Over Expose, Over Develop

[Richard Man]

(I have searched the Photrio archive and nothing exactly like this was discussed, the closest was the question about the Ralph Gibson look (which uses the same methodology))

All these talks about XTOL and 777 got me googling again and I found this:
http://www.johnnypatience.com/the-zone-system-is-dead

Basically: over expose 1 to 2 stops (bring Zone II/III to Zone V), then also OVER develop by one stop). For example, shoot Tri-X at ASA 200, but use the timing for developing Tri-X shot at ASA800. This provides a dense negative with lots of info in the shadows, and rely on the modern film emulsions to hold highlight details.

The author says he has tried it with multiple film AND also dark room printing with the same results (in addition to scan and print).

I tried a few sheets of 4x5 with HP5+ and XTOL, and the results do look promising. These photos are not much by themselves, just for testing purpose, and yes, they are scans, but this is totally for illustration purpose. Check the linked article to see the author's darkroom prints.

Oh, I was also using swing to show off view camera capability of getting more things in focus despite using a 150mm lens at F5.6 ("equivalent" to 40mm at F1.5 or thereabout), and using a soft focus lens at that to show off some blooming effect.

 

[pentaxuser]

Can you say by how many stops these negs were overexposed and overdeveloped? Is it as per Mr Patience's method of 2 stops over exposed and one stop over develop? If this is the case and if the scan of the second negative especially is a replica of such a process then it does not look like 2 over in exposure and 1 over in development. However if this is the negative achieved and a print of the scan will be as per the scan then in your case this looks like a reasonable process.

I am not a scanner and I do have some scepticism about whether the scanning route give a true reflection of what a printable negative should be

pentaxuser

 

[Nokton48]

I tend to do this rather habitually and I prefer what I would describe as "beefy" negatives. That is what I choose to create. If a scene is strong enough, I will shoot two negatives, one 1 stop over box speed, and then another 2 over box speed. It works for me and I hate getting thin negatives, often I prefer the denser of the two negatives, for a variety of reasons. Thin negs are a waste of effort and money, IMO shadow detail is of paramount importance. If the detail is there in the neg I can get it onto a print. Works for me; YMMV

 

[Richard Man]

I definitely understand the concern about "this is a scanned thing only", but again, please refer to the original link where the author shows some darkroom prints.

For both images shown, I spot metered the dark areas so they would be around zone III or so, and place them in Zone V. The side of the building one was mostly shaded light so lower contrast whereas the other one was in full (California) sun so reasonable high contrast if you at the dark areas comparing to the sky. I think @Nokton48 said it: the goal is have a dense or "beefy" negative.

 

[Nokton48]

Kodak 70mm Surveillance Test ADOX Borax MQ by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is very old Kodak 70mm Surveillance film, processed in ADOX Borax MQ. Overexposed and overdeveloped. Hasselblad 60mm Distagon T* I exposed this at one, two and three stops over, this is old film, and I had absolutely no idea if it was still good or not. Highlights a little hot, that can be corrected.

 

[ericdan]

that author says a lot of things.
He's good at blogging. Wouldn't listen to him for advice on how to expose and develop my film.

 

[removed account4]

I tend to do this rather habitually and I prefer what I would describe as "beefy" negatives. That is what I choose to create. If a scene is strong enough, I will shoot two negatives, one 1 stop over box speed, and then another 2 over box speed. It works for me and I hate getting thin negatives, often I prefer the denser of the two negatives, for a variety of reasons. Thin negs are a waste of effort and money, IMO shadow detail is of paramount importance. If the detail is there in the neg I can get it onto a print. Works for me; YMMV

I don't shoot anything at box speed anymore and I am in complete agreement with everything you wrote !

 

[Nokton48]

Connels Sign Makina IIIR 100mm F4 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Plaubel Makina IIIR, 100mm F4.2 (sharp lens) Ilford FP4+ overexposed two stops, Microdol-X straight overdeveloped quite a bit.

