Over exposed TMAX100

[ageorge]

Being new to LF, this is the first time I have run in to this situation, but I'm sure it will not be the last:)

After changing lenses, I neglected to put on a 6 stop ND filter but did not neglect to include it in my exposure calculation. So I have a negative and backup that is over exposed by 6 stops. I went ahead a developed one with normal time just to see what 6 stops over on TMAX100 looks like and there seems to be quite a bit of info on the negative although very dense. I was wondering the best way to develop the backup for best results from scanning? Would not N-1 make the negative lighter but also with less contrast? Is there a way to lighten development AND preserve contrast, N-1 w/ vigorous agitation? Isn't more agitation the same as adding development time, thus resulting in somewhat normal development? Is there another solution?

Thanks in advance,
-alan

[Ash]

What are your developing times? You may wish to pull process, and underdevelop the neg, either cut the developing time or possibly use a slightly weaker solution.

[ageorge]

My normal is D-76, 1:1, 68F, 11minutes. I use a Jobo 2521 and roll by hand. Wouldn't less time result in a lighter negative but also a reduce the contrast in the negative? Is there a way to preserve contrast the objective being scanning not enlarger.

Thanks,
-alan

[Ash]

possibly a stronger concentration for a dramatically reduced time will bring a higher contrast but risk losing too many tones.

Maybe knock the developing time to 20 minutes, and try 1:4 or more. You'll lose some contrast, but that can be worked on in post-processing, I think you should be concerned with pulling as much detail from the neg as possible, rather than strong blacks and bright whites

[Ash]

Come to think of it...have you looked here for more info?

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

select your film and developer, and you should get these results

Massive Dev Chart Search Results
Film Developer Dilution ASA/ISO 35mm 120 Sheet Temp Notes
TMax 100 D-76 1+1 64 12 20C [notes]
TMax 100 D-76 stock 100-200 6.5 6.5 5.75 20C
TMax 100 D-76 stock 100-200 9 9 7 20C [notes]
TMax 100 D-76 1+1 100 9.5 9.5 11.25 20C [notes]
TMax 100 D-76 1+1 100-200 12 12 11.5 20C [notes]
TMax 100 D-76 1+3 100-200 16 16 20C [notes]
TMax 100 D-76 stock 400 8.25 8.25 20C
TMax 100 D-76 stock 400 11 11 20C [notes]

you need to check the page yourself to read all the notes

if you're over by 6 stops, then 100,200,400,800,1600,3200,6400 (I guess that's the right way of working out EI) so you'll need some serious experimenting.

you could run a test neg. expose two more at 6400 (or however you exposed before) and try two developing times, at either extreme - way too long/weak, and way too short/strong maybe?

[Oren Grad]

Thinking about post-processing treatments for your already-developed negative, I believe there are different formulations of Farmer's reducer, or other chemical reducers, that allow you to control the degree of proportionality of the reducing effect, and in that way control the effect on contrast.

With a given developer, cutting development will reduce overall contrast. It's the nature of the beast. ("Exposure controls density, development controls contrast.") Within that overall constraint, the curve shape of TMX is responsive to choice of developer, so there's some control at least over relative contrast in different parts of the scale.

Have you tried scanning the developed negative, or is it literally impossible? If you can get a scan, seeing what, if anything, is wrong with the scan will help you decide what specific "medicine" you need for your next try.

[Robert Oliver]

How about stand or semi-stand developement method using something like Rodinal or pryocat HD. Might help keep some of the highlights from completely blowing out. Never tried it on an over exposed neg. just one with too much contrast, completely exposed for the shadow detail.

[Jim Jones]

I've scanned negatives that were overexposed several stops. I've also used Potassium Ferricyanide to thin down negatives that were overexposed. The results were good enough for some purposes, and much better than trying to print the original negatives.

[ageorge]

Robert,

Semi-stand, stand development? I am not familiar. Based on a quick search, does it have to do with the amount of agitation?

Thanks,
-alan

[Maris Rusis]

Something similar happened to me on a TMY 8x10 shoot. I forgot to stop down to f.64 and shot wide open at f. 5.6; 7 stops over!

