Three stops overexposed FP4+

[Steve Goldstein]

The moron operating my camera this morning neglected to close down the lens to the taking aperture for one holder, with the result being that my N-2 exposures on FP4+ were overexposed by 3 stops. I'd like to try to salvage the negatives, not because they're great art (Moonrise Over Hernandez they ain't) but as an experiment and an opportunity to learn.

Any suggestions on development time relative to that of properly exposed negatives? I use Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 in trays if that matters.

I've had a long talk with my assistant and he promises never to do such a stupid thing again. Fortunately there was nobody around to see me talking to myself.

[Michael R]

Develop the way you normally would have. You can't correct for overexposure by changing contrast.


The moron operating my camera this morning neglected to close down the lens to the taking aperture for one holder, with the result being that my N-2 exposures on FP4+ were overexposed by 3 stops. I'd like to try to salvage the negatives, not because they're great art (Moonrise Over Hernandez they ain't) but as an experiment and an opportunity to learn.

Any suggestions on development time relative to that of properly exposed negatives? I use Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 in trays if that matters.

I've had a long talk with my assistant and he promises never to do such a stupid thing again. Fortunately there was nobody around to see me talking to myself.

[Ulophot]

Steve, I like your sense of humor. It's always a valuable companion at times like this. I've had to confront my assistant a few times, too.

I'm not a Pyro user, but in principle I would tend to agree with Michael, since you had already planned N-2. The additional exposure the lowest values received will be less affected than the high ones, as you know, and trying to compress the negative further with development may not get you very far in this case. Perhaps others with more overexposure experience and Pyro knowledge will suggest otherwise.

I would only add that FP4 may still get you in range of your intentions, with some careful printing. In my experience, it doesn't block up quickly at the high end.

[Greg]

I also have mistakenly overexposed by 3 plus stops on a couple of occasions, and also was using FP4 plus. I processed the film in Diafine and the resulting negatives were totally printable. I don't especially like Diafine as my "normal" go to developer, but when I've overexposed a negative, I have no problem using Diafine.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would as suggested, develop as you intended. The shadow area(s) (without me knowing what they are), will be quite buoyant... Pyrocat-HD is great at taming high values.

[Jim Noel]

Pyrocat HD will do the best job possible with these negatives. Give it a go at your expected time and temperature.!!

[Michael Wellman]

If you go by the old rule of expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights I would think you would want to do less developing. At the very least a N-2, that may be what some of the others were suggesting when they said to develop normally. I would be a little more aggressive and do at least a N-3 or N-4 development. You will definitely benefit from using Pyrocat. Let us know how it works out

[Steve Goldstein]

I developed them N-2 which was the "normal" development I had planned when I made the exposures. They are certainly dense! I don't think I'll be able to start working with them for a few weeks, but will follow up.

[John Layton]

Sorry to chime in too late...but as Michael W. also suggested - I'd have pulled back on development time...by about twenty five to thirty percent - and if the subject brightness range was high, I then would have also agitated a bit more gently/less frequently.

[Randy]

I once shot with empty film holders - talk about under exposed.

[Bernice Loui]

Shake the film holder before packing any film holder with the camera outfit.

Bernice



I once shot with empty film holders - talk about under exposed.

[Steve Sherman]

Develop the way you normally would have. You can't correct for overexposure by changing contrast.

Absolutely FALSE...and is the main reason I don't frequent these forms any longer, lots or photographers who like to type. I just coached another photog thru the exact opposite circumstances, yet the copied text below is the same answer for your dilemma. Copied from my email to him.

The way to approach this with the best opportunity for printable negs is to use a compensating development technique. I would not use something like HC 110, if you don’t want to try the Pyro (PyroCat) developer then use the TMax developer in a significantly dilute ratio and extended period of development time. What happens is, in very dilute developer the higher exposed areas use up the developer rather quickly and can no longer continue to add density. The low values however will continue to use the dilute developer until it is exhausted, another agitation cycle begins the entire process again. you may need to repeat this re-agitation step 6-8 times with no agitation for at least 2, possibly 3 minutes. This is why there is a need for extended development times, so the shadows have a chance to completely develop while the highlights are suppressed to a lower density than they would attain if processed normally.
Try and keep the total processing time under 30 minutes, 20-25 minutes is a good starting point. Naturally, the dilution of the developer will dictate the total amount of processing time.

What you don’t want to do is over process the film in the hopes of slightly increasing the density of the shadows while the highlight density goes to a point of being unprintable, that is what would happen if the developer were to used at its NORMAL STRENGTH. Also, Selenium toning the negative only spreads the shadows and highlights farther apart with little to no impact on the shadows, so that is not an option.

