Salvaging Underdeveloped Negs

[silvergelatin]

I ran a batch of important film through my usual Rodinal (bottle wasn't that old), and it looks like the developer was exhausted. Very thin negs - as in, grade 5 prints looks like grade 0. First time in 15 years of Rodinal use that I had this happen, so I'll definitely be more careful in the future. The negs are detailed, though.

I've read about selenium and sepia neg toning, but that the effect is small. Any fancy tricks to boost more than a single grade, preferably without breathing in mercury or chromium?

Thanks.

 

[pdeeh]

Well it's not essential to breathe in Chromium ... but that's your best bet to begin with.
I'd personally avoid handling mercury compounds, but handling dichromate is perfectly safe with the proper precautions.
dichromate bleach then redevelop in paper developer, or dichromate bleach then redevelop in staining developer.
You can do this for a few iterations too, to try and add more contrast.
Don't start off with Selenium (or sepia) toning as it's a one-way street - you can't bleach and redevelop after toning.

There may be other things you can do at the print stage but there's plenty of print gurus here to talk about that

good luck!

 

[Jim Noel]

Toning can add up to 1/2 -1 stop in the highlights,which effectively adds contrast, but does nothing to bring up the mid-tones and shadows.
Bleaching and redeveloping can add some overall density, IF there is detail on the negative.

 

[silvergelatin]

Thanks to you both. So chromium would work better than bleaching and redeveloping in something like Polymax T? Is dichromate bleach the stuff in the sepia kits? There is plenty of detail in the negs, but overall density and contrast are low.

 

[silvergelatin]

I just ordered some Formulary Chromium Intensifier, so let's see how it goes. I'm also always looking for ways to creatively destroy images, so I'll try going way too far with some less important negs.

 

[BetterSense]

It looks like you found out that Rodinal isn't really immortal. I also found out the hard way, after listening to people on the internet claim it never goes bad. BTDT. If it's dark brown and the last bit of the bottle, it could well be bad. It does last forever in individual small glass bottles though, but oxygen will kill it, and that includes being the dregs in the bottom of a mostly empty bottle.

HC110 pretty much does last forever, but not Rodinal.

 

[pdeeh]

Thanks to you both. So chromium would work better than bleaching and redeveloping in something like Polymax T? Is dichromate bleach the stuff in the sepia kits? There is plenty of detail in the negs, but overall density and contrast are low.

Good for you.

I started a thread on this subject ages ago and one person told me to forget trying to rescue the negs, just bin them and "put it down to experience". But I can't see how learning a new technique can be a bad thing, even if you don't get the results you hoped for. It adds to the arsenal of techniques we know, and even if never used again, expands our understanding.

You probably realise this already, but it's inevitable to lose a bit of sharpness and gain a bit of graininess when doing an intensifying bleach/redevelop (at least, that's what I experienced, so perhaps not "inevitable", but definitely possible).

Do please report back - if you can be bothered, with before/after pics of the negatives.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I ran a batch of important film through my usual Rodinal (bottle wasn't that old), and it looks like the developer was exhausted. Very thin negs - as in, grade 5 prints looks like grade 0. First time in 15 years of Rodinal use that I had this happen, so I'll definitely be more careful in the future. The negs are detailed, though.

I've read about selenium and sepia neg toning, but that the effect is small. Any fancy tricks to boost more than a single grade, preferably without breathing in mercury or chromium?

Thanks.

What "flavour" of Rodinal, please?

It looks like you found out that Rodinal isn't really immortal. I also found out the hard way, after listening to people on the internet claim it never goes bad. BTDT. If it's dark brown and the last bit of the bottle, it could well be bad. It does last forever in individual small glass bottles though, but oxygen will kill it, and that includes being the dregs in the bottom of a mostly empty bottle.

HC110 pretty much does last forever, but not Rodinal.

That is your experience.
Mine is different.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I managed a "rescue" of such a result by using a re-halogenating bleach (copper sulfate/salt) and redeveloping in a really stronger developer (D-72)
All done in the light.

 

[adelorenzo]

I've used a silver nitrate-based intensifier on thin negs, the formula was in the Darkroom Cookbook.

 

[NedL]

I've used a silver nitrate-based intensifier on thin negs, the formula was in the Darkroom Cookbook.

That's very interesting, I wonder if it used physical development. Was it hydroquinone based?

A few months ago I tried a little experiment. I massively over-exposed a print on cheap RC paper ( I think it was about 10 times normal exposure ), then fixed it in hypo, then developed in gallic acid + silver nitrate. I was able to form an pretty strong image but the paper stained dark yellow all over. Still, interesting to develop an image after fixing.

 

[bernard_L]

I concur that chromium intensifier provides a lot more significant intensification than selenium or sepia toning. Based on actual experience. I also had to salvage important negatives that were under-developed (like, C.I. 0.4).
I found out that to achieve truly proportional intensification --and complete clearing after the chromium bleach-- an intermediate bath of sodium (or potassium) carbonate was necessary. I saw that information only in the old Kodak Formulary.
FYI, sodium carbonate is the pH+ stuff used for pool maintenance: easy to beg a few grams.

