Well I screwed that up...

[bryans_tx]

Shot a roll of HP5+ 400 at a manual ISO of 100. lol!
looks like there are a few developers that could work.

D76 probably best bet ? short storage though.
HC110....
rodinal or its rollei variant...
looking for economy too.
Have D23. on hand. there is a speed of 200 listed.

I just wonder what to expect.

 

[Rick A]

D-76 1+1 for 6 minutes at 68f
HC 110 dilution H for 6.5 minutes at 70f

 

[Sirius Glass]

XTOL and develop as listed in the Kodak datasheet.

 

[ic-racer]

Two stops, not too bad.
I once shot 4 sheets of 8x10 film (a whole day's work) reading the LOW rather then HIGH numbers on the meter. The scales are separated by 5 stops. So the HP5 negatives were 5 stops over exposed. I did not know it at the time, so I used my usual developer and development time. The negatives all made acceptable prints.

 

[AnselMortensen]

There is a story told about a time Judy Dater and Imogen Cunningham were out photographing together....
(paraphrasing, here...)

Judy: Darn! (or something to that effect)

Imogen: What's wrong?

Judy: Wrong exposure.

Imogen: Sssh! Sometimes the film doesn't know!

 

[Craig]

Ilford reccomends Perceptol for 9 min at 20°C for HP5 exposed at 100.

 

[Autonerd]

I prefer HP5 in D76... I find it comes out a little flatter when I use HC-110. IMHO Dilution B development time is a little too short, and with Dilution H, I don't hit the min amount of developer in a single-reel tank. Been meaning to try XTol but have not gotten around to it.

Aaron

 

[MattKing]

Perceptol or any other speed reducing developer.

 

[mshchem]

Shot a roll of HP5+ 400 at a manual ISO of 100. lol!
looks like there are a few developers that could work.

D76 probably best bet ? short storage though.
HC110....
rodinal or its rollei variant...
looking for economy too.
Have D23. on hand. there is a speed of 200 listed.

I just wonder what to expect.

It's nothing to worry about. Depending on how you determined exposure, might be perfect

 

[otto.f]

Ilford reccomends Perceptol for 9 min at 20°C for HP5 exposed at 100.

That’s my experience too: Perceptol, very smooth grey tones. Actually, now that she’s mentioned, the Cunningham style, at least the book about her garden.

 

[Huub]

Just develop as you would normally. Reducing development time will reduce contrast in the negatives, which can lead to all sorts of issues when printing.

Two stops overexposure is well within in the latitude of the film. A couple of years back i shot HP5+ while i metered for Polaroid 55, which i rated 25 iso. The negatives were dense, had plenty of shadow detail and were still printable, albeit the printing times were quite long.

 

[foc]

Judy: Wrong exposure.

Imogen: Sssh! Sometimes the film doesn't know!

Very true for most films

 

[pentaxuser]

If you want to use one of your existing developers, I'd have thought that D23 was the best bet. The time at 200 may be slightly too long but perhaps someone here can advise what reduction you might safely apply

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Not knowing what kind of subject brightness ranges you have on that roll, and exposing at EI 100 (which is only a stop more than normal for me, so not a biggy), I would go for soft development. D-23 1+1. Agitate constant for first 30 seconds, then a couple of inversions every couple minutes. I'd do 10 minutes total development time, 20C.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I would develop as you normally would, unless it was a very contrasty scene. Your negative will be dense no matter what you do, but by developing normally the contrast will still come out correct. You will gain a bit more separation in the shadows, but that can be adjusted when printing, if you feel you need to.

 

[bernard_L]

I would develop as you normally would, unless it was a very contrasty scene.

+1.

There is this ever-enduring (internet, read, repeat) confusion between:

• (a) IF the scene is contrasty THEN you develop less to achieve a "normal" density range THEN you need to expose more. Correct, except applies if you fell in a spacetime glitch, it's 1953, and you have only Kodabromide #2.
• (b) IF you exposed more than minimum THEN you need to develop less. A wrong proposition, obtained by reversing (a) above.

I've mentioned this before: in The Craft of Photography, chapter 9, David Vestal exposed Tri-X at successively lower EIs down to 0.37 (zero point thirty seven). Sure, at EI25, one starts to notice some decrease in contrast; but even EI 0.37 seems usable. Note, however, that David Vestal printed all frames on #2 paper. Now, 50 years later, with the benefit of variable contrast papers, the difference between a frame at, say, EI=3 and one at EI=200 could be made minimal.

 

[bryans_tx]

thanks for the replies !
I will try the D23 suggestion. pretty broke $ lately, and the Perceptol, hmm storage life. I have quite a bit more of D23 chemicals to mix up.
there is probably only a few photos on the film that I might actually like anyway - subject wise, and some can be re-taken.
Perhaps I also have some latitude, since I DSLR scan.

This will be a good learning experience

 

[Donald Qualls]

I DSLR scan.

You probably have a better chance to pick up images from over-dense negatives than I would with my V850. Just in the last few days, I scanned a roll where I think i made the same mistake -- loaded .EDU Ultra 400 in my Mamiya 6, then came back to it weeks or months later and thought it was .EDU Ultra 100, and then developed normally for the film it actually was.

And I don't think it's the only time I've done this recently -- I've got another roll that's marked "N-2" which is probably due to the same error...

 

[bryans_tx]

I’m happy to report that; One, I used perceptol and two, I now have new job.. that pays fair, along with my SS, I can enjoy a bit more of this crazy avocation.
Should have some dslr scans later this Sunday