Portra 400 Overexposed - How do I develop it now?

[Colin D]

Just a dumb thing to do but today I did some still life work with 4x5 and 120. With 4x5 I used Portra 160 and calibrated the light meter to suit. Then I switched to my Mamiya with a roll of Portra 120 400 forgetting to alter the light meter settings. To add to the dilemma they were 30 second exposures in low light. Oh shit, I had spent 6 hours labouring away on getting everything right, well almost everthing as it turns out.

It wasn't until I was packing up my gear I realised the stuff up. Half the 120 film was already exposed at the correct levels. Can the overexposed shots be rescued in the developing or is the gap too great? I am happy to take a guess and cut the film where I think the overexposed shots start to develop it separately to the rest.

I use Tetanol Colourtec C-41 solutions for developing.



Thanks

 

[rawhead]

It's a negative, so a 1.5 stop over exposure is probably gonna be just fine. According to documents, it's not advisable to "pull" develop color negative film.

Here's and example of an ISO 400 film shot at ISO 100 (full 2-stop over exposure) and then developed normally (not mine): http://www.flickr.com/photos/foole/2105032322/

As you can see, there be no problems.

 

[MattKing]

What sort of lighting conditions were you working in? Was it contrasty, with deep shadows and brilliant highlights, or....?

 

[Colin D]

that makes me feel a bit better rh.

matt, very little contrast as it happens, that should work in my favour shouldn't it? the subjects were side lit through a gap in a curtain, no direct light, just indirect light with a very small reflector filling in one side of a subject.

thanks to both.

 

[Aron]

With the linear response, this overexposure should cause no problems. Develop normally, print through the extra density.

 

[markbarendt]

Don't sweat it. Color negatives are very, very, very forgiving of overexposure.

Process film normally, add extra exposure time for the paper.

 

[polyglot]

+2 stops is nothing for Portra. You'll possibly only pick the difference if you do an A/B direct comparison.

 

[frotog]

It'll look better than portra exposed at 400.

 

[thegman]

It'll look better than portra exposed at 400.

Agree with that, Portra only seems to get better the more exposure it gets. I've probably gone 4 stops over, still looks fine, goes a little more "washed out", but easily changed if you're scanning.

 

[MattKing]

that makes me feel a bit better rh.

matt, very little contrast as it happens, that should work in my favour shouldn't it? the subjects were side lit through a gap in a curtain, no direct light, just indirect light with a very small reflector filling in one side of a subject.

thanks to both.

You are welcome .

As the light is fairly low in contrast, you may have inadvertently improved your results by over-exposing the film.

In any event, it should come out fine if developed normally.

 

[Colin D]

thanks everyone, maybe I'll get some credible results afterall . I've never used Portra 400 before, but I have read good reviews, hence my apprehension about my inadvertant oversight.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do not worry about it. The film has enough latitude to handle it.