Ooops - Need help developing overexposed film

[Pioneer]

I accidentally over exposed a 120 roll of Ilford Delta 3200 at EI-100. Thought I was shooting Velvia 100.

I checked the data sheet and it only gives developing information to EI-400.

The Massive Developing Chart says I can use D-76/ID-11 for 5.5 minutes. I have D-23 so I am guessing that would probably work but maybe not at 5.5 minutes

Any suggestions? I do have some Rodinal and HC110 as well.

 

[MattKing]

What was the character of the light? How contrasty?
Both Rodinal and HC-110 impose a bit of a speed penalty, so they might be a good choice.

 

[Pioneer]

Half the roll was exposed outdoors under a winter northern Nevada sun with very few clouds and about half were indoors off a tripod in low light. I thought I was working with a Fuji slide film so was trying to get as much sun as I could outdoors and slightly over exposing indoors. I am guessing that the indoor shots would be medium contrast, most were wall decorations against light colored walls, daylight thru windows but no sun. The outdoor shots would be medium as there is no snow on the ground with only one or two shots against the sky.

 

[Alan9940]

Funny you should ask... I just watched this video, yesterday, about using Rodinal to obtain extreme compressions. It may be of interest to you:

 

[Kino]

Maybe Divided D23 with an estimated reduction in both baths?

Cut in half?

Just a wild guess...

 

[Romanko]

A compensating developer like Barry Thornton's Two Bath? D-23 in low dilutions might give you similar results. If these are important shots I would get a roll of Delta 3200 (in 35 mm format?) and experiment with it first.

 

[Vaughn]

Once you figure out how you are going to develop and all, if you end up with dense flat negatives, you might want to sacrifice a negative or two and give them a light bleaching and refixing. This tends to bleach the shadows first, so you could stop the bleaching before you see the wanted detail disappear in the shadows. This will bump up the contrast some.

 

[Romanko]

you might want to sacrifice a negative or two and give them a light bleaching and refixing

The method is called "reducing". The formulae are easily found in old books:

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/Kodak_formulary.pdf

 

[Vaughn]

The method is called "reducing". The formulae are easily found in old books:

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/Kodak_formulary.pdf

I occasionally will reduce a negative then intensify it (selenium toner) -- bumps up the contrast nicely. But this was for contact printing in Alt processes. With roll film, I suppose one must take more care with what may happen to the grain structure due to enlarging.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You really aren't that overexposed Pioneer. The nominal speed of Delta 3200 is around 1000. So you are just over two stops overexposed. If you develop for the 400 time you should be fine.

It also depends on what you are going to do with the film. If you are going to scan it then you shouldn't worry much at all as long as you don't overdevelop. Printing in the darkroom is a different matter.

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks everyone. If I get a bit of time today I'll run this through the soup. I still have about 5 rolls of Arista EDU 400 to develop so the problem roll may not get done.

I haven't quite decided what yet as I am still going through all your suggestions. I'll let you know how it works out.

Thinking back I believe this will be the first film I have had to pull more than a stop so it will be a new experience. I like to believe that ALL my shots are important but the truth was this is probably a good roll for me to experiment with. There are only 5 or 6 exposures I would like to save and those could be repeated on another sunny day.

 

[titrisol]

D3200 at 100 is not too bad, I dont know which soup you have available but when I made similar "mistake" (exposed as 200) my notes say
Ilford DDX 1+9 6 minutes @20C
Negatives are on the dense side but were printable

PS I see you have D23, why not D23 1+1 for the same time as EI400

Divided D-23 developer

 

[pentaxuser]

Printing in the darkroom is a different matter.

So what needs to be done in Pioneer's situation if he needs to print in the darkroom?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[runswithsizzers]

In their spec sheets some manufacturers refer to their developers as "speed enhancing" or "speed maintaining." Few actually claim thier developers are "speed decreasing," but Ilford does say:
"PERCEPTOL is an extra fine grain film developer
which gives excellent image quality. It is designed
for use when very fine grain negatives are
required and a decrease in film speed is not
important."

Would using a "speed decreasing developer" be of any advantage in this situation?

 

[MarkS]

You'd want patience while exposing the paper... or an enlarging lens good at wide apertures. Or both.
It might be a test of one's printing skills, or not. B/W films, in general, have a great tolerance for overexposure.

