Three stops overexposed FP4+

[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 ...?