Overexposed or Poor Developing?

trendland · Jul 5, 2017

jeffreyg said:
I use Ilford Delta 400 and 100 (120) and HP5 4x5 at box speed and developed in ID11 or Ilfotec DDX according to Ilford tables unless I feel more contrast is called for. I print on Ilford multi-grade fiber paper as well as scanning on my old Epson 4870 scanner and print on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta paper with an Epson 3880. I get excellent results either way and doubt most can tell a difference other than the surface of the paper. I have found no need to expose or develop a different way for scanning.

My philosophy is to keep it simple, be familiar and consistent with technique and materials and tweak only when necessary for a particular result. As I mentioned before he may have set the camera programs wrong for the conditions resulting in an overexposure. Some simple tests should correct that. He should keep to mfg's recommendations to eliminate that variable in film speed and processing. If it turns out to be a scanning error that too can be corrected.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Jeffrey you got me to the same moment with your last sentence : scanner adjustments.Perhaps we should come more away from possible developer errors (I have no memory on that kind of extreme issues with overdevelopement ) and perhaps it is more a scanner issue ??And overexposure ?So it is a kind of special tragedy because a simple print in darkroom would cover this out very soon
with regards
PS : Just with multigrade Paper it
would be possible to identify (if the
scanner adjustment is also responcible to increase the problem)

Craig75 · Jul 5, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Yes we do.

I shot the film at ISO 80 and developed it for 8 minutes using HC-110 dilution B. The spec sheet calls for 6 minutes. I had a terrible brain cramp and developed for 2 minutes more than I needed to.

as trendland says tho that alone shouldnt be enough to have sent mid and highlights so far off so there is something else as well - either scanner or camera. I dont scan but maybe create a lower contrast adjustment curve (if thats something one can do in scanning).

lens was telephoto and aperture 2.8 ? so f2.8 iso 80 1/200 early in morning overcast day sounds like exposure was pretty accurate.

markbarendt · Jul 5, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
Scanning produces excessive contrast and grain with conventional B&W film. This is what it looks like. Therefore.....do not scan. Print in a darkroom.

Scanning doesn't intrinsically produce too much contrast. As proof I offer up the work of any decent Pro-Lab.

RattyMouse said:
If I could, I would. I can't, so I won't.

Good attitude.

Petraio Prime said:
Then you'll get bad results, like this. What's the point then?

Bad results, regardless of how it's printed are a result of problems in the processes, unskilled use of the tools; not the tools themselves.

Print contrast is adjustable, if the film is a bit over developed print contrast just needs to be adjusted. That same adjustment is required if the film is done 'right' and the scene contrast varies. Digital or analog the same problems and fixes exist.

Luis-F-S · Jul 5, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Today I shot and developed my first roll ever of Ilford FP4+ and the results were not as good as I hoped......

Not to worry, you'll get better after 100 rolls! L

Kawaiithulhu · Jul 5, 2017

Luis-F-S said:
you'll get better after 100 rolls

“Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.”
― Henri Cartier-Bresson

Like mine!

jeffreyg · Jul 5, 2017

Just a quick note to the doubter among the threads before i go into the dark room to develop a roll of film exposed at box speed to be developed in Ilfotec DDX as per Ilford's time/temperature. Proper exposure and processing should be the rule of thumb regardless of the format. User error or equipment error or Murphy's Law will lead to less than optimal results. As I mentioned before I have been scanning negatives for at least 12 - 14 years on the same (yes) flatbed scanner and getting excellent results.

My photographs have been on the Hasselblad and Ilford websites, in many exhibitions and published in Black and White Magazine four times. This is not really to toot my own horn but all those venues required having scanned negatives since none was digital capture.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

RattyMouse · Jul 5, 2017

Craig75 said:
as trendland says tho that alone shouldnt be enough to have sent mid and highlights so far off so there is something else as well - either scanner or camera. I dont scan but maybe create a lower contrast adjustment curve (if thats something one can do in scanning).

lens was telephoto and aperture 2.8 ? so f2.8 iso 80 1/200 early in morning overcast day sounds like exposure was pretty accurate.

