Over exposed processing

[Bill Burk]

I know that but using 'constant' agitation with reduced development time should maintain contrast while decreasing overall density, right? It probably isn't worth the trouble though... basically an insignificant difference.

I know you know this stuff backwards and forwards, so not trying to call you out... I think this might clarify things...

I think the story cabledog tells is a story which many people don't see right away. When you rate a 400 film at 100 by mistake and shoot a normal scene but with the wrong EI, that story does not call for decreased development or "pulling".

When you rate a 400 film at 100 on purpose because there is a high SBR (or SLR L for luminance)...and you plan to develop less to keep those extreme highlights you saw under control... that's the story I think you are imagining. Then you would develop less.

Now, maybe cabledog was shooting waterfalls with bright white water - and maybe didn't measure those highlights... maybe the situation really is what you say ONF...

So ultimately I can't say you are wrong to suggest cutting development. And cabledog, if you cut development... you'll need to raise the contrast grade of paper when you print, but you will still get fine pictures.

 

[M Carter]

The only thing extra camera exposure does is change the placement of the tones on the curve, they all just slide to the right.

The only adjustment needed to print the thicker negative is adjusting exposure at the enlarger so that the same amount of light reaches the paper.

What about when the highlights slide right off the right edge and you have zero highlight detail?

I'd rather do a snip test and hold back some time, and ensure I had printable highs.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I wonder if decreasing development time a bit (15-20% ?) and using constant agitation would help to tame excessive density while retaining reasonable contrast.

Reducing development will also reduce contrast. This consequence may not be desired. Just develop normally.

 

[MattKing]

Even my over-developed, over-exposed negative yields prints that I am reasonably happy with.
Modern films have a lot going for them.

 

[Craig75]

I know you know this stuff backwards and forwards, so not trying to call you out... I think this might clarify things...

I think the story cabledog tells is a story which many people don't see right away. When you rate a 400 film at 100 by mistake and shoot a normal scene but with the wrong EI, that story does not call for decreased development or "pulling".

When you rate a 400 film at 100 on purpose because there is a high SBR (or SLR L for luminance)...and you plan to develop less to keep those extreme highlights you saw under control... that's the story I think you are imagining. Then you would develop less.

Now, maybe cabledog was shooting waterfalls with bright white water - and maybe didn't measure those highlights... maybe the situation really is what you say ONF...

So ultimately I can't say you are wrong to suggest cutting development. And cabledog, if you cut development... you'll need to raise the contrast grade of paper when you print, but you will still get fine pictures.

surely you can just turn contrast up on enlarger tho and you have advantage of potentially less grain from film being in developer for less time.

 

[Svenedin]

Had you come to us saying "I accidentally shot at 1 whole second instead of 1/125 second", then your overexposure would be so extreme that your darkroom time might jump from 15 second print to over a whole minute printing. That kind of situation would call for less development to keep the density from getting too extreme to be practical to print. But as Gerald Koch said early on, you could easily overexpose 4 stops and not have a serious problem... and so normal development time is OK in those kinds of cases.

I have actually done that. I once exposed a few shots at a shutter speed of 1 second having left the shutter at that setting instead of automatic shutter speed. Ridiculous mistake. Anyway, those frames (which were medium format) were completely unprintable black mud. That's a very extreme example and far greater overexposure than the OP. It was probably 6 stops over in my case!

 

[Bill Burk]

What about when the highlights slide right off the right edge and you have zero highlight detail?

I'd rather do a snip test and hold back some time, and ensure I had printable highs.

Svenedin may have done that with 6 stops overexposed. Most films have a remarkable straight line region, I only measure it 7 stops’ worth and never see the shoulder.

 

[removed account4]

Even my over-developed, over-exposed negative yields prints that I am reasonably happy with.
Modern films have a lot going for them.

+1 !

 

[markbarendt]

I know that but using 'constant' agitation with reduced development time should maintain contrast while decreasing overall density, right?

No.

Reduce anything: temperature, agitation, time, or concentration of the developer; and the contrast rate is affected.

 

[M Carter]

Svenedin may have done that with 6 stops overexposed. Most films have a remarkable straight line region, I only measure it 7 stops’ worth and never see the shoulder.

