Over Expose, Over Develop

[Nokton48]

Minolta SR-M #11 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Motorized Minolta SR-M, 85mm F1.7 MC Rokkor, Eastman XX 5222 Movie film overexposed two stops, Microdol-X straight overdeveloped a bit

This one reminds me of "Star Wars".

 

[Rudeofus]

Over exposure provides more shadow detail at the expense of highlights, and over development increases contrast.

The question is whether modern film already has more dynamic range towards overexposure than anyone will ever need.

I hereby proclaim, that modern aesthetics and tastes (partially created by the onslaught of digital pics) require higher contrast. Too many times I found myself dialing gradation 4-5 during enlargement of normally developed negatives. The pics posted by Nokton48 seem to follow this pattern as well.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, the photos posted by Nokton48 look to me like photos from someone who likes to use extra exposure and extra development for their photography.
They have a character that I associate with that sort of approach - a "style" that I associate with an older viewpoint, from the days before the ASA standard was changed, and negatives tended to be "thicker".
I say "extra" because to me, over-development and over-exposure implies to me an error in development and an error in exposure, while Nokton48 isn't making errors, he is making conscious choices.
I'm cautious about making this observation, because downloading to Photrio tends to skew my results.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

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

I "overexpose" 320 Tri-X by a stop or more intentionally at times just to move the shadows up further onto the straight-line portion of the curve. I'll also "overexpose" in tricky situations when I'm not sure of the shadows, just to be sure to get detail in the lowest values. You'll notice that "overexpose" is in quotes here... I don't really think giving more generous exposure for a good reason is "overexposing." Rather, it is using the tools you have in the best way to ensure you get the image you want.

If one brackets exposures, giving sequentially more exposure for each negative, the quality of the prints made from those negatives (in order from under- to overexposed) will increase until "optimum exposure" is reached (defined as minimum exposure to make the best print) and then level off. Then, prints made from negatives given more exposure will vary only slightly, usually showing only a small increase in graininess, till gross overexposure pushes the highlights up onto the shoulder of the film and highlight separation starts to suffer. Modern films have a lot of latitude between the optimum point and the point where highlight separation starts to suffer. I've made great prints from negatives that proper proof blank white.

In an ideal world, we would all be able to figure out that optimum exposure. However, using overexposure as a bit of insurance is a fine way to deal with tricky subjects (or even to make up for haphazard metering, unreliable shutters, etc.) and insure good shadow detail. Overexposure also gets shadows up higher on the characteristic curve, which increases shadow separation with films with longer toes. Giving more exposure in this case is a technique to get better shadow separation, not overexposure.

As for "overdeveloping": If you're getting the contrast you want, you're not overdeveloping either. I note that the vast majority of images posted here as "overdeveloped" are low-contrast subjects in even, flat lighting. Zone System users have been "overdeveloping" in this situation for decades; they call it N+1, N+2, etc. Don't try this in harsh, contrasty sunlight, however, or you'll be disappointed.

My take on the whole "overexpose and overdevelop" thing is that: 1. giving more exposure usually doesn't hurt any and often helps, especially for those that don't meter correctly for whatever reason. The only penalty is a bit of extra grain; the advantage is a lot better shadow detail. And, 2. giving more development is great for a wide range of subjects, especially those in flat light, especially for those who don't determine their optimum development times by testing. More contrast in the negative can be fairly easily compensated for with modern VC papers (and scanning), so, unless the contrast range is really harsh, this will work well.

Nevertheless, this is really just a less-accurate, down-and-dirty way to get more consistent results. Better metering techniques, development schemes and a good knowledge of your materials and how they respond to different exposures and developments is really far better IM-HO.

Best,

Doremus

 

[warden]

I generally work traditionally: over expose and under develop for bright or harsh lighting conditions, box speed and normal development for fog in London, and under expose/over develop for darkish conditions when I don't have a tripod and don't mind the high contrast.

I don't think I would enjoy over/over technique in the darkroom or on the scanner, but then again I haven't tried it. The pic the author shared with his dog in the snow was Tri-X exposed at +5 stops, which is iso12, right? Sounds pretty limiting, and waiting 9 minutes for each test strip to expose would drive me bananas. The results he's getting aren't showing results that encourage me to try. (I like the pic of the dog and the wet print he made too, I just don't see how it's better than exposing Tri-X at 200 and spending less time in front of the enlarger.)