I over developed by 33%. Plus dilution B is a pretty fast developer so it would seem to me that this along with the fact that I added 30% more exposure than this development time called for explains my poor results. My camera metered correctly and my scans were fine. My problem was setting the ISO value wrong and then developing too long.

trendland · Jul 6, 2017

Kawaiithulhu said:
“Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.”
― Henri Cartier-Bresson

Like mine!

Thats not the whole true Kawaiithulhu may be that all photographs one make are just "Nothing" but the most work with
photograpphs you may have is to find out
wich one possible is a good one.

with regards

trendland · Jul 6, 2017

RattyMouse said:
I over developed by 33%. Plus dilution B is a pretty fast developer so it would seem to me that this along with the fact that I added 30% more exposure than this development time called for explains my poor results. My camera metered correctly and my scans were fine. My problem was setting the ISO value wrong and then developing too long.

Yes - you might be right - but one or two stops overexposure are just nothing.
Remember the tollerance in bw.
There must be a more worst failure in
addition?
I personally gave c41 somtimes 1 stop more. And thats normaly fine (overexposure) .......

with regards

Andrew O'Neill · Jul 6, 2017

It looks over developed...but I sure like it!

tomfrh · Jul 6, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Can you elaborate on this?

The density of the edge markings can help tell you if the film was correctly developed or not, which in turn tells you about how it was exposed.

I find they're a handy reference.

RattyMouse · Jul 9, 2017

Well, the results from my second outting with my Canon 1V and Ilford FP4+ came out a bit better. This time I exposed at box speed and developed in Kodak HC-110 according to Ilford's data sheet. Still many shots came out over exposed. This film just does not have the tolerance for light that Neopan 400 does. I much prefer what I get from this film from Fuji over the FP4+.

RattyMouse · Jul 9, 2017

I've got some Kentmere 100 to try next. Otherwise, I'm going to go back to what I know works at ISO100, and that's Neopan Acros.

pentaxuser · Jul 9, 2017

RattyMouse said:
I've got some Kentmere 100 to try next. Otherwise, I'm going to go back to what I know works at ISO100, and that's Neopan Acros.

It sounds as if you are saying that with this camera, this developer and the above film, namely Acros, you know that you get better negs then great but I cannot help but feel that FP4+ at box speed and correctly developed in HC110 according to the Ilford datasheet doesn't seem to be known as a film with that kind of intolerance to light.

This will sound as if I am being a deliberate "dismal Jimmy" but I have a nagging doubt that something else is happening here and I'd not be as confident that a change to Acros will resolve the problem.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating so do show us the results of the Acros negs

pentaxuser

cliveh · Jul 9, 2017

tomfrh said:
Look at the edge markings too. That tells you a lot about developemnt

This is very good advice, as they are put there by the film manufacturer and therefore have nothing to do with exposure. but they will tell you a lot about under or over development.

RattyMouse · Jul 9, 2017

pentaxuser said:
It sounds as if you are saying that with this camera, this developer and the above film, namely Acros, you know that you get better negs then great but I cannot help but feel that FP4+ at box speed and correctly developed in HC110 according to the Ilford datasheet doesn't seem to be known as a film with that kind of intolerance to light.

This will sound as if I am being a deliberate "dismal Jimmy" but I have a nagging doubt that something else is happening here and I'd not be as confident that a change to Acros will resolve the problem.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating so do show us the results of the Acros negs

pentaxuser

I definitely will. Right now I dont have any Acros in 35mm (I have 40 rolls in 120!). I've shot 500+ rolls of Acros the past 5 years so I think I have a good feel for how that film acts. I've shot all of 2 rolls of FP4+. Kentmere 100 is the only other 100 speed black and white film I've ever shot, but less than 12 rolls so it's still quite new for me. Still, I have 5 rolls of Kentmere 100 so it will be tried soon.

