Underexposed or underdeveloped?

[ericdan]

Are the Tri-X negatives below underexposed? They look thin compared to the HP5 above.
The edge markings being so thin makes me think the film was underdeveloped.

 

[Ian Grant]

Hard to say but I think the HP5 may be slightly over developed but under exposed and tht Tri-X fine.

Ian

 

[riverie]

Is your tri-x expired? Or maybe your chemical is already out and weak?

 

[ericdan]

Is your tri-x expired? Or maybe your chemical is already out and weak?

No, film was fresh and developer came from same bottle as the one used on the HP5.

 

[BenKrohn]

The film outside the image area may give you some clues. Comparing them against each other might not be the best course. Comparing them against other negatives may be better. The imprinting on the Ilford if very bold, where the Kodak is a little thin. I've not shot very much Kodak so I don't really not what to expect there, but the Ilford looks a lot like what I've seen on Ilford films. I would lean towards underdeveloped on the Kodak, or maybe more agitation is needed.

 

[BenKrohn]

Composition-wise I like the people in the foreground in the Ilford frames.

 

[cliveh]

Going by the edge numbers, I think the Tri-X was underdeveloped and possibly over exposed.

 

[LAG]

Are the Tri-X negatives below underexposed?...

Underdeveloped

 

[wiltw]

Underdeveloped Tri-X....judging by the density of the exposure numbers and the film type along the edges.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Tri-X need more development time.

 

[MattKing]

The Tri-X may very well print better/more easily than the HP5, and that is the most important test.

To me, the HP5 looks over-developed. I also note some edge fogging on the HP5, which might be contributing to how dense the edge printing there appears.

Edge printing is, IMHO, at best an inexact reference. Whether it is because of latent image fade (edge printing is exposed at time of manufacture, while your shots are exposed much later) or other factors, I have seen a lot of inconsistency with how edge printing appears in an otherwise properly exposed and developed negative.

 

[Ian Grant]

OP notice that Matt King and I differ significantly from the less experienced replies.

The exposures on the first and second Tri=X negatives are under-exposed, the correct exposure wiuld be between the 2nd and 3rd, development is about right. The HP5 is significantly over developed as can be seen in the first HP5 neg which is under exposed poor shadow detail but a burnt out sky. I think the HP5 would be awful to print (or scan).

Ian

 

[cliveh]

[QUOTE="Edge printing is, IMHO, at best an inexact reference. Whether it is because of latent image fade (edge printing is exposed at time of manufacture, while your shots are exposed much later) or other factors, I have seen a lot of inconsistency with how edge printing appears in an otherwise properly exposed and developed negative.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. Edge printing tells you a lot about development and some people wish to ignore this advice because they are following time/temperature development charts that are completely misleading for the actual development a film requires for normal density of edge numbers.

 

[ic-racer]

How do the tri-x negatives print? They have less contrast than the HP5 negatives, but may print fine on a condenser enlarger.

 

[MattKing]

[QUOTE="Edge printing is, IMHO, at best an inexact reference. Whether it is because of latent image fade (edge printing is exposed at time of manufacture, while your shots are exposed much later) or other factors, I have seen a lot of inconsistency with how edge printing appears in an otherwise properly exposed and developed negative.

I beg to differ. Edge printing tells you a lot about development and some people wish to ignore this advice because they are following time/temperature development charts that are completely misleading for the actual development a film requires for normal density of edge numbers.[/QUOTE]
Clive:
I've definitely seen examples of well exposed and well developed negatives where two different rolls of the same type of film, developed in the same tank, have exhibited different edge printing density.
The edge printing is often exposed years before the rest of the image. Latent images do change over time, particularly with film that goes through temperature variations.
In addition, two different films, from two different manufacturers, may very well have two different "standard" edge printing densities. There may also be variation within the same film from batch to batch.
Ilford themselves recently had problems with the placement of the edge printing on some rolls, because the edge printing machine needed adjustment (which confirms to me that it can be adjusted).
The edge printing density is not irrelevant, but it is certainly not determinative.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Eric, it depends what you want from the neg. A lot of people prefer overexposed and underdeveloped negs. If that is what you are going for then no, the Tri-X in not underdeveloped. Personally, I prefer some meat in the neg so the HP-5 negs look better to me. I tend towards overexposure and overdevelopment (according to nominal standards). That is the difference between Ansel Adams and Morimoto. It just depends what you like. I guess what I am saying is "maybe".

 

[LAG]

Tri-X need more development time.

... or agitation, ... or temperature ... (if chemical status and dilution are out of the question, what seems to be the case), anyway it would be the best assistance if ericdan tells us how both films were processed.