 

[ags2mikon]

D-23 1:1 and salt to taste. Same as Perceptol with a stop of film speed loss.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have always found it a little strange that Ilford gives a time in Perceptol stock for full box speed of 3200 despite the fact that true ISO speed is about 1000 whereas in most other Ilford medium speed films such as HP5+ and D400 it does not give times for their true ISO speed

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

A very interesting video provided by Alan The presenter appears to have discovered a way with Rodinal 1+100 to exposed negs at a large range of speeds with great success and with it a useful method of developing a range of films with different box speed in the same tank

Did anyone else look at the video and if so what comments has anyone got?

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

Interesting -- I can understand a developer-caused speed loss if the film shadows are exposed at the proper amount, but once shadows have been heavily over-exposed, any developer-caused speed loss should be insignificant.

"Speed-loss" -- a reduction in the ability to render shadow detail.

YDMD (your definition may differ)

 

[MattKing]

Interesting -- I can understand a developer-caused speed loss if the film shadows are exposed at the proper amount, but once shadows have been heavily over-exposed, any developer-caused speed loss should be insignificant.

"Speed-loss" -- a reduction in the ability to render shadow detail.

YDMD (your definition may differ)

FWIW, I understand developer caused speed loss to be related to the over-all activity of the developer, which in turn I understand to have similar effect on the highlights as well.
If I have misunderstood, I'd be happy to be corrected.
But otherwise, I think the low activity, speed penalizing options might help a bit.

The real concern though is that Delta 3200 is, by design, intentionally a low contrast film, if you expose and develop it according to standard ISO criteria.
It is intended to give normal contrast when you under-expose it, and then over-develop it (when compared to standard ISO criteria).
So if you over-expose it, how are you going to develop it to get "normal" contrast out of it?
I'd develop it for an EI of 400 in Perceptol or Microdol-X, and then be prepares to either accept relatively low contrast results, or experiment with Farmers Reducer.

 

[Pioneer]

I finally developed that over-exposed roll of Delta 3200 I've been talking about. Though I was tempted by the Rodinal (great little video) in the end I selected D-23 1:1. I developed the roll for 7.5 min @ 72F using continuous agitation for a minute then 7 agitations each minute after.

AND IT WORKED! I have to scan these to see how the shadows and highlights turned out and check the contrast, but the negatives look decent. I really have something I can work with now.

I'll try scanning a few tomorrow to see how they turn out but I also think I can enlarge and print a few of these as well. This may actually turn out to be fun.

I don't think I can adequately convey just how discouraged I felt when I opened that camera and realized that, instead of a roll of Velvia 100, I had actually been shooting a roll of Ilford Delta 3200. None of these shots are really that critical but neither were they "throw-aways" either.

Everyone here has been really great and no one made me feel like a total idiot for forgetting what film was in the camera, though of course I was

I want to thank everyone for all the suggestions and encouragement. I'll get some scans up when I get a little time. Thanks again!

 

[Graham06]

I finally developed that over-exposed roll of Delta 3200 I've been talking about. Though I was tempted by the Rodinal (great little video) in the end I selected D-23 1:1. I developed the roll for 7.5 min @ 72F using continuous agitation for a minute then 7 agitations each minute after.

AND IT WORKED! I have to scan these to see how the shadows and highlights turned out and check the contrast, but the negatives look decent. I really have something I can work with now.

I'll try scanning a few tomorrow to see how they turn out but I also think I can enlarge and print a few of these as well. This may actually turn out to be fun.

I don't think I can adequately convey just how discouraged I felt when I opened that camera and realized that, instead of a roll of Velvia 100, I had actually been shooting a roll of Ilford Delta 3200. None of these shots are really that critical but neither were they "throw-aways" either.

Everyone here has been really great and no one made me feel like a total idiot for forgetting what film was in the camera, though of course I was

I want to thank everyone for all the suggestions and encouragement. I'll get some scans up when I get a little time. Thanks again!

Thanks for following up with your results. Of course you still have to reshoot your photos because no developer will give delta 3200 the colors you were expecting.

 

[pentaxuser]

Echoing Graham's sentiments above, Pioneer, it just goes to show what the latitude of that film is and based on the video what latitude exists ín several slow films that Figital Rev tested

pentaxuser

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks for following up with your results. Of course you still have to reshoot your photos because no developer will give delta 3200 the colors you were expecting.

Certainly. A roll of Fuji Velvia 100 is already loaded.

I checked and I am really sure this time.

 

[Pioneer]

A few examples from the roll. Nothing done to scans except to resize for web.