I'm going out tonight with my Canon 1V, but with Neopan 400. No problems there at all. This film acts like it always has for me. I do have a new film in my pocket...my first roll ever of XP2. But that's C41 and a different beast so to speak.

pentaxuser · Jul 9, 2017

Thanks for the quick reply RattyMouse. I don't think that 120 Acros is that different from Acros 135 so with 500+ shot then it does sound as if Acros for whatever reason suits your way of shooting and may be the stuff to shoot. It is getting expensive in the U.K. compared to FP4+ but getting less than the best negs is also expensive

pentaxuser

markbarendt · Jul 10, 2017

Can you see detail in the highlight areas on the negative itself? (Not the scan.)

removed account4 · Jul 10, 2017

if the water was the subject it is perfectly exposed and developed !
but for the birds, it is over exposed a few stops + seemingly over-agitation when you developed
bracketing exposures would have been useful since you don't use this film +developer often

trendland · Jul 13, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Well, the results from my second outting with my Canon 1V and Ilford FP4+ came out a bit better. This time I exposed at box speed and developed in Kodak HC-110 according to Ilford's data sheet. Still many shots came out over exposed. This film just does not have the tolerance for light that Neopan 400 does. I much prefer what I get from this film from Fuji over the FP4+.

Well - Ratty Mouse : the second shot here shows very clear that we are fully wrong
with our whole discussion.
We've discussed your issues in concern
of overexposure.
But we should be in regard of high contrast.
Your duck in the sunlight should be an example of a Ilford Hp5 ISO 400 box speed with E.I. ISO 1600/33Din and push
delelopement with Tetenal Emofin (+ 2 stops )
But I am not quite sure if this would be
enought (just to compare)
My general tendency would be :Hp5 should show a little better tonal range/contrast tollerance as we can see
here with your duck......better range with Emofin ( two step developer )
Perhaps I should say + 3 stops pushing....?
Sure you will see this with Hp5 at E.I.
ISO3200.
Never mind that is is impossible to shot
E.I. 3200 in direct sunlight.....just to compare your bad bad contrasty szene.
It is in your scanner - belive me.
And such negatives are no problems in
darkroom (due to contrast compensating
papers) but it is indeed out of range with any bw material (from the film) I mean
the worst bw film should handle such
contrast in motive.
What is going wrong ?

I would speculate your developer is total different - but this isn't realistic.
What can one do wrong by deluting HC
110 to have such a "High Contrast " developement caused?
It is impossible.

with regards

voceumana · Jul 16, 2017

What is your agitation technique--over agitation can cause high contrast.

Have you tried 2-solution development? It eliminates the possibility of over development, and reduces contrast?

kreeger · Jul 17, 2017

Still looks overdeveloped to me. I would either reduce your HC-110 Dilution B development time by 20% less than what you are doing and try again, or use HC-110 Dilution E (1:47) and reduce by 1 minute.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 17, 2017

^^^ +1 ^^^

DF · Jul 20, 2017

FP4 is my MAIN film. I use the 'Sunny F16' rule and it gives me great results. Just what are your F-stop/shutter speed combos? I process it in D-76 1:1, 12 minutes instead of 11, agitate every 1 minute - 4 forward rolls - next minute 4 backward rolls.
This all gives good grey/middle tones & contrast, accutance - the whole shebang.
What's your agitation style?

cliveh · Jul 21, 2017

DF said:
FP4 is my MAIN film. I use the 'Sunny F16' rule and it gives me great results. Just what are your F-stop/shutter speed combos? I process it in D-76 1:1, 12 minutes instead of 11, agitate every 1 minute - 4 forward rolls - next minute 4 backward rolls.
This all gives good grey/middle tones & contrast, accutance - the whole shebang.
What's your agitation style?

+1, but I develop for 12.5 minutes at 68F/20C.

Overexposed or Poor Developing?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency