Making the most of an underexposed negative

andersd · Dec 19, 2019

Hi all,

Yesterday I shot a landscape during sunrise with faint mist. I spot metered and exposed two 4x5 sheets of Delta 100. One exposure was done with a ND 3-stop filter, another with a red 25A. As the scene had a high dynamic range, I rated the film at EI 50, and compensated for filtration and reciprocity. Unfortunately, when I arrived home I discovered that I had misread my Pentax digital spotmeter. What was f/32 and a two-second exposure, I misread as f/32 and 1/2 s.

Given my exposure notes in the attached image, how would you proceed during development in order to keep some level of shadow detail without pushing the highlights excessively?

I usually do rotary development in XTOL 1:1, but wonder if stand development in Rodinal is likely to bring out more shadow detail? On the other hand, I am aware that Rodinal is a developer with speed loss. Does it make sense to do stand development in a speed increasing developer?

I intend to print on MG paper, so maybe it makes sense to develop to EI 200 to get the most shadow detail and recover the sky with selective burning?

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks from a newbie in large format, zone system, and darkroom printing.

koraks · Dec 19, 2019

I'd just develop more in XTOL to get sufficient contrast in the low values. There's no recovery of very deep shadows; you'll likely lose significant detail in the lower left and lower right areas. This is probably exacerbated by the red filter anyway, as the measurement likely does not account for the dominant colors of those areas, which I suspect are not necessarily on the red side of the spectrum. Stand development won't help you much; shadow detail that is not recorded cannot be recovered regardless of how you approach development. Going in your favor is the reciprocity correction (which is likely quite generous for this film at this exposure time) and the fact that you rated the film as 50 instead of box speed, whereas it's likely it'll actually reach box speed without too much difficulty in XTOL.
So in short, I'd leave the rodinal in the closet, develop in XTOL, increase development time by something like 30-40% and as you say burn in lighter values during printing if necessary.

andersd · Dec 19, 2019

Thank you koraks, XTOL it is. I was a bit unsure of where I wanted to take the print in the darkroom, so I shot one exposure with red filter and one with a 3-stop ND. I will update this thread with a scan shortly.

koraks · Dec 19, 2019

andersd said:
and one with a 3-stop ND

I assume that's a graduated ND, looking at the scene? Or was there motion in the water that you'd like to freeze/fuzz using a regular ND?

andersd · Dec 19, 2019

koraks said:
I assume that's a graduated ND, looking at the scene? Or was there motion in the water that you'd like to freeze/fuzz using a regular ND?

Nope, not graduated. I wanted to blur the water movement in the stream and lake in foreground/middleground.

138S · Dec 19, 2019

andersd said:
I usually do rotary development in XTOL 1:1, but wonder if stand development in Rodinal is likely to bring out more shadow detail?

Just my opinion...

You need both an speed increasing developer with extended time and some compensation to overcome extended development effects in the highlights.

One easy choice is Diafine, in many cases "Diafine provides a full stop of film speed increase or better versus the manufacturer’s rated speed" citing Tim Layton.

Other choices are Berspeed and Microphen, in the Microphen case for ISO 400 and D100 table says stock and 10min. I would give 11:00 or 11:30min with reduced agitation, semi-stand or each 3min to avoid bromide drags (in tanks), in tray I'd do it semi-stand, rocking once at the 5:00min point.

I'd not do it in the rotary... continuous agitation is not good for that, you want the bromide by-product to stay in the emulsion as long as possible to restrain development in the highlights, IMO with D100 is not difficult to blow highlights, so you want compensation.

This is a challenging situation to learn from. What I do is shooting an additional test D100 sheet with also 7 stops range prepared scene at EI400 , then see if result suits your taste and later make the speed increase developement with the principal sheets.

You may use a paper safe for the semi-stand development, so you have lights open... then close lights when having to move the sheet to the stop bath, you can open lights after 30s, and fixing also lights open.

If you have Xtol only then table says 1+2 dilution 17.5 min. I would do it semi-stand for around 20min in tray. Xtol has a mild speed increase of about 1/3 of stop, not bad. Instead Rodinal would tend to decrease effective speed, compared to Xtol.

andersd · Dec 19, 2019

Sincere thanks 138S, lots to think about and consider!

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2019

It seems 2 stops under exposed ? Why not just look to see what Xtol says to do for film under exposed 2 stops ? Usually it is between 30 and 50% additional development / stop ... if it was me I’d ditch the Xtol and dinafine and get some plain old id11 or d76 and use that I always have had problems with Xtol ( super thin contrastless negatives)... or I’d get some DEKTOL and develop your film for 8.5 mins 1:6 .. an never go wrong with sheet film in dektol or ansco130 ... its better to have a negative with meat on the bone than very little there.

voceumana · Dec 19, 2019

If you consider it as 2 stops under exposed, but one stop over exposed (because of the 50 speed instead of 100), for a net of one stop under exposed, I suggest a 2-bath developer; Diafine is an option, divided D-76, or Barry Thornton-s 2-bath. The 2-bath process gives the shadows a chance to come up and limits the development of the highlights.

