What have I done. overdevelopment question

[jmailand]

I just overdeveloped a 35mm roll of efke25 by mistake. I developed it in (agfa) rodinal 1:25 dilution at the 1:50 time, 8 mins versus 4 mins. Maybe the only saving grace is because of the heat in my house my starting temperature was around 66.5 Deg. instead of 68 Deg. I did this thinking that the temperature would rise during development and the lower starting point would be a compensation. I've compensated temp like this before with good results. I realize that I have raised the contrast of the negative. I'm just wondering how much in fine grain and image detail have I lost by doing this. What contrast level should I start when printing from these negatives. I normally start 2.5 should I start at 1 or 0. I'm kinda aiming this question at the film/developing gurus out there. I just want to know this for my own reference so I have a better understanding of film developing from a technical view.

Here's the tech info of just exactly what I did for reference.
efke 25 shot at 20EI with a yellow 15 filter on a Canon t70 ,wide angle meter setting.
Picture were mostly of waterfalls and lakes.
Developed at agfa rodinal 1:25 8 mins at 66.5 deg. in a warm (77deg) humid room.

Any replies would be appreciated.

 

[rbarker]

You've lost 27.3057878% of your detail

Just kidding. Actually, there's no way for any of us to predict the specific effect of the over-development. There are too many other variables to consider. The only thing to do is to print some of the negatives to see what you've got.

 

[jmailand]

I calculated 27.3057877%. I must have done something wrong.

I'm kinda asking a general question on what does drastic overdevelopment normally do to film versus normal development and then how should one go about printing from such a negative. I was just being specific in the details of what I did when I developed the film incase anybody giving a reply to my question wanted them.

Thanks James.

 

[Ole]

That's not "drastic overdevelopment". I think it should be possible to make good prints on G1 to 1.5, although it may require a lot of burning and dodging.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, you won't have lost any image detail at all -- it's extremely unlikely that the highlights go off the end of the curve, or even hit the shoulder -- but the grain will be coarser and of course you'll need soft paper for printing. Overall, it's hardly a major disaster.

Once, for a book I was doing, I processed a set of negatives at half and double the 'normal' time (plus 'normal', making 3 to a set). Each was also exposed in three ways, 'normal', over and under (just 1 stop each way, as I recall). All 9 were printable.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Donald Qualls]

One option is reduction of the negatives. Farmer's Reducer can be used to recover negatives that have been overdeveloped, though I'd certainly try printing with a low contrast level first. My experience agrees with Roger's, that you're unlikely to produce unprintable negatives using 1:25 at the 1:50 time (the lower temperature is like developing around 8-10% less, just reduces the error).

FWIW, I once processed a roll intended for a one-stop pull (TMY loaded in a simple camera, shot in dull conditions but not dull enough to call for ISO 400 in a camera originally made for ISO 50 equivalent), reading teaspoons for ml on the syringe when measuring the HC-110 concentrate -- meaning I used *five times* as much as I should have; instead of pulling 1, I figure I pushed two. The negatives are a little, um, strong, but they're still printable (within the limitations of a lens that would probably be improved by smashing it out and replacing with a pinhole, that is).

 

[nworth]

One option is reduction of the negatives. Farmer's Reducer can be used to recover negatives that have been overdeveloped, though I'd certainly try printing with a low contrast level first. ...

During my recent troubles with overdevelopment (I glad to say I think I now have that under control), I tried reduction, and I was very disappointed with the results. If you have any reasonable kind of image, you can usually do better by just printing with a very low contrast filter (e.g. 0, 00, or a No. 12 yellow even). It may take a very long time to penetrate the negative density, however. With negatives that are not hugely overdeveloped, low contrast printing should be the first choice. Reducers were mostly in fashion before variable contrast papers. Modern variable contrast papers often have great potential for low contrast, and they have enough speed to allow you to print though the density. Very slight chemical reduction may be an option if you need to nudge the negative into the paper's range, but it shoud be a last resort. Large amunts of reduction are likely to ruin the negative.

 

[jmailand]

Thanks,

Thanks for the replys, I'll print the negatives and see what I get. If any of them look good I'll post the results.

James,