What do you do when you forget to label your film?

[Ariston]

I have two rolls. Neither is labeled. I know one was shot at 1600, I don't know about the other. I usually shoot at either 400 or 1600.

Would you develop at 800 or 1600, or somewhere in between?

It is UFX 400, and I will be using HC110.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Diafine.

 

[MattKing]

What sort of lighting conditions?
If the lighting wasn't particularly contrasty for both of them, develop the first one at 1600.
Use the results to tell you how to develop the other.
Whatever you do at the development stage, the one shot at 1600 will have shadows that are under-exposed.

 

[peter k.]

I take it your referring to 35mm film?
One suggestion is don't develop the whole roll, sample a small portion of the roll, by cutting off a small section.

 

[Vaughn]

If one roll might have better images, develop both at that roll's ASA.

Edit due to delayed intellegence;

If one roll shot at an ASA might have better images (or less repeatable), develop one roll at that ASA. If it is the right roll, BINGO! If it is not, you'll still know how to best develop the next roll.

 

[Pieter12]

Depending on how many unique images are on the roll, you could do a snip test--cut a small amount of film, allowing at least the first frame to be included, and process that at the most probable ISO. Judge how much to cut by looking at other rolls run through the same camera. You can then assess and be able to process the remainder of the roll at the proper rating. You may lose a frame or two by cutting through a frame and if the initial test shows the rating you guessed was wrong.

 

[Bikerider]

I don't have a problem. The leader is always marked with a 'sharpie' what it is plus the ISO is always added too, especially with bulk load B&W.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I don't have a problem. The leader is always marked with a 'sharpie' what it is plus the ISO is always added too, especially with bulk load B&W.

I think most of us do something like that, one flavor or another of marking the film. But the question asks, what to do when you forget to mark your film? Or you're certain it's Tri-X, but you don't recall if you shot at EI 200, 400, 800, or 1600?

 

[removed account4]

Do you have any Dektol ?
I'd do both 1:6 for about 7 .. no, 8 1/2 minutes

 

[PFGS]

When I forget (or kinda don't care) I do a 1 hour stand in Rodinal 1:00, but that's probably more of a "at least I'll get images" solution, than a "get the best I images" solution.

 

[Ariston]

I have HC110, and some other powder developer (I’m not at home right now). I tried stand with HC110 once and it didn’t work out well. I may snip off the first frame of one, as suggested.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Cut the two rolls down the middle, develop the left side at 400 and the right side at 1600. Yup. Seriously, choose 400, 800 or 1600 and the film latitude will work for you. Now you may gain or lose shadows or gain or lose the high lights but most of the image would be there is some form.

 

[Vaughn]

Another thought is that given the latitude Sirius mentioned, if you are going to just go for one film first, try the 1600 time. You'll need that for pushing the 1600 rated roll, and if it is 400 or 800 it will just be a bit dense, but printable.

 

[Ariston]

Another thought is that given the latitude Sirius mentioned, if you are going to just go for one film first, try the 1600 time. You'll need that for pushing the 1600 rated roll, and if it is 400 or 800 it will just be a bit dense, but printable.

This was my first thought, but the latitude is good if developed for 400, but when I have over developed this film in the past it has been too dense for my v550.

I am curious if enlargers handle dense negatives better, because I screwed up some important images and they are too dense for me to recover with my scanner. I am working on setting up a darkroom, and I would love to be able to recover those shots.

 

[Vaughn]

Smallest I use is 120 film -- contrast that is 'too' high is what I want, so I guess I am biased. (platinum prints)

Masking might save those negs, but that is about all I know about it.

 

[MattKing]

I am curious if enlargers handle dense negatives better

Generalizing generally...
Enlargers and darkroom users have a bit more success with too dense negatives.
And scanners and digital users have a bit more success with too thin negatives.
Exceptions abound though.
This negative is really thin, displays well digitally, and prints very nicely with an enlarger.

 

[Bikerider]

I think most of us do something like that, one flavor or another of marking the film. But the question asks, what to do when you forget to mark your film? Or you're certain it's Tri-X, but you don't recall if you shot at EI 200, 400, 800, or 1600?

Put simply I DON'T forget! But there again I don't mess around with the ISO. That is what the manufacturer found by extensive testing to be the optimum, so why mess around with what they (who are the experts) have decided. If it ain't broke there is no need to fix it. I rarely stray away from Ilford FP4+ or Delta so I know what I am dealing with AT ALL TIMES!

