Dense Negative

[Doremus Scudder]

Although Bruce is right about extreme overexposure blocking up the highlights, I don't agree with him about reducing development. Furthermore, most modern films will take 3-4 stops of overexposure before the highlights start to be affected. A shutter running a bit slow is not going to overexpose them that much at all. Extra density just means you'll have to expose longer. I have a couple of "mistakes" that proper proof blank white, but still make stunning prints.

Reducing development will reduce contrast, which you likely do not want. Print a neg and see how it does. And send your shutter in for a CLA...

Best,

Doremus

[Bruce Watson]

...most modern films will take 3-4 stops of overexposure before the highlights start to be affected.

Depends on how you define "modern" maybe. I wouldn't classify FP4+ as a modern film. The troubles I had with Tri-X (an equally un-modern film) with highlight densities less than 3.0 were... interesting. Enough to convince me that those experiments weren't going to be successful.

The thing is, as density rises light scatter due to Callier Effect also rises. And photographic papers don't expect (and therefore don't compensate for) the resulting compression of highlight values from denser than normal "overexposed" negatives. If you hold all things constant except for negative exposure, and print the results (say a "normal" negative and one that is three stops over exposed), and print them as best you can to make them equivalent, people will tend to like the one from the normal negative more. I don't know why; I think it may be because of the better linearity in the highlights, but measuring that would take far more time and effort than I'm willing to throw at it. Still, this is perhaps why I've heard and read quite a few times over the years that one wants just enough density to print well, and no more. I'm thinking that St. Adams was one of the ones to say that, and he spent much more time and effort understanding negative exposure than I can even consider doing. Can't find a quote on that though, so IDK.

[AuditorOne]

I have stopped any further development of my 8x10 negatives until I have the chance to do some printing this weekend. I'll have more concrete information to report by then.

[Vaughn]

If those dense negatives need more snap, a light bleaching will do that. Farmers Reducer. Don't practice on important images!

[Jim Noel]

"The ideal, if there is one for a negative, is just enough density to let you easily print it using whatever process you are printing with. No more. So yes, by all means, reduce your development time to obtain a more reasonable highlight density."

Highlight density and overall density are two different things caused by two different things. The respondent seem to be talking about overall density, not highlight density. Reduction in exposure is the effective manner of reducing overall density.

[Bruce Watson]

Highlight density and overall density are two different things caused by two different things. The respondent seem to be talking about overall density, not highlight density. Reduction in exposure is the effective manner of reducing overall density.

Yeah, well, the exposures have been made already. Unless you know of a way to reduce exposure after the fact. The only useful thing I can offer after the fact is to reduce development time to pull the contrast index down and make the resulting negative more printable.

[AuditorOne]

Jim, you are absolutely right. I am pretty sure these negatives have been overexposed. I am taking steps to correct that side of the equation but now I need to do what I can to recover these negs as well as I can. I am going to try reducing my time on the next one.

...and Vaughn, I had not thought of trying Farmer's Reducer. I may give that a shot on one of them that have already been developed. Thanks for the idea.