Oops! Can the exposure be saved?

[Digidurst]

Hi all Went out to do some shooting the other day with my 4x5 using Fortepan 200. I usually use Ilford FP4+ rated at 64 or 50. Well, even though I had my film holder labeled for the Forte, my brain glossed over that information and I exposed two sheets at ISO 64. Is there any way to save the exposure? I have Rodinal or HC-110 to process the sheets in. I'm thinking that 4 minutes in the HC-110 ought to do it but wanted to ask the sage advice of fellow APUGers before I proceed.

So what do ya'll think?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

This film should be pretty tolerant of overexposure (based on my experience with the ISO 400 version processed in Pyrocat-HD). I don't know how it will behave in HC-110. I would do some testing first.

 

[Digidurst]

Ok Tom - thanks!

Anyone else care to weigh in?

 

[John Cook]

I have no actual experience with Fortepan. But have made well in excess of 40,000 exposures professionally on Kodak, Ilford and Agfa b&w films since 1965. All quite successful, if I say so myself.

Generally speaking, a stop and a half over exposure will improve shadow detail, especially on dark subjects like horses, tuxedos and mink coats.

Because there will be increased negative density to print through, the amount of apparent grain will increase slightly.

The only possible difficulty would be with extremely thin emulsion films like T-Max and Delta which might tend to block up locally in extreme highlights. Very remote. Not usually an issue on "normal" traditional emulsions.

Reducing development will eliminate this potential threat, but will lower negative contrast and give you a dull gray yucky print.

My best professional advice would be to go with your regular development time, live with the very slightly increased grain, and enjoy some really nice shadow detail for a change.

 

[Digidurst]

Interesting John... The subject in question is a piece of tree bark with lines and swirls that almost had a 'liquid' appearance. Not sure if grain is a good thing in this regard. it's fairly local so I can reshoot it if I fubar the processing. I wonder, should I use the rodinal or the HC-110?

 

[glbeas]

The Rodinal may be better in this instance as it usually result in a slight loss of film speed with normal processing. Either developer you use tree bark is generally dark enough you will want to overexpose then print dark to get the richest detail.

 

[John Cook]

I, too, would lean slightly toward Rodinal. But mainly for reasons of personal taste, rather than technically speaking.

I like grain. Especially the tiny, tight, salt-and-pepper variety. Dilute Rodinal is one of several high-acutance developers (Ethol T.E.C., Neophin Blau, etc.) which will give this appearance by sharpening the grain structure and therefore making it more visible. I don't think these developers actually make the film's inherent grain structure any larger.

HC-110 is a nice pleasant middle-of-the-road developer with results similar to D-76 which, as a liquid concentrate, is easier to mix. For my taste, the negatives are neat-and-sweet, but technically unremarkable.

Like Emeril, I tend to prefer developers which will "kick things up a notch".

Grainy ISO 400 film in 35mm developed in a highly dilute high-acutance developer and enlarged to mural proportions can be technically quite spectacular. The elegant crystalline grain is dramatically smaller and tighter than 35mm Tri-X developed in straight D-76 printed 8x10. That grain looks to me instead like it is composed of big ugly wads of used bubble gum.

 

[Claire Senft]

If the contrast range was not severe...very bright high lightsthat might block up....I would give normal development.