Over Expose, Over Develop

[faberryman]

...if we are already drowning in options, please tell me: why would there be a need for more than one ISO 400 emulsion?

Good question.

 

[Pioneer]

...By willingly over exposing and over developing a film, it’s like overbaking bread and then dropping it in water to recover it. Yummy! Smooth, wet and squishy over-baked recovered bread

You have never heard of hard tack or have never poured milk over your bread?

Besides, that is a lousy analogy. People eat all kinds of things that make me shudder.

Negatives aren't bread and I hate thin negatives. They are a royal pain to work with. But obviously there are people who do like to work with them. I am not one of them. But, I have been known to purposely underexpose a lot of negatives in my time. If I have a choice I don't.

The first thing I learned when I started this hobby was that not even my wife likes most of my pictures so I was pretty sure I wasn't going to sell many, if any, pictures.

The second thing I learned is that there are a whole lot of ways to get from snapping the shutter to a picture on the wall. If you don't believe me look at all the books and blogs out there and there are more popping up every year.

The third thing I learned is that most people do it differently than I do and that is actually OK. I like the way I do it and I am willing to bet that they like the way they do it. Besides, once Kodak sold me that roll of film I can do anything I want with it.

Finally, St Adams is still a sacred cow to a lot of people and they don't like it when you run over their sacred cow let alone try to butcher it.

 

[NB23]

Go on.

Over expose. And then over develop. And then show us how beautiful it is and how the manufacturers have got it all wrong.

Of course, if it doesn’t look over exposed and over developed in the end, was it done properly?

(I have a feeling that a lot of people have no idea what they are doing).

 

[removed account4]

Go on.

Over expose. And then over develop. And then show us how beautiful it is and how the manufacturers have got it all wrong.

Of course, if it doesn’t look over exposed and over developed in the end, was it done properly?

(I have a feeling that a lot of people have no idea what they are doing).

NB23
The manufacturers clearly state the times they give for development are starting points, they are not set in stone, and how do I know if my meter and shutter speed is calibrated like the people at the manufacturing plant. I think Kodak uses HC110 or D76 to determine their ISO values ( PE said something like that in a thread a few years ago), should I use only whatever developer they use? And I use a hand tank, Im not sure if Kodak or the other other manufacturers use hand tanks, or if they have a more automated way to process their film ( deep tank/nitrogen burst system? combiplan? jobo? ). Am I supposed to process the film exactly like they do or I have it all wrong too?

If I am getting the images I like through whatever "process" I use how do I not know what I am doing?

 

[Rudeofus]

Go on.

Over expose. And then over develop. And then show us how beautiful it is and how the manufacturers have got it all wrong.

Of course, if it doesn’t look over exposed and over developed in the end, was it done properly?

I've done that for years. Have you ever heard of that thing called a "flat optimum" ?

The strongest argument against 2+ stop over exposure is "why would you put up with ISO 400 grain if you shoot at EI 100 or less?". That's why manufacturers post a box speed. However, while this box speed may be a good idea, it is not the law.

 

[Pieter12]

I've done that for years. Have you ever heard of that thing called a "flat optimum" ?

The strongest argument against 2+ stop over exposure is "why would you put up with ISO 400 grain if you shoot at EI 100 or less?". That's why manufacturers post a box speed. However, while this box speed may be a good idea, it is not the law.

Sometimes the box speed is determined by marketing implications...faster is better, so-and-so makes a 400 speed film, we need a film in the 400 category, and so on.

 

[NB23]

I've done that for years. Have you ever heard of that thing called a "flat optimum" ?

The strongest argument against 2+ stop over exposure is "why would you put up with ISO 400 grain if you shoot at EI 100 or less?". That's why manufacturers post a box speed. However, while this box speed may be a good idea, it is not the law.

Sure.
Now over develop on top of that.
And add a dash of rodinal to promote zesty grain (another internet expert myth)
And stand develop (another insane myth)

Did I forget anything?

 

[NB23]

What does over-developing an “optimum flat” give me?

Optimum overkill?
Whiter than blanco?
Mega whitewash?
Flattorino blancorini?

What’s “optimum flat” anyway? Can I get lucky and get an “optimal flat” masterpiece by not optimal-flatting but just by, say, bracketing?

 

[NB23]

I swear, i’m calling my next dog “Optimal Flat”.

 

[Pieter12]

Sounds like a hipster coffee drink to me.

 

[Rudeofus]

A flat optimum is engineering lingo for an optimum setting which allows for lots of wiggle room without losing much.

 

[Vaughn]

I might submit that if you are getting the results you desire, then you're not overexposing or overdeveloping...Doremus

Following the tread -- this is what agrees with me the most.

In the rain forest, I tend to expose the darkest shadows I want detail in, or at least texture, then give two stops less exposure than the light metered there...so Zone III, give or take...much depends on the selection of which shadow to meter. I then use the reciprosity 'failure' of the film (exposure times 10 sec to 30 min) to drop the darkest values a little while I give the film about twice what is listed as normal development. Generally the film expands nicely giving me heafty negatives with an expanded contrast range for alt printing. I use a range of film, so some have to be handled differently.