 

[MattKing]

Just to be contrary...
I find that my favourite to print negatives are sometimes a slight bit thinner than average.
And I definitely find that my favourite to scan negatives are frequently a bit thinner than average.
Of course, I tend to gravitate to the mid-tones and highlights, with less of an interest than some in what the shadows might reveal.
I've posted this frequently - it is from a negative that upon inspection seems quite thin:

 

[Nokton48]

70mm Plus-X Pan Mic-X EI 125 by Nokton48, on Flickr

70mm expired very old Plus-X, overexposed two or three stops, overdeveloped in straight Microdol-X overdeveloped quite a bit.
Hasselblad 100mm F3.5 Planar T*

 

[Nokton48]

Makiflex 135 Symmar Neopan 400 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Plaubel Makiflex, 135mm f5.6 Schneider Symmar chrome, Neopan 400, 2 stops over box, Microdol-X overdeveloped quite a bit

 

[Nokton48]

Minolta SRT-101 #18 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Minolta SRT-101, 35mm F1.8 MC Rokkor, Eastman XX 5222 Movie Film, one or two stops overexposed, Microdol-X straight, overdeveloped.

 

[Nokton48]

Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Plaubel Makiflex, 360mm Kern Arau f11 process lens @ f16, overexposed two or three stops, FOMA Retropan 320 6.5x9cm 120 roll film, Microdol-X straight very overdeveloped

 

[Nokton48]

Minolta XK #9 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Minolta XK, 58mm F1.2 MC Rokkor, Eastman XX 5222 Movie film, one or two stops over box, Microdol-X developer straight very overdeveloped

 

[Richard Man]

that author says a lot of things.
He's good at blogging. Wouldn't listen to him for advice on how to expose and develop my film.

That's pretty amusing from someone who made over 1000 posts here in 5 years and I made less than that in 14 years ~_o Regardless, the point of course is that this is not a magic bullet. I mean after all, plenty of images are made with over expose and under develop, or even normal expose and normal develop. This is just an advice, further for investigation, and @Nokton48 certainly provided plenty of data that shows this practice could produce viable results.

 

[ericdan]

Glad you're amused and congrats on keeping your posts so low for 14 years!
bloggers need audience. I'd take bold claims like that with a grain of salt.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'd be very cautious of overdevelopment and bloggers. I've had grainy negatives from over exposed / developed ILFORD DELTA film and I suspect the same would apply to Kodak T-Max.

 

[Richard Man]

Glad you're amused and congrats on keeping your posts so low for 14 years!
bloggers need audience. I'd take bold claims like that with a grain of salt.

Of course we should, OTOH, have you even looked at the images that @Nokton48 posted? ;-)

 

[Nokton48]

DSC05895 by Nokton48, on Flickr

As you can see, I routinely do a two or three stop overexposure. Then I pick the frame that has the detail that I prefer. This is how I habitually work and I'm good with the results.

 

[Rudeofus]

I'd be very cautious of overdevelopment and bloggers. I've had grainy negatives from over exposed / developed ILFORD DELTA film and I suspect the same would apply to Kodak T-Max.

You can argue, that overexposure and overdevelopment both contribute to higher granularity, but this matters a lot less today than it used to. Medium format and even large format cameras have become very affordable even to hungry student level amateurs, and few enlarge their images by more than a factor 4 or 5, if that.

In addition to this, some folks have moved away from "must pack as much delicate detail into print as possible" and moved towards a "must use the crude properties of the medium to confer message/mood" style. The author of this blog says it himself: "Be it delicate and refined shot at box speed with medium format, which I like to equate to classical music, or gritty, grainy and beaten up by overexposure in 35mm, which looks just like rock ‘n’ roll to me."

 

[Nokton48]

Makiflex FOMA 135 Symmar by Nokton48, on Flickr

Plaubel Makiflex, 135mm f5.6 Schneider Symmar chrome, FOMA 100 overexposed two stops, Microdol-X overdeveloped a good bit

 

[Nokton48]

Minolta SRT-101 #16 LS2000 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Minolta SRT-101, 85mm F1.7 MC Rokkor, Eastman XX 5222 Movie FIlm, overexposed two stops, Microdol-X overdeveloped a bit

 

[Nokton48]

Makiflex Acros 150 SymmarS by Nokton48, on Flickr

Plaubel Makiflex, 150mm Schneider Symmar chrome, Fuji ACROS overexposed two stops, Microdol-X straight overdeveloped a bit

 

[faberryman]

Over exposure provides more shadow detail at the expense of highlights, and over development increases contrast. It is not a panacea, but there is nothing wrong with trying it for a few rolls and seeing if you like the results. A lot will depend on the EV range of the scene.

 

[Nokton48]

Minolta XK #6 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Minolta XK, 85mm F1.7 MC Rokkor, Eastman XX 5222 Movie Film overexposed two stops, Microdol-X overdeveloped a bit