View Full Version : FP4 underexposed by 3 stops

23-Mar-2009, 14:33
wait, i messed up my info.

ok retype:

underexposed my FP4 by 3 stops, very embarassing!

I made this post and was for no logical reason typing about pulling film.... I did see a black cat this morning!

Maybe now that I have turned my FP4 into iso 800 film.... maybe that package of Microphen will be handy.

Would be nice to save these shots, just 2 of them.

reccomend some developers that wont turn the negatives into a grain blob ?

23-Mar-2009, 14:34
That's a push, not a pull...

23-Mar-2009, 14:38
yes. LOL. Monday, I blame Monday.

23-Mar-2009, 14:45
I'm sure that wasn't on the list earlier-
that should do it, but don't ask me about times...

Though you could always underexpose another sheet, and do a test...

23-Mar-2009, 14:57
I do have some Microphen :)

I looked at the massive development chart.

You know what it said ?

it said:

"You Idiot!" LOL

23-Mar-2009, 15:08
Or perhaps you could try some Diafine? Either way, I would do a test with another couple of sheets (under)exposed in the same way and process one in Microphen, the other in Diafine and see which one gets you closer...


I used to push FP4 (no plus!) in Microphen back in the 70's and I think I remember doing it at about 15 min... I have a feeling that in your case a good starting point might be 18-20 min. If that still comes out thin, you can try raising the temp to 72 F and go gentle on agitation.

I hope you salvage your film.

23-Mar-2009, 15:25
Try Rodinal 1:100 for 40 minutes with agitation every 30" for first 5 minutes, then every 10 minutes thereafter. You may get a bit of extra density on the edges but it should even out development in the center 95%. Test first.

Gem Singer
23-Mar-2009, 16:11

12 minutes in Microphen at 70 degrees should give you a scannable negative.

Microphen is a speed increasing developer (your name is Speed, isn't it?).

23-Mar-2009, 17:09
thanks for the suggestions :)

24-Mar-2009, 18:15
You can expect the image to be there, because exposure at 800 can be salvaged by long development in HC-110B. (Please don't ask me how I know this.....) :)

Keith Pitman
24-Mar-2009, 18:39
Underexposed is the worst! I think you're f***ed!

24-Mar-2009, 18:46
lol, yes. We did two more shots without the mistake :) but it was differenet light setup.

25-Mar-2009, 14:09
Underexposed is the worst! I think you're f***ed!

Well, yeah, basically. But it also depends on the picture: if it doesn't depend on shadow detail (of which there will not be any) then a really hard push and high-contrast printing paper may save the day. If the shadows are important to the composition, then see italicized quote above.