 

[NB23]

Me as a darkroom photo teacher in 2019:

“Hello bunch of politically correct vegan dudes.

Pick a film. Any film.
Shoot it in manual mode without a meter, just go with your feelings.
Remember, class, go with your feelings. Any shuter speed is a good one. Feeling happy? Choose 1/sixty.
Feeling sad? Choose B.
Play with that ring. 5.6, 2, or 11, it’s all the same! We are not racist, we love them all the same. Rock the ring, guys!

When your roll is over, take any developer you like and develop that film. If you feel happy, develop in hot water, if you feel sad, develop in cold water.

When you’re done, you’re done!

We will call this art. Optimum flat or not.

Bravo everyone! Let’s give ourselves a good applause!

And remember: the new rule is no rules!

Bye bye now! See you next week”.

 

[Rudeofus]

We will call this art. Optimum flat or not.

If you had ever seen a university from the inside, they could have taught you to read and recite "flat optimum" as "flat optimum", not as "optimum flat", and also, that "flat optimum" might be different from "optimum flat", and why that matters. Sadly someone gave up on you before you reached that point, and now you try to be funny anyway ...

In case you planned a second career as comedian: don't give up your day job yet, whatever it may be.

 

[removed account4]

what a weird thread

 

[Nokton48]

what a weird thread

+1 "Whew!" What an understatement! LOL

A few more "facts"
1) Microdol-X (my fave soup for forty+ years) requires at least a stop of extra exposure. Most who have tried this and are experienced with it would agree. Same with PMK Pyro, another fave of mine.
2) Derating the film a stop is a fairly standard and accepted procedure for most who are experienced with the B&W process. Film EIs are generally optimistic at best. That can vary with type/price of course.
3) I have found that going longer than normal in Microdol-X has very little effect on film density. Go figure. But that is what is going on and that's what happens.
4) Yes you are obviously viewing scanner artifacts in my samples; those are very old scans and at the time that was that. Rescanning would improve but these were just examples of the thread topic.
5) There is nothing wrong with shooting extra frames; it's my film and I can do what I want!
6) Everything generally changes about the scenario when I shoot sheets vs roll film. 6.5x9cm, 4x5/9x12, 5x7, 8x10 Yes I will sometimes shoot an "insurance frame" with the bigger stuff.
8) Yes I will develop film "normally" whatever that is, if the situation calls for it. Usually ADOX/Borax I mix myself
9) NB23 gets the "ignore" button. That's what i think of his opinions.

 

[removed account4]

Microdol-X (my fave soup for forty+ years) requires at least a stop of extra exposure. Most who have tried this and are experienced with it would agree. Same with PMK Pyro, another fave of mine.

Caffenol c is similar ... too

 

[Lachlan Young]

Film EIs are generally optimistic at best.

No, people's metering habits are - and the latitude of the materials usually lets them get away with it. With still negative films, people would have a much easier time (and rapidly realize that the major manufacturers are telling the truth about box speed!) if they keyed off the shadows. The widespread ignorance of curve shape also doesn't help in this regard.

 

[Nokton48]

Yes, Zone I establishes the EI but that effective speed -can- change depending on the soup. You prolly won't get box speed developing in Pyro PMK or Microdol-X from any film. The EIs for FOMA film (which I dearly love) are optimistic at best in my experiences and uses. YMMV

FOMA Retro 320 Classic is more like a 100 speed film!

 

[bascom49]

Yes, Zone III establishes the EI but that effective speed -can- change depending on the soup.

Not to be contradictory, but just make sure I understand things correctly, I thought EI was established at Zone 1, 0.09 - 0.12 over base +f ?

 

[Nokton48]

Oops! Yes (long day yesterday)! Zone I sets the EI.

 

[MattKing]

Not to be contradictory, but just make sure I understand things correctly, I thought EI was established at Zone 1, 0.09 - 0.12 over base +f ?

Yes, for a Zone System approach to determining speed.
The ISO system, which is better suited to commercial processing, and un-manipulated prints, the speed is determined in different ways, and is normally 2/3 of a stop higher. If you don't do doges or burns in the darkroom, the ISO approach will generally lead to better prints, because that is how it was designed.

 

[ericdan]

So, just dismiss him out of hand because you don't like him?

At the least, fodder for some interesting discussion. Like him, I hate thin negatives. You can never recover what isn't there.

No, I didn't say that I am dismissing him because I don't like him. I don't know him at all.

 

[Bill Burk]

I call it “liquid light”

 

[removed account4]

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.

at least you get to see his work so you know where he is coming from ! very often on websites, like this one and handfuls of others no doubt,
there are people who write a lot, have a lot of very hard core opinions, but you never see any photographs they have made
so you have no clue where they are coming from. not that seeing photographs on the inter webs gives you an idea since if they
are uploaded theyare probably "enhanced" by editing software, but at least you get a gist... some people no gist, so you have to either dismiss them
or use your imagination ...