Did I Underdevelop?

Please see my question posted at this link.

 

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?

p=168584#post168584

Cant read it. Maybe if you took the time to ask in Photo.net we might take the time to respond.

Sorry aboutthe bad link.

 

I shall post the message here as well but I think the photo size are too big for photo.net.

 

so I will place links to these photos instead of the whole question as a link.

 

Now the question:

 

I did my 2nd roll of self devlop film just now and the result was not as good as my first roll which the developing time was half min less and temp was 1 degree lower than this roll (5.5 mins @ 20 C).

 

Did i over developed the photos or did I simply under-exposed?

 

Here are negatives scanned using same setting without any modificaiton after scanning.

 

I used 3 different ISO setting on my Nikon FG to take the photos, the other photos on this roll were all shot at ISO800, so i was trying to develop with ISO800 in mind.

 

Film used was Ilford HP5+

Developer used was Kodak T-Max 1+4 for 6 minx @ 21C

 

ISO400

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14241

 

ISO800

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14242

 

ISO1600

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14243

 

i hope the links will work, if they do not work by direct click, please copy and paste it to your brower and it should then work.

Im no expert but i know when ive underdeveloped.

 

Its when you get a lot of clear areas on every neg i.e. no shadow detail.

 

Solution, more exposure or more development (the latter increases contrast)

 

Hope that helps

Did you shoot at different ISO's on the same roll? IF you did, that won't work - unless you are trying to bracket exposures.

 

Expose for shadow detail (HP5 is an ISO 200 film in many developers) and vary development time to control/manage the highlights. You can shoot at higher EI's, but you will lose shadow detail.

 

Robert

Jon Noble wrote:

"Im no expert but i know when ive underdeveloped.

Its when you get a lot of clear areas on every neg i.e. no shadow detail."

 

Uh, that is not correct. When you get lots of clear areas(no shadow detail) it`s always a sign of underexposure, not underdevelopment.

 

Developmnet mostly affects highlights, a underdeveloped neg will be very flat and dull.

Not a great scan so it is hard to be sure regarding development. If you can get some tone on the wall with a better scan, it is not overdeveloped. It looks underexposed at every EI setting, though (only a little at 400). No amount of extra development will restore shadow detail to any real extent.

Cheers Amund. Well i was half correct. Developer does change contrast. Im pretty sure i get my exposures right most of the time. I use a 50yr old tlr with a weston light meter and provia. I cant be that off with exposure forgiving FP4. Can I?

It is hard to tell from your scans but if this new roll was 1deg hotter and 30 sec longer then you have actually developed more than your first roll not less. If your negs show a lack of shadow detail then they are usually underexposed for the development you have given the film. Film development and exposure go hand in hand the exposure has to be correct fot the development you have given the film. While it is pretty hard to increase a films speed by overdeveloping you can reduce a films effective speed by underdeveloping. It is popular to develop for less time than the film manufactures recommend many people find that they get a preferable neg that way but the also find that the film may need to be rated a little slower to get sufficient shadow detail.

Seto, your results at 400 and 800 look pretty acceptable to me. But a film rated by the manufacturer at 400, is difficult to get really good results with when you expose it at 1600. You are not going to get as much shadow detail, because the film isn't really capable of responding very well to those shadow areas when they are that underexposed. So at 1600, we have to accept a loss of shadow detail. This is more important in some pictures than in others. For your test shot, at 1600 you lost shadow detail in some parts of the picture where the detail mattered. It doesn't matter so much in some pictures. You would have greater success with other subjects, where only the middle tones and highlights are important.

 

Some of us squeeze a little more speed out of the film with certain developers, like T-Max, Acufine, XTOL, or Microphen. But we still know we will be giving up some shadow detail! Just between us, there's really no way to make a 400 film into a 1600 one!