 

[Agulliver]

Years ago when I first started using bulk rolled film, I took some 100 and 400 ASA films on a trip....and didn't think to label the cassettes. After the trip I wasn't quite sure which was which. Before I shot them the leaders looked different shades of grey so it wasn't difficult. I just didn't think that after, the leaders would be inside the cassettes.

I could have opened them in my dark bag and poked the leader through the slot. But what I did in the end was decide to develop both types in ID-11, allowing that one would be over developed slightly. Probably one stop. Within the film's latitude and in this case I wasn't worried about highlights.

Another occasion I had labelled my cassettes as HP5+ but I'd shot one at 1600 and the others at 400. I could not remember which and the 1600 ended up being under-developed. Since then I always put a green dot with a Sharpie or similar on my label if I've shot a film at a different speed to the expected "box" speed. If I use a factory roll, similar I use a sharpie to put a green dot for push, red dot for pull (which I rarely do).

 

[Ariston]

I put masking tape on the back of my camera with the film speed written on it so I know what I’m shooting. When I take the film out, I just pull off the tape and stick it on the cassette.

I don’t know what happened here. There’s a first time for everything. It surely won’t be my last mistake.

Thanks for the info, Matt. That gives me hope.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It surely won’t be my last mistake.

Not unless it kills you. Several good methods here, but I still like Diafine. I've gotten printable negatives with Tri-X in Diafine from EI 400 to 1600.

 

[Bill Burk]

Put simply I DON'T forget! But there again I don't mess around with the ISO. That is what the manufacturer found by extensive testing to be the optimum, so why mess around with what they (who are the experts) have decided. If it ain't broke there is no need to fix it. I rarely stray away from Ilford FP4+ or Delta so I know what I am dealing with AT ALL TIMES!

The other day I was scrambling for something to write with - pencil and ballpoint pen were all I had so I scribbled until it made a mark.

I have done a “half and half” where I had important bright sun shots (I had climbed a small mountain in bright daylight) and half dark indoors. The shorter time came out fine and the longer time (for darker scenes) came out fine too. Even the shot that was cut in half had a decent image of my good friend. It’s not going in his book or anything. I have another picture that I took of him that is going in his book.

 

[Lanline]

When I forget (or kinda don't care) I do a 1 hour stand in Rodinal 1:00, but that's probably more of a "at least I'll get images" solution, than a "get the best I images" solution.

My thoughts and process on this as well.

 

[pentaxuser]

The other day I was scrambling for something to write with - pencil and ballpoint pen were all I had so I scribbled until it made a mark.

Even the shot that was cut in half had a decent image of my good friend.

A pity but at least this didn't result in a split

pentaxuser

 

[Disconnekt]

Since youre using hc110, I'd say just develop both for 800 iso (7m 30seconds).
At least that way if anything the exposers wont be too off.

And I think the Xtreme films are lower quality versions of Ilfords HP films, seeing as the alot of the developing times for both films (in D76, Tmax, HC110,and F60) match up exactly/a few secods of each other.

 

[MattKing]

Actually...
The film you metered at EI 400 will be properly exposed.
The film you metered at EI 1600 will be two stops under-exposed.
It doesn't matter much what development you use - you won't be able to offset the two stops of under-exposure in the shadows for the EI 1600 film.
However:
If you develop at 400, the EI 400 film will be both properly exposed and will have correct contrast. At the same time, the EI 1600 film will be under-exposed by two stops, the shadows will have little or no detail and poor contrast, the mid-tones will have poor detail and muddy contrast and the highlights will have mid-tone like detail and contrast.
If you develop at 800, the EI 400 film will be properly exposed and will have extra contrast. At the same time, the EI 1600 film will be under-exposed by two stops, the shadows will have little or no detail and a bit better contrast, the mid-tones will have poor but slightly better detail and middle to good contrast and the highlights will have mid-tone like detail and higher contrast than the 400 developed contrast, which may or may not be good.
If you develop at 1600, the EI 400 film will be properly exposed and will have considerably more contrast - potentially too much contrast. At the same time, the EI 1600 film will be under-exposed by two stops, the shadows will have little or no detail but better contrast, the mid-tones will have poor and slightly better detail, but good contrast and the highlights will have mid-tone like detail and higher contrast than the 800 developed contrast, which may very well not be good.