138S · Dec 19, 2019

jnantz said:
I always have had problems with Xtol ( super thin contrastless negatives)...

You may develop a longer time with xtol... with xtol you may obtain super-contrasty and and super-thick negatives if you want, if using TMX then datasheet tells you what time for the CI you want:

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2019

138S said:
You may develop a longer time with xtol... with xtol you may obtain super-contrasty and and super-thick negatives if you want, if using TMX then datasheet tells you what time for the CI you want:

salut 138S
i've been there and done that. extended exposed, extended developed, straight or stock, extra agitation, different processing methods, tap water from 3 or 4 different locations, i think i even used distilled but its been 2 decades i really don't remember ... and for YEARS and was never able to get anything better than thin lifeless negatives, its probably just a vit c developer thing, IDK. when i switched to using ansco130 as my primary film developer ( been using it off and on for 20+ years ) never was disappointed with contrast / tonality, ran out of $$ for glycin so i used dektol also never had problems... been using caffenol c ( for like 15+ year ), ( vit c developer ) had thin negatives i didnt' like so i threw in a splash of ansco130 or dektol .. not a lot, like 20cc/L changed everything. i was going to suggest if the OP was going to use xtol cause he NEEDED to use it, to throw in a splash of whatever print developer he had handy, and he'd have better film in the end ( les mclean wrote an article on mixing xtol with rodinal i think, and he liked it as a developer ) ...
glad you like it, glad the OP likes it, but me? ill never spend any $$ on xtol again, i've got better things to worry about than thin negatives. LOL
do what you like and like what you do

koraks · Dec 19, 2019

jnantz said:
its probably just a vit c developer thing, IDK.

It isn't. I've developed negatives for salt prints with mytol (xtol clone). Density range of 2.6-3 or thereabouts. Without any difficulty either. Just use stock and increase development by 100% or so. Of course this is not a recommendation for op as he'd end up with unprintable bullet proof negatives this way

138S · Dec 19, 2019

jnantz said:
( les mclean wrote an article on mixing xtol with rodinal i think, and he liked it as a developer )

I like that combination, it may not be technically optimal by far, but it has interesting aesthetic effects, I guess it cuts toe, delivering deep shadows.

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2019

koraks said:
It isn't. I've developed negatives for salt prints with mytol (xtol clone). Density range of 2.6-3 or thereabouts. Without any difficulty either. Just use stock and increase development by 100% or so. Of course this is not a recommendation for op as he'd end up with unprintable bullet proof negatives this way

i did that, even increased my development by more than 200% + got flat terrible negatives with no density or contrast
glad you can get it to work, i love hearing about people who get stuff that doesn't work for me, to work for them.

138S said:
I like that combination, it may not be technically optimal by far, but it has interesting aesthetic effects, I guess it cuts toe, delivering deep shadows.

not sure what it does but he said it does good stuff, i've never used rodynoll so im just respouting regurgitated information
when i add a130 ( or d72 ) in cafC, it boosts the contrast a little and makes it last forever and that's about it...

seems both of you are in europe, maybe you have different minerals in your water, different water pipes, different plastics for your distilled water that leach into your distilled water, a different earth vibe, whatever it is, im stoked for you!
if you ever do caffenol, go to leclerc grocery store and get "el gringo" instant coffee, its pretty amazing, you have better water AND instant coffee, what could be better

MattKing · Dec 19, 2019

I am convinced that John's (jnantz) experiences with X-Tol were the result of a hex or super-natural intervention, because he is the only person I've ever encountered who had those sorts of problems with X-Tol!
I'd suggest Microphen, but failing that X-Tol stock, with reduced agitation.

138S · Dec 19, 2019

jnantz said:
different minerals in your water,

John, nowadays we have cheap osmosis filters delivering good "photo grade" water, it's a moderate investment, from $60. Some are passive (wasting water) and some have an electric pump, https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...osis+.TRS0&_nkw=osmosis+water+filter&_sacat=0

This prevents drying marks and mixed chem may last more, so I guess it may be worth.