Edge printing tells you a lot about development ...

I agree

I've definitely seen examples of well exposed and well developed negatives where two different rolls of the same type of film, developed in the same tank, have exhibited different edge printing density.
The edge printing is often exposed years before the rest of the image...

We're talking about fresh film here

...Personally, I prefer ...

Both, Exposure and development are personal decision or taste, but film has a lot to say about, on both.

 

[MattKing]

I interpret "fresh" film as meaning film that has not yet reached and is not close to its "develop before date". All my comments about the variability of edge printing density apply to that sort of film.
In the OP's situation, where two different films from two different manufacturers are involved, the edge printing density isn't a reliable indicator.

 

[Tony Egan]

Edge development is not to be trusted! Trust in standard contact proof printing - minimum time for maximum black. I generally do this with grade 1 for 35mm film as contrast, in general, should increase as enlargement increases.

 

[ericdan]

Tony, interesting that you mentioned that.
I had trouble getting the tones right when printing both HP5 and Tri-X on Adox MCC110. I usually find min time for max blacks on grade 2 with test strips. Then I print the entire frame with that time. My pictures on both films were always too dark. I know I can use contrast filters or expose for less, but I think that I think that would just squeeze tones of the film.
The above negs were an attempt to see if I need to expose the film differently. I set the meter to 400 and shot, 0, +1, +2, -1, -2.

 

[LAG]

Excuse me

Edge printing is an indicative, while it is also the lack of detail of the (solidly) exposed silver, and the behavior of the film base as well (not to mention the importance of fixing in the result, - they are all related -). Of course there are better ways or tests to control (before and after) but even when doing the printing process there is a satisfactory level of development (& fixing). Anyway, it is the negative the important thing, not only because (and it's been said and repeated above) is not the same thing, printing an underexposed or an overexposed negative, but because in this (OP) case, the question is about the Tri-X negative, toMHO.

Compare both negatives, to find a final conclusion, it is also a huge mistake.

Does anyone here in APUG care about the negative? or is it the Printing the center of the World?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Eric,

Make prints! Evaluate shadow detail (not enough = underexposed) and contrast. Needing a very high contrast grade = underdevelopment or underexposure. If your shadow detail and blacks are good, but you need a lot of contrast, then increase your development time so you are printing at an intermediate contrast for the bulk of your negatives of "normal" scenes.

Really, as long as you have the desired shadow detail, you can make good prints from all those negatives by simply adjusting paper contrast or switching from diffusing to condenser head.

Doremus

 

[Tony Egan]

I'd like to think it's called a proof sheet because it proves how good your neg is! I usually avoid doing lots of testing and keeping painstaking records but I do have standard contact proof sheet times for the films I use regularly. TX400 for many years, FP4 & HP5 and most recently TMY. If you are bracketing and do you proof sheeting consistently you can learn a lot about which negative to select first for enlargement. I can also usually guess fairly well which filter to start with. In my experience the edge marking on Kodak film is a bit insipid and I have seen it vary visibly across one roll of film. The Ilford markings are quite bold and possibly a bit more reliable as a guide to development accuracy. Your example is something of a case in point even though I agree with others that the TX looks a little underdeveloped (if you were using the same exposure, in the same camera, with the same lens and equivalent light!)

Do you have a standard approach to multigrade printing? e.g. time for the whites, filters for the blacks? With this approach you do test strips on the brightest area to get the time right for highlights and use MG filters to adjust contrast starting with grade 1 or 1.5 and working up from there.( a bit more complex if you have a color head) Or potentially an overall grade 5 burn if a bit of extra contrast needed. As I often do a final selenium tone the blacks will also get an extra punch in this final stage.

 

[Tony Egan]

Just had to provide evidence to back myself up. Notice on the 2012 TX400 how the edge markings fade within 3 frames. No doubt there was plenty of exposure and development! I have noticed in particular with TX400 the declining usefulness of edge markings in the last 5-10 years. Also a lesson in how films, technology and quality control etc. change over time. Not buying much TX400 these days and trying to make TMY and Ilford work for me.

 

[ericdan]

In my case it was the developer or developing time.
I developed part of the same roll in Microphen 1:1 and the edge markings look normal.
It seems that 9.75 minutes in D-76 at 400ISO is not enough.
Another thing I noticed since I bracketed the shots, is that Microphen 1:1 gives me about one more stop.
I used the same technique of finding minimum time for maximum blacks at filter 2. Then I exposed all frames using that time.
Tri-X shot at 800 looked and printed the best.