Multi-contrast papers will be your friend in this scenario as the denser parts of the neg can be printed with Green or low contrast light while the shadows can be carefully printed with higher contrast light in the hopes of maximizing the relationships in the darker areas. That will require very exact exposure when printing so as not to print too dark. In short, you want as much density in the low values as possible while keeping the highlight density below what you ordinarily process the film too. The MC papers again will produce the desired contrast in the print. All that said, there’s no magic bullet to put information on the neg that was not captured at the time of exposure.

[Steve Sherman]

Develop the way you normally would have. You can't correct for overexposure by changing contrast.

Absolutely FALSE...and is the main reason I don't frequent these forms any longer, lots or photographers who like to type. I just coached another photog thru the exact opposite circumstances, yet the copied text below is the same answer for your dilemma. Copied from my email to him.

The way to approach this with the best opportunity for printable negs is to use a compensating development technique. I would not use something like HC 110, if you don’t want to try the Pyro (PyroCat) developer then use the TMax developer in a significantly dilute ratio and extended period of development time. What happens is, in very dilute developer the higher exposed areas use up the developer rather quickly and can no longer continue to add density. The low values however will continue to use the dilute developer until it is exhausted, another agitation cycle begins the entire process again. You may need to repeat this re-agitation step 6-8 times with no agitation for at least 2, possibly 3 minutes. This is why there is a need for extended development times, so the shadows have a chance to completely develop while the highlights are suppressed to a lower density than they would attain if processed normally.
Try and keep the total processing time under 30 minutes, 20-25 minutes is a good starting point. Naturally, the dilution of the developer will dictate the total amount of processing time.

What you don’t want to do is over process the film in the hopes of slightly increasing the density of the shadows while the highlight density goes to a point of being unprintable, that is what would happen if the developer were to be used at its NORMAL STRENGTH. Also, Selenium toning the negative only spreads the shadows and highlights farther apart with little to no impact on the shadows, so that is not an option.

Multi-contrast papers will be your friend in this scenario as the denser parts of the neg can be printed with Green or low contrast light while the shadows can be carefully printed with higher contrast light in the hopes of maximizing the relationships in the darker areas. That will require very exact exposure when printing so as not to print too dark. In short, you want as much density in the low values as possible while keeping the highlight density below what you ordinarily process the film too. The MC papers again will produce the desired contrast in the print.

[Michael R]

Incorrect. OP is dealing with an overexposure error. The exposure range has been shifted up the curve. The goal would be to preserve the density range (ie contrast) in the developed negative, and in particular, prevent flattening or loss of highlight contrast. Compensating development is pretty much the opposite of what one wants in an overexposure scenario.

[Jim Noel]

I'm with Steve. Stay as close to normal as possible for decent results!

[Bernice Loui]

Farmer's Reducer...


Bernice

[Steve Sherman]

Clearly there are many ways to achieve an end result. What so few of us seem to understand, indeed, myself being raised on the Adams Zone System of exposure and "Developing contrast into the Negative" by way of density is that negative design was necessary because of "Single graded Papers". Multi-Contrast papers have changed, dramatically changed the way a negative, can, and in my opinion should be designed. The need to build contrast into the negative when using MC papers actually diminishes the flexibility of the end print. The contrast index of MC papers is significantly higher than the contrast increasing properties of negative density. Good adequate exposure and reduced highlight density will lead to the most dynamic range capabilities of the final print. See this long, but in depth article on UnBlinkingEye's website here: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.html If you don't have the time to read the article, watch this video about the manner in which I design negatives, and that philosophy speaks directly to the OP issue of over exposure, and BTW, not that significantly over exposed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNVOTCrQjTc

[Bernice Loui]

Thank you Steve for posting this.

"To take full advantage of Single Grade papers the negative densities had to be very specific to produce the desired tonal relationships in the final print rendering."

~Back in them days, this mandates making a negative that fits well into paper grades between 2 to 3 for a "GOOD" print.

~This is overly under appreciated today IMO due to scanning then "bending" via software sliders.. what tends to be the norm today is "fix it up" via software as it can and will be done as the means to "do" this is familiar and easy enough. What is not appreciated, this develops bad habits in the negative making process. This process could be different if the print maker was forced by the limitations of materials available, process and the goal of a GOOD print. Once these goals becomes seriously needed as the print goal, then learning and the discipline required to achieve this can happen.

If the goal is GOOD expressive/creative print making, the quality and content of the negative is key to allowing the GOOD expressive/creative print to happen. All that other stuff like lenses, camera, film, processing and ... are nothing more than a means to achieve this.. or why the constant crowing of print goals first, then what are the tools required to achieve this.

The Farmer's Reducer comment was pointed to the seeming now forgotten need for a negative to "fit" the print making papers. Same with Chromium Intensifies which can be used on "thin" negatives to effectively increase their density to allow a print to be made.