Pinhole shooting has really brought home to me about highs and processing. Get deeper into reciprocity, and surprise - reciprocity doesn't seem to be linear. The highlights are less affected, especially if a very bright region is in the shot. Pulling back a stop or more in development has been a really nice change for me when conditions suggest my highs will be at zone XIII or something. I can just make a damn print, and dodging and burning and contrast control is a creative choice, not a rescue mission. So my reply was about the claim that "exposure just moves the tones around the neg". Exposure can move the tones right off the neg, as far as a reasonably printable neg goes. The philosophy of "the neg will be dense as hell, just blow on through it in printing" - sure, that works, but man, printing frustration is what led me to find a workable understanding of the zone system where I can get good prints yet not feel like a human slide rule. In the case of the OP, I don't think knocking 20% off your processing time is going to give you muddled mids, at least not as bad as straight processing will give you useless highs - but I'm no master of this stuff, got no densitometer (or desire for one). This may all be "what works for me", and I say that with all respect to those who've found what works for them.

 

[Bill Burk]

M Carter,
You're right that when it happens, reciprocity law failure will impact shadows more than highlights, creating higher contrast negatives than the exact same photograph taken at a shutter speed within the reciprocity region... You learned by feel to reduce development for your pinhole photographs to keep your highlights printable.

And you're right that knocking 20% off the processing time will not hurt cabledog's negatives.

But cabledog would need a higher contrast printing paper as a result. (cabledog doesn't "need" to decrease developing time)...

A measure of negative quality that I use for my own purposes... is the grade of paper that's required to print... I try to keep the required paper grade between grade 2 and grade 3.

If the quality of a negative puts it on the edge of being too contrasty to print on grade 2, then I would reduce development.

And if it is on the edge of being too soft, where grade 3 doesn't give it enough punch, then I would increase development.

I believe what we're talking about here falls within those two measures. So I think cabledog would be fine either way.

 

[Craig75]

You can develop normally and advantage is you can print on your normal set up. Printing times might go up but its hardly a race

Or you can pull it a stop and advantage is potentially less grain but disadvantage is you need to turn contrast up on enlarger / use higher grade paper. However you will get max shadow separation doing it this way id have thought.

Either way works.

 

[markbarendt]

However you will get max shadow separation doing it this way id have thought.

Either way works.

No.

More development (steeper curve) = more separation between tones. Less development (flatter curve) = less separation of tones. Hardly matters though, what is given with one hand (the negative) is taken withe the other (the paper); the curves balance each other out mathematically.

The wisdom in the old saying ‘shoot for the shadows, develop for the highlights’ is deep. Exposure controls where shadow detail falls and therefore whether on not there is good separation of tones, or not.

Proper exposure (getting important subjects up off the toe) is what ensures good tone separation. Development changes are nearly irrelevant.

 

[Craig75]

No.

More development (steeper curve) = more separation between tones. Less development (flatter curve) = less separation of tones. Hardly matters though, what is given with one hand (the negative) is taken withe the other (the paper); the curves balance each other out mathematically.

The wisdom in the old saying ‘shoot for the shadows, develop for the highlights’ is deep. Exposure controls where shadow detail falls and therefore whether on not there is good separation of tones, or not.

Proper exposure (getting important subjects up off the toe) is what ensures good tone separation. Development changes are nearly irrelevant.

Im not sure if 2 stops is going to take everything off toe and onto straightline though. Looking at hp5 curve it looks 2 stops and a smidge. So its the difference between printing that smidge at normal or hard contrast. That could be nonsense tho.

 

[markbarendt]

Im not sure if 2 stops is going to take everything off toe and onto straightline though. Looking at hp5 curve it looks 2 stops and a smidge. So its the difference between printing that smidge at normal or hard contrast. That could be nonsense tho.

Normal exposure with any film usually provides plenty of shadow detail, the OP’s film was exposed 2-stops more than normal so there’s probably way too much shadow detail available. All the important tones should be well up on the straight line.

 

[cabledog]

So I ended up developing just 45 seconds less than dev chart time for normal development and the negatives came out pretty nice I must say. I actually prefer the look straight from the negative than I probably would have with proper exposure and normal dev. Thanks for everyone's responses!

 

[Svenedin]

Good news!

 

[cabledog]

 

[Huub]

So I ended up developing just 45 seconds less than dev chart time for normal development and the negatives came out pretty nice I must say. I actually prefer the look straight from the negative than I probably would have with proper exposure and normal dev. Thanks for everyone's responses!

Which doesn't surprise me at all. A classic advise for better negatives is to expose more to increase shadow detail and to reduce development to keep high lights at bay. But as said by many people already: it depends a lot on the contrast of the original subject, the way you measure your light and the way you are intending to print your negatives.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Two stops is within the latitude of the film. Just process it normally.

 

[markbarendt]

So I ended up developing just 45 seconds less than dev chart time for normal development and the negatives came out pretty nice I must say. I actually prefer the look straight from the negative than I probably would have with proper exposure and normal dev. Thanks for everyone's responses!

Are the positives you are judging scans or enlarger prints?