Shawn Dougherty
Allowing Ads
I was out photographing in a new to me area of my favorite place (McConnells Mill State Park, Pennsylvania) this weekend and after making two negatives of one composition I noticed a detail just below me and to my left. A small peninsula made of dark mud and surrounded by a relatively still pool with a couple of floating leaves, dark water, and some lovely white sticks at the base - all lit with a wonderful and intense angular sunshine. The creek walls are deep at this point, about 300 feet and fairly steep. The sun was about to duck behind them so I was in a hurry and had little time to think.
I made two identical exposures on TMax 400 (TMY2) sheet film. After making them, the sun dipped below the gorge walls and the scene before me was gone. I ran through my meter readings and realized I had made an error and given the scene at least one more stop exposure (maybe two) than I normally would have... But, it was too late to expose more film and the peninsula, if not already washed away, surely will be by the time I return.
The scene contained about 6 stops PLUS one more if I count the specular highlights. Having done things properly I would have exposed for either 1/15" or 1/8" at f32 and developed for N-1. For me N-1 translates to 12minutes in a tray using Rodinal diluted 1:125 at 70°, agitation for the first minute then every 30 seconds for the remaining time.
As it actually happened... I exposed for 1/4" @ f32. Considering I normally put my shadows on Zone IV, an extra 1 or 2 stops means the film received a good bit of light. I usually make fully exposed and underdeveloped negatives and print at relatively high paper grades (3.5 to 4.5 in Ilford Filter Terms) onto Ilford Warmtone FB.
All that taken into account I'm thinking my best plan of action is to develop the first negative as I normally would (N-1), had I exposed it properly . I make soft negatives so there SHOULD be some room at the top end for the highlights to further develop, especially considering the straight line curves of Tmax400. I want a contrasty print so maybe I'll get that, just with a longer exposure than I would normally use... and if it turns out the highlights are bullet proof I can always alter the second negative accordingly.
So my question is... "Does This Make Sense?" I DO NOT want to get into using another developer or process. I have a system dialed in (when I don't make a careless metering mistake) and I believe my best bet is trying to fix it within the scope of that system.
I made two identical exposures on TMax 400 (TMY2) sheet film. After making them, the sun dipped below the gorge walls and the scene before me was gone. I ran through my meter readings and realized I had made an error and given the scene at least one more stop exposure (maybe two) than I normally would have... But, it was too late to expose more film and the peninsula, if not already washed away, surely will be by the time I return.
The scene contained about 6 stops PLUS one more if I count the specular highlights. Having done things properly I would have exposed for either 1/15" or 1/8" at f32 and developed for N-1. For me N-1 translates to 12minutes in a tray using Rodinal diluted 1:125 at 70°, agitation for the first minute then every 30 seconds for the remaining time.
As it actually happened... I exposed for 1/4" @ f32. Considering I normally put my shadows on Zone IV, an extra 1 or 2 stops means the film received a good bit of light. I usually make fully exposed and underdeveloped negatives and print at relatively high paper grades (3.5 to 4.5 in Ilford Filter Terms) onto Ilford Warmtone FB.
All that taken into account I'm thinking my best plan of action is to develop the first negative as I normally would (N-1), had I exposed it properly . I make soft negatives so there SHOULD be some room at the top end for the highlights to further develop, especially considering the straight line curves of Tmax400. I want a contrasty print so maybe I'll get that, just with a longer exposure than I would normally use... and if it turns out the highlights are bullet proof I can always alter the second negative accordingly.
So my question is... "Does This Make Sense?" I DO NOT want to get into using another developer or process. I have a system dialed in (when I don't make a careless metering mistake) and I believe my best bet is trying to fix it within the scope of that system.