Venture a guess, over exposed film by three f-stops could be due to not stopping down the lens (in the case of LF) before making the exposure or improper metering before exposure.

Much of this seems moot these days due to how digits has bent the print making process and how the mass audience values and perceives images today.


Bernice



Clearly there are many ways to achieve an end result. What so few of us seem to understand, indeed, myself being raised on the Adams Zone System of exposure and "Developing contrast into the Negative" by way of density is that negative design was necessary because of "Single graded Papers". Multi-Contrast papers have changed, dramatically changed the way a negative, can, and in my opinion should be designed. The need to build contrast into the negative when using MC papers actually diminishes the flexibility of the end print. The contrast index of MC papers is significantly higher than the contrast increasing properties of negative density. Good adequate exposure and reduced highlight density will lead to the most dynamic range capabilities of the final print. See this long, but in depth article on UnBlinkingEye's website here: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.html If you don't have the time to read the article, watch this video about the manner in which I design negatives, and that philosophy speaks directly to the OP issue of over exposure, and BTW, not that significantly over exposed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNVOTCrQjTc

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe a belt sander with 24 grit? That should remove some excess density. Thank goodness for modern VC papers and split printing. Last year I successfully salvage-printed a number of my very early beginner FP4 sheets that were badly overdeveloped and excessively dense, and seemingly hopeless back in graded paper days.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Perhaps this may help you; I develop FP4+ in HC110 H 1+63 during 5'00'' to get N-2 with 32 ASA, 20°C, Agitation first 30s, then 5s per 30s. N-1 is 6'00'' at 40ASA, N is 7'00'' at 64 ASA

IMO if your N-2 is normally achieved with 125 ASA, you can compensate 2 stop overexposure with diluted HC110, 1+63. What about 1+114 ...?

[Drew Wiley]

I've gone as dilute as 1:96 (plus a toe-cutter additive) with HC-110, and achieved an excellent low-gamma straight line with FP4. But that is in relation to deliberate technical applications. I've never botched an actual pictorial exposure so bad that I tried to reclaim it in that manner (or if I did, it went straight to the trashcan without even attempting to develop it ). And there's no sense me repeating over and over again why I don't generally like the effect of strong minus or compensating development in a print, though I certainly know how to do that, ala Zone System theory or otherwise. It's maybe only one or two sheet a year that I ever minus develop. But if it works esthetically for someone else, that's all that counts. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

[esearing]

The way to prove this to yourself and check your work flow is to run a test in your back yard. I often compose and focus at f5.6-8 with the intention to stop down to at least f32.
Sometimes I forget, and if I am lucky and catch it, I mark the holder for experimentation.

Using dilute Pyrocat-M for 5stop over exposure with Steve's EMA technique has led to usable negatives but maybe not ideal ones. It really depends on the contrast of the scene having a good mix of shadow and light. Similar results can be achieved for over exposure with Diafine in some cases. Then you will likely be printing on grades 4-5 or adjusting in PS. Sometimes toning these images a different color brings out more of the original character or a different feeling than neutral gray.

[Steve Sherman]

The attached photo illustrates two dramatically different negative exposures, shadow densities, (Red arrows) development schemes yielding almost identical high-light densities (Blue arrows) which printed without much manipulation on graded papers back in the later 1980's. The higher contrast neg. was exposed for 32 seconds and tray processed in HC 110 @ 1:31 oz of water (normal strength) for 6.5 minutes. The lighter image was exposed for 16 minutes, and processed in HC 110 @ a ratio of 1:180 oz water, with extremely intermittent agitation for 18 minutes in a tray. I came by this technique by way of Ray McSavveny, who pioneered the highly dilute HC 110 method.

As an FYI, the Extreme Minimal Agitation technique I pioneered in 2003 significantly improves this highly dilute developer technique when using PyroCat HD developer, almost entirely because of the superior reducing properties, and hardening of the films emulsion in the very first minutes of development. This technique preserves as much shadow information (film speed) when contrast ranges are extraordinary, and will ALWAYS be a function of weak developer, allowing the shadows to continue to develop to their maximum density based on exposure. While the more dense areas of the negative exhaust the developer rapidly, and therefore, can no longer add density, or climb the straight line pushing tonalities and contrast beyond a mananable point. The only way to take advantage of that developer / agitation relationship is through extended amounts of time in dilute developer for the action to build slowly.
Lastly, while Multi-Contrast printing papers have significantly impacted the contrast range capable of producing satisfactory Silver prints, I continue to approach negative design with generous bottom end exposure and reduced highlight density simply because MC papers will significantly spread the mid-tone contrast with greater impact than the AA Zone System method of building contrast into the negative. To those who would say, I don't want as much mid-tone contrast as you...very simple, add more green light, ( 0 Filtration ) the green light spectrum attacks the mid-tones even before it does the highlights.