 

[Nokton48]

[I prefer to use cameras from what I call "The Golden Age of Photography". My Plaubel Makiflex collection dates back to the early 1960s, My Minolta collection from the around the 1960s/1970s. Makiflex lenses are all over the place, from modern Fuji GX680 lenses I have hacked, to my collection of period 1950s/1960s Schneider/Rodenstock lenses, etc. I even have an old brass Petzval lens from the 1850s that is new to me, that is going to be fun. I like older classic glass! Same with film, I have a lot of outdated expired classic stock that is perfectly fine for my uses. Eastman XX 5222 was introduced to Hollywood in 1959, I was a year old! That is my fave 35mm film by far.

I don't have any T-grained films, well, maybe a few here and there! I shoot these older films "down and dirty" as it has been said, and the results are consistent and in line with my objectives. I see no reason to change anything. I've have had hundreds and hundreds of negs over decades come out too thin for every reason you can possibly imagine. I'm not going back to working that way. If a scene is worthy of being recorded, it's worth a few extra frames IMHO. Film is cheap and I have a deep freeze full of sheet and roll film, all paid for long ago.

Sometimes I will shoot the same scene, using three or so different films, so later I can make a direct comparison. I think of this as another form of bracketing. I pull film but not regularly, all different types of lighting can typically be on the same roll. I have meters and meters and meters. If you understand the rules that work, and practice them for decades, you can break the rules and sometimes push the envelope. If I see the scene and the lighting is fleeting, I can click, click, click and record the scene before it changes. I'm not going to work the subject over with a spot meter for half an hour, although I also do that all the time. I'll do whatever works for me.

Trust and train your eyes and outside I really don't need to use a meter. Take copious notes. In older times I'm sure that's how it was done, based on testing and results. After a while you know the deal.[/QUOTE]

 

[jim10219]

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.

That's what I'm thinking. If you have a small EV range or relatively flat lighting, then it could potentially work pretty well. But for scenes with large EV ranges, or scenes with lots of delicate highlight detail, it might not work so well.

It's a tool. I wouldn't make it your only tool, but it would be smart to keep it in your bag for when you need it. The trick is knowing when to apply it. Just blindly applying it to all of your negatives won't be good advice. But knowing how it works and when it works best could expand your photographic possibilities. That's one thing I really like about shooting sheet film. You get the opportunity to treat each negative individually, and don't have to make compromises across an entire roll.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

(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.

I don't know if one has to go this far but I get perfect results from exposing 2/3 over box and developing normal. always err on the side of overexposure and underdevelopment.

 

[CMoore]

If i may, as a beginner.......what exactly is the point of the OP.?
If Zone III becomes Zone V...and Zone V to Zone VII and Zone VI to Zone VIII.......what does that do to the experience of printing in the darkroom.?
Assuming i have this stated correctly, i am not saying any of this is wrong.....just wondering why you would do this on a regular basis.?
Thank You

 

[faberryman]

If Zone III becomes Zone V...and Zone V to Zone VII and Zone VI to Zone VIII.......what does that do to the experience of printing in the darkroom.?

That is just the overexposure. With over development the zones are further expanded (N+1, N+2).

 

[NB23]

Uugghhhh... over exposure plus over development? Two things I really dislike in film photography.

Thinner negatives are always preferable to me.

 

[NB23]

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

I may be a very visual sensitive individual (which I am), but your image looks like a night shot that’s been processed to look like a day shot.

And inversely, also looks like a way over exposed and overdeveloped image that’s been burned to death in order to achieve an acceptable image. In both cases it looks like a scene shot at night, to me.

In any case, I’m not sure why this would be a desirable look. And it made you work much harder to achieve what would have been easy from the start: expose abd develop normally.

 

[NB23]

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

Ugh.

I’m sorry man. This is one molested negative that looks horrendous.

 

[NB23]

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

You’re almost achieving a solarized look. Muddy and all.

Good if you like it, but this is far from any standard that my eyes are used to.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

I "overexpose" 320 Tri-X by a stop or more intentionally at times just to move the shadows up further onto the straight-line portion of the curve. I'll also "overexpose" in tricky situations when I'm not sure of the shadows, just to be sure to get detail in the lowest values. You'll notice that "overexpose" is in quotes here... I don't really think giving more generous exposure for a good reason is "overexposing." Rather, it is using the tools you have in the best way to ensure you get the image you want.

If one brackets exposures, giving sequentially more exposure for each negative, the quality of the prints made from those negatives (in order from under- to overexposed) will increase until "optimum exposure" is reached (defined as minimum exposure to make the best print) and then level off. Then, prints made from negatives given more exposure will vary only slightly, usually showing only a small increase in graininess, till gross overexposure pushes the highlights up onto the shoulder of the film and highlight separation starts to suffer. Modern films have a lot of latitude between the optimum point and the point where highlight separation starts to suffer. I've made great prints from negatives that proper proof blank white.

In an ideal world, we would all be able to figure out that optimum exposure. However, using overexposure as a bit of insurance is a fine way to deal with tricky subjects (or even to make up for haphazard metering, unreliable shutters, etc.) and insure good shadow detail. Overexposure also gets shadows up higher on the characteristic curve, which increases shadow separation with films with longer toes. Giving more exposure in this case is a technique to get better shadow separation, not overexposure.

As for "overdeveloping": If you're getting the contrast you want, you're not overdeveloping either. I note that the vast majority of images posted here as "overdeveloped" are low-contrast subjects in even, flat lighting. Zone System users have been "overdeveloping" in this situation for decades; they call it N+1, N+2, etc. Don't try this in harsh, contrasty sunlight, however, or you'll be disappointed.

My take on the whole "overexpose and overdevelop" thing is that: 1. giving more exposure usually doesn't hurt any and often helps, especially for those that don't meter correctly for whatever reason. The only penalty is a bit of extra grain; the advantage is a lot better shadow detail. And, 2. giving more development is great for a wide range of subjects, especially those in flat light, especially for those who don't determine their optimum development times by testing. More contrast in the negative can be fairly easily compensated for with modern VC papers (and scanning), so, unless the contrast range is really harsh, this will work well.

Nevertheless, this is really just a less-accurate, down-and-dirty way to get more consistent results. Better metering techniques, development schemes and a good knowledge of your materials and how they respond to different exposures and developments is really far better IM-HO.

Best,

Doremus

+1 fully agree; let's call it 'generous' rather than 'over' exposure

 

[awty]

If i may, as a beginner.......what exactly is the point of the OP.?

Got me beat, all Im seeing are grainy low contrast examples, the examples in the link dont look like they were made from an overly dense negative. The dog picture would benefit from a flat neg to control the highlights/ contrast, trading off on shutter speed. Flat negs are a pain to get any life out of, easier to take contrast away than add any. I like a slightly contrasty neg (around #2 - #2.5) and then print how ever I please.

 

[Rudeofus]

I may be a very visual sensitive individual (which I am), but your image looks like a night shot that’s been processed to look like a day shot.

And inversely, also looks like a way over exposed and overdeveloped image that’s been burned to death in order to achieve an acceptable image. In both cases it looks like a scene shot at night, to me.

In any case, I’m not sure why this would be a desirable look. And it made you work much harder to achieve what would have been easy from the start: expose abd develop normally.

You throw a massive amount of vitriol at Nokton48 and his images, but make claims that I can't really follow. I have seen a fair amount of obviously burned&dodged images in the gallery, but can't see how you can claim this for this particular image. The image with the pillars looks excessively contrasty for my taste, but one could have achieved this with a normal negative and a higher paper grade.

Please enlighten me, how you see this "awful overexposed and overdeveloped" look in Nokton48's images versus your own.

 

[Rudeofus]

Got me beat, all Im seeing are grainy low contrast examples, the examples in the link dont look like they were made from an overly dense negative. The dog picture would benefit from a flat neg to control the highlights/ contrast, trading off on shutter speed.

That dog image could have easily been printed in a lower paper grade, but in my experience you can't display snow as snow unless you blow out some of its brighter regions. Wasted endless time on normally developed negatives and arrived at the same conclusion as Johnny Patience. And neither Johnny's not Nokton48's images look low contrast to me. Are we looking at the same pics here?