After normal development in X-tol the negative in the fixer at lights-on was very dark with hints of detail. An exposure of about 30 minutes in a contact frame yielded a surprisingly good gelatin-silver photograph except that the depth of field was lacking. Large format film apparently is very forgiving of overexposure!

Going further, I cut this negative back in Farmer's reducer until it looked about normal density. Back in the contact frame and with a 10 second exposure it yielded another gelatin-silver photograph very much like the first one; no gain, no loss.

If I really had to use the dark negative for projection work instead of contact I would use it to make a contact film positive then use this to produce a copy neg of tractable density.

[Brian Ellis]

"Would not N-1 make the negative lighter but also with less contrast?"

Less development would reduce the highlight densities and so reduce contrast, but with a six stop overexposed negative that's presumably what you would want to do.

"Is there a way to lighten development AND preserve contrast, N-1 w/ vigorous agitation?"

If you minus development but increase agitation you're just working at odds with yourself and I don't think it would accomplish much. You have to remember that N-1 will have no effect on the shadows and very little on the midtones. So there's no reason I can see to add vigorous agitation to the mix, that will just increase densities while your minus development reduces them.

"Isn't more agitation the same as adding development time, thus resulting in somewhat normal development?"

More agitation and more development time will both increase your highlight and perhaps midtone densities but that isn't what you want to do with an overexposed negative.

"Is there another solution? "

I think minus development is your best bet, you might try N-2 or even -3. Stand development is a good idea too but since you've never tried it before and so presumably don't have much of a feel for an appropriate time this might not be the time to experiment with it.

[Ash]

Did you manage to find a solution??

[ageorge]

Ash,

I developed the backup at N-1 (i.e. D-76,1:1,68F,8.5minutes, hand rolled Jobo 2521). I left for work this morning as it was being scanned (VueScan w/ 4990). I will poke around with it and post the results here tomorrow.

-alan

[Ash]

Good luck Alan

[ageorge]

Well I have learned something with this exercise. In the digital darkroom, you can do a lot with a pretty bad negative. I have been fretting a lot about developing my negatives just so when it appears that this is not needed. I may start sending them out:) Even with N-1, this negative was very dark. Laying on a white paper, no detail was visible. The histogram in VueScan only showed detail in about half the normal range.

Here is the raw scan with no editing. Check out that glare, ouch!
http://alan-george.com/tmp/scan0105_raw_sig.jpg


Here is after a little PS is applied. I wouldn't call this a "keeper", but definitely workable.
http://alan-george.com/tmp/scan0105_sig.jpg

[Bruce Watson]

Well I have learned something with this exercise. In the digital darkroom, you can do a lot with a pretty bad negative. I have been fretting a lot about developing my negatives just so when it appears that this is not needed.

What you have yet to learn (judging from what you've written above) is that you can do a lot more with a properly exposed and processed negative. Digital isn't a license to be careless. Nor is it an excuse for your craft to be out of control.

[Ash]

Bruce, that's a little harsh considering that it was an accident to begin with. the image looks good for something so overexposed. Thats good tolerance :)

[ageorge]

What you have yet to learn (judging from what you've written above) is that you can do a lot more with a properly exposed and processed negative. Digital isn't a license to be careless. Nor is it an excuse for your craft to be out of control.


Bruce,

I don't think I mentioned or implied that I thought it was appropriate to to be careless with my craft. My conclusion was that with the digital darkroom precise control over negative densities through manual hand development is not as necessary as with the wet darkroom. And that my time might be better spent doing other parts of my craft rather than rolling a Jobo back and forth. I don't ground glass or mix film emulsions for the same reason. It is important for me to fully understand my medium of choice. And that includes understanding what controls I have and there relative effects on my craft and concentrating on the controls that have the greatest impact. And hand development may not be one of them. I am not sure why you concluded exposure was not. I made a mistake with an exposure and was attempting to see what could be recovered. That doesn't imply that exposure is not a critical control. Hand development, maybe not. A good lab maybe a better allocation of resources. "out of control", a bit out of line.