undo underdeveloped negs?

[Steve M Hostetter]

Hello,,,

I have shot some Efke 25 and developed to film directions instead of developer recommendations..
I scanned negs and found them to have no contrast just flat overexposed looking ,, assume this is underdevelopment ...

The film directions recommend 6:00 min. w/ D-76 but doesn't mention how the D-76 is supposed to be mixed..

But anyway,, the D-76 is diluted at 1-15 says to go 12:00 min.

My question is,,, can I redevelop those that are under developed..?

thx

[Steve M Hostetter]

and also did I in fact under develop the film..?

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you diluted it 1-15, you most certainly underdeveloped, unless that's a typo. Normally D-76 is used straight, 1+1, or 1+3. If there's no dilution mentioned, then you would normally assume it's to be used straight.

If you've got good shadow detail on the negs but flat highlights, then it's underdevelopment. If you've got poor shadow detail, then it's underexposed.

If it's underdeveloped, try intensifying in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner 1+3, for about 8 min, and you should get about a one zone expansion in contrast.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Yes, the D-76 says to diluted 1-15 for times of around 12:00 min

[W K Longcor]

Yes, the D-76 says to diluted 1-15 for times of around 12:00 min

I would say that what-ever instructions said 1-15 was either a typo error or just plain WRONG>

[Steve M Hostetter]

If you diluted it 1-15, you most certainly underdeveloped, unless that's a typo. Normally D-76 is used straight, 1+1, or 1+3. If there's no dilution mentioned, then you would normally assume it's to be used straight.

If you've got good shadow detail on the negs but flat highlights, then it's underdevelopment. If you've got poor shadow detail, then it's underexposed.

If it's underdeveloped, try intensifying in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner 1+3, for about 8 min, and you should get about a one zone expansion in contrast.

selenium toner 1+3 = 8 min thx

[Steve M Hostetter]

ok,, one part dev. one part water got it.. I tossed the bottle so I can't check ,,, let me ask you this,,, is there a better developer for efke 25 film ?

[Brian Ellis]

Never heard of 1:15 for D76 and I used it for many years. Usually it's either undiluted or 1:1. I've heard of people diluting it as much as 1:3 but never anything like 1:15. 1:15 had to be a typo, maybe they meant 1:1.5. That's kind of strange too but it would a lot closer to correct than 1:15.

[PaulRicciardi]

Massive Dev Chart lists D76 at 1+3 for 10 minutes. That's for 35mm film, but should be close for sheet film too. Just try a sheet at 10 minutes, another at 12, and a third at 8 minutes. Should give you a right time.

Efke 25 takes nicely to a long stand development in Rodinal
I like 1:100 for an hour:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2952692292_c478661e9b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2949443743_5c82644fb3.jpg

[Andrew O'Neill]

For conventional developers, D-76 1+1 or Xtol 1+1 works great with Efke 25. Pyrocat-HD is tops. Make sure you rate the film at EI 16 for better shadow separation.

[Steve M Hostetter]

thx Paul, Andrew,David,WK, Brian,, heres a shot I developed with 1:15 dilution

[Steve M Hostetter]

.........

[Steve M Hostetter]

this is not efke 25 though it's the 4127 stock

[seawolf66]

Steve go to this web Site and you find all the info you need on D-76 :

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf

[Steve M Hostetter]

Thank you Lauren:)

[mandoman7]

I spent about 10 years in the last century shooting this film and that, pretty much going by how the results looked, never really going to the trouble of shooting test subjects and doing different dev. time tests. Looking back at the work, I get the feeling like I wasted some of the prime of my career.

Some developers are concentrates (Rodinal, HC110, PMK) where an ounce or two is used in 1 liter. Others (D76, D23, xtol) are used at full strength or 1 to 1. Nobody uses D76 as a concentrate, as has been attested in other posts.

More importantly, the times given by various sources are intended as a starting point for tests. Approximate times may be ok for roll film where the exposures and contrast ranges will vary from shot to shot. But with the time and energy involved in LF it makes more sense to nail the processes down to some degree.

The test should tell you where your real EI is, and what's happening to your highlights with the time and temp of your development. This is part of learning a craft and getting familiar with the tools. Many shooters have a target they set aside and use for new materials they want to test. BTZS and Hutching's publications both have good suggestions for testing procedures, even if you don't go with their main thesis.

Nobody's reading this I'm sure, but its good for me to clear the cobwebs a little...

The last point about the publications is something I could expand on forever, but won't. But photography is a craft that one needs to develop with a combination of research and personal testing, not just going by the printed info. Time and time again I've found that the published info about lenses or film just didn't coincide with what I was experiencing out in the field. Now with Google, you can read an authoritative commentator saying something about a film developer combination and its suddenly history. The point being, read but don't rely on manufacturers or pundits. Shoot & test!

JY

[Steve M Hostetter]

Hello JY,,, Thank you for taking the time and sharing your thoughts on the matter ! I am sticking around the house and (darkroom) shooting 2 frames then processing ... I'm experimenting with a #25 red filter for this film ...
Come to find out it was the D76 consentrate in the tall bottle I was using ...

[Caroline Matthews]

Do Brian's (aka Mr. 4,000+ posts) ever help? Someone has already indicated that 1:15 cannot be correct!!! Mostly they are just "Monday Morning Quaterbacking" with little useful content. Agree?


Never heard of 1:15 for D76 and I used it for many years. Usually it's either undiluted or 1:1. I've heard of people diluting it as much as 1:3 but never anything like 1:15. 1:15 had to be a typo, maybe they meant 1:1.5. That's kind of strange too but it would a lot closer to correct than 1:15.