Flat negs are a pain to get any life out of, easier to take contrast away than add any. I like a slightly contrasty neg (around #2 - #2.5) and then print how ever I please.

Now you suddenly ask for contrasty negs again?? Sorry, you completely lost me here ....

 

[NB23]

You throw a massive amount of vitriol at Nokton48 and his images, but make claims that I can't really follow. I have seen a fair amount of obviously burned&dodged images in the gallery, but can't see how you can claim this for this particular image. The image with the pillars looks excessively contrasty for my taste, but one could have achieved this with a normal negative and a higher paper grade.

Please enlighten me, how you see this "awful overexposed and overdeveloped" look in Nokton48's images versus your own.

First of all I’m sorry for the “vitriol”. It’s not what I meant.
But then again, taking it personal would be childish. We are only discussing photographs.

About his results, they are indeed all over the place, therefore inconsistent.

 

[Rudeofus]

About his results, they are indeed all over the place, therefore inconsistent.

These pics may all have a different look, but that's what you get with different printing even if the negs are all the same. We are way past the time where contrast and brightness of an image is tied to the negative.

 

[NB23]

These pics may all have a different look, but that's what you get with different printing even if the negs are all the same. We are way past the time where contrast and brightness of an image is tied to the negative.

I don’t agree with that.

First of all, if you get different looks all the time, that’s maybe the cause of sloppy work.
And we are not “past the time...”. I don’t even know what you are trying to say.

Basically, what you’re saying is that Kodak could be selling us tmax400 film actually containing tmax100, 400 and 3200 randomly, with erroneous development times. And if we’d complain to Kodak about their bad quality control, their answer would be “Chill out Dude! We’re way past the time when a look was tied to a standardized product. Get out there and be arty farty, it’s 2019”

 

[Paul Verizzo]

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.

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.

 

[NB23]

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.

Thin doesnmt mean blank.

Besides, the mere fact of having to “recover” means that there was a serious error somewhere.

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

 

[removed account4]

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

not everything like like it seems ...
I regularly print on papers that require over development and over exposed negatives. I'm not sure if you have ever tried to print a straight box speed processed at whatever you process for
"grade 2" or whatever your "target" is, on a silver chloride paper like azo &c .. you will have a really hard time with .10S exposures especially if you need to burn or dodge something. and even with regular enlarger-paper, I'd rather print negatives that have details and a regular exposure, than compensating with a 4 or 5 filter because the film is a little thin, been there, done that..
but whatever, people likes what people likes.. and as long as you are enjoying yourself it really doesn't matter since most people here are doing this photo thing
has a hobby or a money-sink hole or whatever, or their clients like the over exposed/over developed look they present them with.

 

[Rudeofus]

I don’t agree with that.

First of all, if you get different looks all the time, that’s maybe the cause of sloppy work.
And we are not “past the time...”. I don’t even know what you are trying to say.

How about this example of two images with completely different looks? Following your explanations that photographer must be a complete noob! And sloppy!

Basically, what you’re saying is that Kodak could be selling us tmax400 film actually containing tmax100, 400 and 3200 randomly, with erroneous development times. And if we’d complain to Kodak about their bad quality control, their answer would be “Chill out Dude! We’re way past the time when a look was tied to a standardized product. Get out there and be arty farty, it’s 2019”

What I say is get the right film for your style and don't worry about a few stops of overexposure. There I said it! There's plenty of arguments for distinct products with different emulsion speed, but there is absolutely no point in worrying about two stops overexposure or over development, unless grain would absolutely and irretrievably kill your image. Hint: the grain you see in Johnny's and some of Nokton's images has to be scanner noise, not even Delta 3200 pushed to γmax in Rodinal would look that grainy in this size.

And since you chose to bring up "artsy fartsy": We are told to believe, that just a minute more development, a stop more exposure, a slightly different agitation scheme, dilution or process temperature, or a grain more sulfite in developer all create completely different images, and then there are so many papers, and paper developers! And all give completely different looks! With that many completely different looks to chose from, if we are already drowning in options, please tell me: why would there be a need for more than one ISO 400 emulsion?