Developing, exposure, and zones.

[Lenny Eiger]

I say no. Many people do this when they are first learning the zone system. Usually its inside light with a window, and they want everything. Generally speaking, it doesn't work.

If you develop for the inside light, you are usually doing a N+1 or +2 development, in which case you blow out the window. If you develop to contain the window, then you do something like N-3. The window is there, but the light inside is so mushy and flat, it makes a very dead-looking print. Excessive burning also shows up - and it can be ugly. If you do some sort of scanning then you can shoot two negs, develop them differently, etc. However, after trying this a few times, most people just learn to point the camera somewhere else. (With all due respect.)

When it comes to interiors, others use lights to bring the lower values closer, or turn off the sconces to do the same....

Lenny

[Bill Burk]

Fortunately you compensated for reciprocity failure, so I would expect your shadow detail to be good.

I agree with Doremus' assessment, and it sounds like you do too.

Suppose you already developed since the weekend's almost past... But if you haven't - here is a logic game:

You did the right thing taking two shots!

I'd say since you plan anywhere between N-1 and N-2, the precision isn't important for the development time. Pick a number you are comfortable with, -15% is good as any.

Develop just one sheet.

Then try to print it. It might be just right.

This is where you may have heard the old adage "adjust as needed..." I find it is always hard to apply that advice in real life. But you have an opportunity here because you took two shots:

If you find while printing that you wished the negative was better for one reason or another, develop the second sheet accordingly. (If you wish you had more shadow detail - develop more :: if you wish you had less highlight density - develop less).

Now you know whether to develop the second shot "more" or "less" depending how hard the first shot is to print.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Fill flash from high behind the camera using an open tube or bulb.

[Leigh]

If you wish you had more shadow detail - develop more

Development time affects only highlights, not shadows.

This is a chemical reaction. It proceeds at the same rate throughout the emulsion.
It completes in areas of low density much sooner than in areas of high density.

The only way to increase shadow detail is to increase the exposure.

That's the whole reason for the old adage: "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

Development time affects only highlights, not shadows.

This is a chemical reaction. It proceeds at the same rate throughout the emulsion.
It completes in areas of low density much sooner than in areas of high density.

The only way to increase shadow detail is to increase the exposure.

That's the whole reason for the old adage: "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

- Leigh

True in general that you can't develop shadow density when exposure isn't sufficient.

But this advice is for this specific pair of negatives, identically exposed which I believe have satisactory shadow exposure.

The first neg is planned to be underdeveloped 15%. There is some risk that good, existing shadow exposure might not get developed, say some details reach 0.05 density and you wish for more. In that case you could develop the normal time and that same shadow might reach 0.10 density. (I'm looking over the toes of my 100 speed film family of curves, and see that potential change in the shadows).

[Leigh]

All "compensating" developers are designed to retain highlight detail. That's why they exist.

I use Rodinal, which is very good in this regard.

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

Leigh,

I agree with you there. I don't have experience with compensating developers so I rely on you for carrying out this part of the discussion...

It could have been the right thing - or could be - for the first negative, to try a compensating development.

And to finish my logic game, if you get shadows that are satisfactory but highlights that are too "hot" - listen to Leigh for the next negative.

[Leigh]

I don't have experience with compensating developers so I rely on you for carrying out this part of the discussion...
It could have been the right thing - or could be - for the first negative, to try a compensating development.

Hi Bill,

Rodinal is a compensating developer when used with prescribed (gentle) agitation and normal development times.
I guess the effect would be even more pronounced with stand development. I've never tried that.

- Leigh

[cyrus]

I'm really wanting to have details on those light, well lit walls on the sides so they aren't blown out.

Can using mask in the darkroom printing stage help?

[alavergh]

I'm not yet familiar with masking though I may be over complicating it. Chances are I'll be able to burn in the lights (not stained glass windows) but I just went ahead tonight at developed both sheets instead of doing one and see in how it prints.

I usually develop for 15 mins but instead I developed one for 9 and another for 12. After inspecting the negatives, I like the look of the 9min sheet, but haven't tried printing it of course. There are the standard bright patches, well, dark on the neg, and just slightly thinner on the 9 min than the 12 min.

I'll have to see if I can give pyrocat hd a try, though I don't have much in the line of beakers, etc for mixing too much. I did once mix a replica for rodinal after Agfa folded and that was enough for a while. I wouldn't be confident buying raw chemicals yet though.

When I get a print, I'll share it here to show how it went. I probably won't put a ton of work into it because my hobby budget limits the paper and film I can purchase.