Thin negatives: underexposed or underdevelopped

[dancluff]

Hello,
I still have much to learn in developing film. The other day I developed some Delta 100 in HC-110. I developed for 5:40 minutes and I tried using minimal agitation because the scenes were high contrast scenes. When metering the scenes I used a handheld light meter and metered the shadows. I then adjusted my shutter speeds to place the shadows one to two stops underexposed. I believe my light meter is reading accurately (it gives me 1/iso at f16 on a bright sunny day at noon). The questions I have are do these negatives look like they were properly developed but underexposed? Without sufficient agitation can I lose density in the midtones and end up with a thin negative? For a high contrast scene (dappled light in a forest what would be the best way to properly expose and develop the negatives? As a side note I have not fully ruled out inaccurate shutter speeds based on a few other negatives. I will have to start writing down all this information, it is too hard to remember after the fact!
Thanks for ant thoughts you may have
Dan

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They are underexposed. Have you done an EI test to confirm your working ISO? When I used Delta 100 sheet film, my EI was 64. How long was the exposure for the two examples? If a second or longer, did you compensate for reciprocity?

Without sufficient agitation can I lose density in the midtones and end up with a thin negative? For a high contrast scene (dappled light in a forest what would be the best way to properly expose and develop the negatives?

You can lose density in the mid tones, but more in the shadows, especially if you didn't give enough exposure when giving less agitation (such as stand/semi-stand development). How often did you agitate?
If it were me, I'd expose important shadow detail high, like on zone IV or V, then give minus development. I like working with Pyrocat-HD, because I don't have to decrease development as much as with a conventional developer. If you are working with HC-110, try higher dilutions and very generous exposure to the shadows.

 

[dancluff]

Andrew thanks very much for the information. I have not done an EI test to confirm my working ISO. As for the exposure time, likely they were close to 1 to 2 seconds and I did not take reciprocity into account. I will need to read up a bit more on those. As for agitation I agitated 30 s initially and the 10 seconds at 2 minutes and four minutes.
So my take away here is 1) get a handle on the proper EI for delta given my developing procedure. 2) Learn some more about reciprocity and at what times it occurs and finally 3) in high contrast scenes give more exposure but less development.
Is that about right?
Again thanks for your response
Dan

 

[dancluff]

Thanks, that is great information. I still have one roll left to develop. Given I likely did not provide extra exposure in that roll is it too late to try and reduce the contrast in the film? I guess I am wondering should I a) develop following my regular procedure with dilution B, b) use dilution H for the normal time (for dilution H so about 2x dilution B) with some reduced agitation, or c) use dilution H with the normal time and normal agitation schedule for dilution H?
I guess no matter what results I will learn something from it going forward so I am pleased with that. As you mentioned experimentation (and mistakes) will be the only way to really get a handle on it.
Dan

 

[MattKing]

Before you do anything else, you should try printing from the negatives you already have.

I shoot a lot in forested areas.

The negative for this shot looks similar in some ways to the negatives you show.

Ironically, it was shot when I was out shooting with Andrew O'Neill.

 

[Hatchetman]

Am I the only one who just shoots at box speed and develops per the directions on the label? I rarely if ever have had a problem doing that.

 

[bernard_L]

IMO problem is of larger magnitude than ISO 64 versus ISO 100. Most discussions on exposure focus on the ISO, which is meaningless per se if the metering method is not mentioned.

Measure significant (that you feel play a role in the image as you visualize it) shadows, and place them in ZIV.

 

[dancluff]

Thanks for all the replies. I definitely have some usable shots on the roll so that is good. I will take a look at what I have as far as printing is concerned. In the future I will remember to put the shadows that I need at least some level of detail in, in zone IV.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Dan,

How did you meter the scene? Incident or reflected? If you took an incident reading and then underexposed two stops you'd be in real trouble.

For this kind of scene I would take an incident reading in the shadows, use that exposure and then give it the Diafine treatment. I shoot that way on the beach and always get nice full negs with plenty of shadow detail.

Personally I always try to have a neg that's nice and rich in the shadows but perhaps a bit flat overall. Much easier to sneak up on the contrast by using a higher grade of paper than to try and compensate for a crispy neg by using a 00 filter.

I do agree that you should try and make some prints with the negs you have. You will learn quite a bit.

 

[fotch]

Am I the only one who just shoots at box speed and develops per the directions on the label? I rarely if ever have had a problem doing that.

I do the same. The KISS theory.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, box speed works for some. I can shoot Ilford SFX at 200 and it looks great. I like to place shadows way up on the scale as I prefer them full of light. I'll then also have the option of printing them down if required and not lose detail.

Matt, we'll have to get together. Sorry, but bathroom reno's have been occupying most of my time, and an endless stream of relatives dropping in. Sister is dropping by with her 2 daughters and 3 nieces for the PNE this weekend...oh, and I still have a pile of film to develop from my trip to Duncan and Victoria last week.

 

[dancluff]

I want to thank everyone for their input on this. I have learned quite a bit from this or at least what I have read before has become more real and I understand it better.
Parker - it was with an incident meter and I am starting to understand the pros/cons vs a reflective meter.
Matt - that is an very nice print you have. I will have to work my negs to see what I can produce with them.
Thanks again

 

[timor]

You may try 2-3 minutes borax afterbath to get more compensation. With Delta maybe sodium carbonate bath.