This tried to do everything to NOT get printed!

[jcc]

I started out with Porta 160, for an hour-long exposure. Fine and dandy. Then I got home, and accidentally developed it with BW chemistry and temperature with ISO 400 film (was shooting with 3 different films during the trip, but stored exposed sheets in one box, and got mixed up in the dark — notches felt similar). Upon realizing my bumbling mistake, and letting out some expletives, I proceeded to hang the film to dry. The sheet slipped off the clothes pin and landed emulsion-side down on the gritty concrete — more expletives were unleashed. Needless to say, the film had way too much density — I couldn't even scan it! I went ahead and tried to print through it anyway. After 192 sec. at f/5.6, it finally made it to a 9"x6" print, and here it is:



Has anyone else made a similar fumble before?

 

[NedL]

It's unique! Sometimes these kinds of mistakes lead to something fun or new.

My story is not as interesting, but I just developed a roll of 135 FP4+ where most of the frames were blown out because the aperture blades on my lens were sticking. Last night on a whim I picked the most dense frame and tried to print it. A 5x7 print, it needed 50s green and 35s blue for a split grade print at f/2.8 -- and it probably could have used a little more high contrast blue exposure. A normal 5x7 print for my setup is around 20s green and 5s blue at f/8 ( my cold light is very blue. ) The result was grainy and not very nice, especially compared to yours, but it was a print. I was just amazed it was even possible to focus the enlarger. Some of the other frames will be out of focus from using hyperfocal and then not getting a small aperture, but I'll try to print a few more.

 

[jcc]

... The result was grainy and not very nice...

I have had the same as what you described with 135 film. That's why I didn't really want to enlarge this one as much.

 

[polyglot]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) of mine might be useful to you; there's a link to a Kodak PDF wherein you can bleach and redevelop the film and get it back to colour without the insane density. I haven't tried it yet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I started out with Porta 160, for an hour-long exposure. Fine and dandy. Then I got home, and accidentally developed it with BW chemistry and temperature with ISO 400 film (was shooting with 3 different films during the trip, but stored exposed sheets in one box, and got mixed up in the dark — notches felt similar).

I get much better results when I use the C-41 process on Kodak Porta rather than Black & White chemistry. YMMV

 

[ME Super]

That looks like a good picture to me, despite all the goofs. Well composed and with pretty good contrast. I especially like the glow around the tallest skyscraper in the photo.

 

[removed account4]

hi jcc

i have had similar problems but not the same.
many years ago i used to coat LARGE glass plates with
liquid light and coat the plate with gunk, then reapply liquid light
to various places and print more, you know, like a collage ..
then i would make a contact print of the glass plate .
one day, after recoating my best plate and having it sleep on the edge of my darkroom sink ...
it fell on the floor and shattered to a million pieces.
some were attached to eachother because of the emulsion, some because of the collodion or albumen, or rubber cement
or varnish or urethane or whatever else i painted the pane with ...
i picked a few pieces up, shook my head and said a few choice words to myself ( and outloud )
and then stuck a few shards into the head of my enlarger and began printing them ... it helped me turn the corner ...
i still have some pieces i take out once in a while they are hidden in an old 4x5 film box i have mixed in with my film
so i randomly find it ...

drastic problems lead to new things sometimes ..

i hope you have the same troubles again and next time STEP on the film when its on the concrete

nice photograph btw !
john

 

[jcc]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) of mine might be useful to you; there's a link to a Kodak PDF wherein you can bleach and redevelop the film and get it back to colour without the insane density. I haven't tried it yet.

Thanks for the link. The PDF is promising! I hope it also works for selenium-toned negatives (as thi. I might give it a shot on another sheet before I do it with this one.

 

[jcc]

I get much better results when I use the C-41 process on Kodak Porta rather than Black & White chemistry. YMMV

That would have been the easier route.

 

[jcc]

hi jcc

i have had similar problems but not the same.
many years ago i used to coat LARGE glass plates with
liquid light and coat the plate with gunk, then reapply liquid light
to various places and print more, you know, like a collage ..
then i would make a contact print of the glass plate .
one day, after recoating my best plate and having it sleep on the edge of my darkroom sink ...
it fell on the floor and shattered to a million pieces.
some were attached to eachother because of the emulsion, some because of the collodion or albumen, or rubber cement
or varnish or urethane or whatever else i painted the pane with ...
i picked a few pieces up, shook my head and said a few choice words to myself ( and outloud )
and then stuck a few shards into the head of my enlarger and began printing them ... it helped me turn the corner ...
i still have some pieces i take out once in a while they are hidden in an old 4x5 film box i have mixed in with my film
so i randomly find it ...

drastic problems lead to new things sometimes ..

i hope you have the same troubles again and next time STEP on the film when its on the concrete

nice photograph btw !
john

You just gave me a brilliant idea!!!

 

[jcc]

That looks like a good picture to me, despite all the goofs. Well composed and with pretty good contrast. I especially like the glow around the tallest skyscraper in the photo.

Thanks! It took a lot of trial and error, with mostly errors. The glow is probably due to the clouds that were passing around the top of the buildings.