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2019

138S said:
John, nowadays we have cheap osmosis filters delivering good "photo grade" water, it's a moderate investment, from $60. Some are passive (wasting water) and some have an electric pump, https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...osis+.TRS0&_nkw=osmosis+water+filter&_sacat=0

This prevents drying marks and mixed chem may last more, so I guess it may be worth.

thanks !
i am all set .. and really have no worries, 138S. i dont' miss my thin xtol negatives and i will never use that developer again.
since IDK 1980 xtol was the only developer i EVER had a problem with, i dont' tend to do the flavor of the month club,
i tend use a developer and don't really change unless i have to... used sprint ( like d76/id11 but better ) between 1980-1990
used xtol, gaf universal ( cause i ran out of $ and was on the windowsill in a studion where i lived i figured why not)
and more sprint between 1990-1998, used tmax ( by mistake) ansco130 ( cause i was told it might be GAF universal, and i loved it ) /d72+caffnol/ sumatranol c between 1999 and now.
ive found my magic bullet ... besides i have about 20 or 30# of coffee beans left to roast and use so i can't really change developer at the moment
i think it was just a match that was not meant to be, although it was fun pouring part b into part a and watching the orange go clear.

MattKing said:
I am convinced that John's (jnantz) experiences with X-Tol were the result of a hex or super-natural intervention, because he is the only person I've ever encountered who had those sorts of problems with X-Tol!

IDK matt
i have read plenty of people who have complained about thin negatives with xtol
and sudden death
im not really alone but just the same i burned sage when i moved here...

138S · Dec 19, 2019

jnantz said:
i have read plenty of people who have complained about thin negatives with xtol and sudden death

I mix xtol with distilled water and I keep it in soda bottles, never had a problem, even if it has been aged for one year.

Reportedly Xtol may worsen shelf life if mixed with high iron content watter, IIRC, developers containing ascorbates have accelerated oxydation with iron presence, you use Caffenol C which also has ascorbic... but you don't store the mixed caffenol C for one year, I guess... this is the difference.

With xtol there are two choices: or we use iron free watter or we don't keep it a long time, for the rest I found it's best all-round developer I tried for my taste, and it's eco friendly because the other agent it has is some little phenidone.

And if wanting to mix then we have alternatives

https://www.photosensitive.ca/wp/easy-film-developers

Of course Caffenol is cool, I second you in that a developer should be cool !!!!

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 19, 2019

If this piece of film is precious to you, I would shoot a scene of similar SBR and deliberately underexpose it by however many stops you underexposed the precious piece of film. Then see what happens when you stand in Rodinal, or Xtol 1+1. If it's not so precious, I would just develop it for normal in whatever developer you usually use....and never make that mistake again!

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2019

138S said:
but you don't store the mixed caffenol C for one year, I guess... this is the difference

i mix about a gallon at once had a batch going last time almost 2 years ..
.. might be the pharmasudicals that are my tap water, maybe they dont' like magic dust in xtol but they like coffee ?
IDK it is a mystery that is for sure ! one thing i DIDN'T do is bury a st christopher icon in the yard
but i tried everything else !

ic-racer · Dec 19, 2019

Two seconds to 1/2 second is only 2 stops. You have one stop of safety factor by rating the film at EI 50. I'd just process normally and print it the best you can.

Sirius Glass · Dec 19, 2019

Look up the Kodak XTOL data sheet on how much extra development time is needed. Added development time will increase the density and contrast for under exposed film.

Bill Burk · Dec 20, 2019

I think you might have given the film correct exposure. 8 seconds, right?

138S · Dec 20, 2019

Bill Burk said:
I think you might have given the film correct exposure. 8 seconds, right?

ic-racer said:
Two seconds to 1/2 second is only 2 stops. You have one stop of safety factor by rating the film at EI 50. I'd just process normally and print it the best you can.

The challenge is a classic matter: how to get an speed increase while not increasing too much contrast, conserving highlights and not increasing grain too much, fortunately this is LF and epitaxial crystals, so grain is less visible.

Pushing film is an art, me I've had several pitfalls in that, with destroyed shadows and blown highlights

It is only a 2 stops push, I guess its relatively easy to gain 1 stop in the true speed remaining a 1 stop loss in the shadow latitude.

138S · Dec 20, 2019

jnantz said:
i mix about a gallon at once had a batch going last time almost 2 years ..
.. might be the pharmasudicals that are my tap water, maybe they dont' like magic dust in xtol but they like coffee ?
IDK it is a mystery that is for sure ! one thing i DIDN'T do is bury a st christopher icon in the yard
but i tried everything else !

John, Caffenol C is absolutely great, in special for art. For a true artist it had to be really great to depart from raw things to end crafting something great, an sculptor departs from a crude boulder to end in something that can have an impressive message or an extraordinary beauty. Sometimes one has to touch things with his own hands.

Making the most of an underexposed negative

andersd

Attachments

koraks

Moderator

andersd

koraks

Moderator

andersd

138S

andersd

removed account4

voceumana

138S

removed account4

koraks

Moderator

138S

removed account4

MattKing

Moderator

138S

removed account4

138S

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

removed account4

ic-racer

Sirius Glass

Bill Burk

138S

138S

Making the most of an underexposed negative

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency