

Thanks all.

oh, by the way. I was shooting 35mm for those who asked.

Any opinions on Kodak HC-110 developer ? Can that also help in a different way ?



thx

I don't know if you realize it but Ralph Lambrecht (who posted few posts above) is one of the authors of the book "Way Beyond Monochrome" and with very serious credentials. I tend to trust his opinion and that's not just because his opinion matches mine in this thread.

We are all working with limited information and doing our best to help you out.

Simple cure. Use a compensating/staining developer. Microdol 1:3 springs to mind. Use it at the coolest temperature in the manufacturer's tine-and-temperature chart, which give a longer soak in this wonder chemical, and it will stain that negative like pyro. Talk about a tonal range. It'll give you tonality from the darkness of a coalmine on the dark side of Uranus, to the surface of the Sun. Microdol 1:3 is the cat's pajamas. Trust me on this. I hear Perceptol is the same thing. Yeah, maybe. But Microdol is Microdol. Magic potion.

lhalcong said:

wow, Many different opinions and solutions for the same problem. Since any of them may potentially be the correct solution, I think the best learning experience for me would be to try them all, although I like the perceptol idea with no pulling. I think it would be good idea to run some test exposing a couple of more rolls emulating the same problem best possible. Then decide based on results. I will store this important roll on fridge in the meanwhile.

Thanks all.

Click to expand...

do you have access to instant coffee, vit c and washing soda ?

you might consider processing your film in caffenol c if you are in the mood to experiment.
and / or half the time in caffenol c and half the time in whatever developer you might have lying around .... ( or mix them together )

don't be afraid to mess around with your film, if it isn't an extremely important roll you shot, you might stumble upon
something useful for the next time you accidently mis-exposed a roll ...

90% of responses say develop normally, don't pull. I suggested Perceptol, which is what I would use, but I expect you would also get perfectly satisfactory results for analog printing with D-76 or HC-110. I think that's about as close to a consensus as you'll ever get in a forum

I respect Ralph and everyone's opinions very much. I am fairly new and learning and appreciate everyone's response to help me. I will go with the concensus. !

Michael R 1974 said:

Well, aside from the occasional slight tint, Microdol/Perceptol are not staining developers, nor are they really compensating developers, even at 1+3.

To original poster: There is no reason to switch developers in this situation. HC-110 will not give you appreciably different results than your current D-76. Develop normally in D-76. I don't know why people are expecting bulletproof negatives from Tri-X overexposed two stops in low contrast light. In fact under low contrast conditions, a small amount of "overexposure" can actually be a good thing as it ensures the lower values have maximum local contrast. Pulling will decrease local contrast throughout, which is usually not what one wants when shooting a low contrast subject.

This situation is being needlessly overcomplicated.

Click to expand...

Since the original poster has made up his mind and put the matter to rest, I agree Microdol never was claimed to be in the compensating or staining categories, strictly speaking. Nevertheless, it does have enough of these properties to make it a viable alternative to pyro, which was never widely available. And compared to D-76, it is indeed a compensating developer. Insofar as trying to salvage a badly overexposed film, I would choose my bottle of Microdol over my bottle of D76 for sure. It's also noteworthy that a lot of public hearsay says Microdol 1:3 causes a loss of emulsion speed. I always wondered where folks got that idea, because I never agreed with it. But then I always wondered why D76 was always the most popular of the Kodak film developers, when Microdol sat right next to it in the camera store. I would pick up that can of Microdol and walk happily to the checkout register every time.