 

[pdeeh]

That's very interesting, I wonder if it used physical development. Was it hydroquinone based

I have a process for Silver intensification in a 1964 BJP Annual. Yes I think it uses physical development. No there's no hq involved.
When I've got a few digital mins and a digital scanner I'll upload a digital copy

 

[pdeeh]

Okily-dokily neighborinos, feast your minces on this lot.
I couldn't be arsed to edit it so you've got some extra bits and pieces topping and tailing the Silver intensifier.
Including, for those of you hungry for XtremeToxicity, and keen to be investigated by your national environmental & security agencies, instructions for both Uranium and Mercuric chloride intensifiers too...

 

[NedL]

Appropriately named file, that one. Even the silver intensifier is mixed with pyro. Or you can use KCN if you take the copper one too far.

(Edited to KCN after Pdeeh already quoted my mistake

 

[pdeeh]

Appropriately named file, that one. Even the silver intensifier is mixed with pyro. Or you can use KSCN if you take the copper one too far.

and, I assume, it means pyrogallol rather than the slightly more benign pyrocatechol.

Of course, in the UK, at one time (I'm not quite sure when it stopped), it was perfectly possible to pop into your local pharmacy and purchase a wide range of deadly poisons including (but not restricted to) arsenic, cyanide and mercury compounds, thallium and strychnine. One only had to be known to the pharmacist, have a "reasonable" reason for purchase and sign "the poisons book".

 

[Jim Noel]

Thanks to you both. So chromium would work better than bleaching and redeveloping in something like Polymax T? Is dichromate bleach the stuff in the sepia kits? There is plenty of detail in the negs, but overall density and contrast are low.

Chromium intensifier increases the grain size by clumping. FIlm developers such as D-76 or HC-110 do a better job with bleach and redevelop. I believe potassium dichromate is likely to be the one included in a sepia kit. At any rate, it will work for bleaching and redeveloping.
If as you say there is detail in the negatives, but they are thin, I would use sepia toner which can give up to a 2 stop increase in highlight density, and some increase overall.

 

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE="Jim Noel, post: 1936609, member: 5558"
If as you say there is detail in the negatives, but they are thin, I would use sepia toner which can give up to a 2 stop increase in highlight density, and some increase overall.[/QUOTE]
There is a chapter about neg intensification in Tim Rudman's book on toning where he tries various methods and his conclusion is the same as yours, Jim. Sepia wins by quite a lot. He gives examples of each method on the same negative if I recall correctly. It might just be the reproduction in the book but I had difficulty reconciling the negs to the results but I am sure this was the quality of the reproduction or my eyesight and not a faulty conclusion by Tim

pentaxuser

 

[adelorenzo]

That's very interesting, I wonder if it used physical development. Was it hydroquinone based?

I'm at home now and can grab my copy of the Darkroom Cookbook. I used Kodak IN-5 which uses silver nitrate, sodium sulfite, hypo and Metol. So yes there is a developing agent.

According to Anchell it gives "proportional intensification easily controlled by varying time of treatment."

 

[silvergelatin]

Chromium intensifier increases the grain size by clumping. FIlm developers such as D-76 or HC-110 do a better job with bleach and redevelop. I believe potassium dichromate is likely to be the one included in a sepia kit. At any rate, it will work for bleaching and redeveloping.
If as you say there is detail in the negatives, but they are thin, I would use sepia toner which can give up to a 2 stop increase in highlight density, and some increase overall.

Thanks. I'll try the chromium I ordered on a less important strip first and see how it goes. I certainly don't mind grain (hence the Rodinal), but sepia will be plan b.

 

[silvergelatin]

What "flavour" of Rodinal, please?

I believe it was Adonal.

 

[silvergelatin]

Good for you.

I started a thread on this subject ages ago and one person told me to forget trying to rescue the negs, just bin them and "put it down to experience". But I can't see how learning a new technique can be a bad thing, even if you don't get the results you hoped for. It adds to the arsenal of techniques we know, and even if never used again, expands our understanding.

You probably realise this already, but it's inevitable to lose a bit of sharpness and gain a bit of graininess when doing an intensifying bleach/redevelop (at least, that's what I experienced, so perhaps not "inevitable", but definitely possible).

Do please report back - if you can be bothered, with before/after pics of the negatives.

Thanks. I am definitely open to grain and general destruction, so I'll play around with it. This could open up a whole new can of worms.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Joining the conversation late here...

I've salvaged a lot of underexposed/underdeveloped negs by bleaching in a rehalogenating bleach and then redeveloping in a staining developer like PMK. The added stain increases both contrast and density. I've never tried chromium intensification; it may be better, maybe not. You might try several techniques on a few different negs and see what is the best for your situation.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Rudeofus]

Doremus, did you lose shadow detail during rehal bleach step? If not, which bleach formula did you use?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Hi Rudi,

I use a conventional potassium ferricyanide/potassium bromide rehalogenating bleach. The exact proportions don't seem to be critical, but I use 15g potassium ferricyanide + 15g potassium bromide per 1 liter of water. I bleach to completion, rinse, then redevelop in PMK (all with lights on, of course). I've always seen an increase in shadow detail using this method, which is gratifying when I've underexposed a bit.

There is really no reason why this method should cause a loss of shadow detail, because all the silver is being rehalogenated. With a Farmer's reducer formula, or any bleach that contains Na thiosulfate, I would imagine that there would be fixing out of some of the silver, so it's probably best to steer clear of them for bleach/redevelop of negs to increase density/contrast.

Best,

Doremus