Rollei 80s

<p>I thought I had Rollei 400 in my camera and pushed it to 800. When I removed the roll, I realized it was actually Rollei 80! Someone recommended a stand development in HC110 dilution H. Any thoughts or suggestions? Can this roll be saved?</p>

<p>This will be voodoo, not science. If all you have is HC-110, try either 30-60 minutes in Dilution H with intermittent agitation every 2-3 minutes (although the dilution won't really matter much here), or, if you don't mind the extra trouble, alternating between developer and plain water (Ansel Adams describes the latter technique, which must be done entirely in the dark).</p>

<p>I can't advise pure stand development - no agitation after the initial agitation - because I haven't tried it with HC-110 and don't know whether it risks uneven development or streaking. I know it works with Rodinal but Rodinal is unsuitable for badly underexposed film - you'd get more base fog than latent image.</p>

<p>If you have a stainless reel you might try stand development. If plastic, stick with intermittent or conventional agitation.</p>

<p>Whatever you decide, develop the film soon. The latent image is very unstable with extremely underexposed film and waiting even a week may be too long to salvage any images.</p>

<p>Diafine has been my favorite developer since my grandfather told be about it, when I was about 10.<br>

<br />One chart says EI 200 for Diafine. Still a ways from 800, though, but that is probably what I would do.</p>

If the photos are important maybe you could shoot another roll of 80s as a test and process it. Or sacrice a bit off end roll

and process as a test clip.

<p>Well… I did a 4 hour stand development in HC-110 (H). I cannot believe it myself.</p><div></div>

<p>That is darned impressive. How did the negatives look? Thin, normal, other? Any special techniques needed in scanning?</p>

<p>Nice save. I've never tried stand developing. However, I once accidentally exposed a roll of Plus-X at E.I. 400 so I added some time (don't remember how much) and after I poured out the developer I let it sit in water for 5 minutes. Then fixed as usual. I was going to suggest the water bath, but your results are so good that the water bath likely wouldn't be needed. Of course, one factor that affects your success is the quality of the lighting. You can usually get by with more if the light is flat. Thanks for posting a result.</p>

<p>Honestly… This couldn't get any worse… even the stand development time was a mistake. I had done a stand development for 2 hours once for this same mistake, only I had accidentally shot the 80 at 400 (again, thinking I had 400 in my camera). So, pushing it to 800 was a HUGE mistake<br>

The first time, the 2 hours stand managed to produce some very thin negatives. I am in the process of having them scanned with a very good scanner and I will be able to pull them out in photoshop… but, I digress.<br>

Full disclosure: I didn't choose the 4 hour time. I just rationalized that the 2 hours stand was barely enough for the 80 pushed to 400, I knew I needed to add more time, so I just figured another hour wouldn't hurt. THEN, I accidentally lost track of the time and remembered after 4 hours!! I really had no hope for this film.<br>

So, the negatives are VERY contrasty. My scanner has a difficult time with them. Its an Epson V600. I have to use the histogram to make them pretty flat to get the highlight details. I then added contrast back in photoshop. Also… (and I'm not sure if I like this) I added vignetting because of the blown out highlights in the upper right corner. It kind of took the eye there. I'll work on that. <br>

I have no idea if I could get this same result if I enlarged these in an enlarger. It might be that they are only useable through digitally dealing with the contrast issues. But, the main thing is… all the detail is there and I was able to pull it out. <br>

I am not sure if I will use this particular image, but it is part of a project or series I am working on photographing women artists. My plan is to print them in Palladium and I will be using digital negatives to do contact printing anyway.<br>

I am fairly new to film photography so I am kind of glad this happened, because it really taught me a lot about the inverse relationships between time and light. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>PS: This is my first post to Photo.net. I still need to learn how to navigate the site.</p>

<p>Well, it's a heckuva save and an interesting look. Good job on the salvage. I think the hardest push I've tried was T-Max 400 to 6400.</p>

<p>How many stops is that and how did you develop it?</p>

 

<p>That's a four stop push, and T-Max 400 pushes very well. I used Microphen, probably stock solution for 20-30 minutes with intermittent agitation around every 2-5 minutes. I used to have samples in my photo.net portfolio but inadvertently deleted them a couple of years ago when I intended to move them to a hidden folder for use only for demos. The negatives were thin but printed acceptably in the darkroom with some selective dodging/burning. Never tried to scan them, but scanning and digital editing can salvage difficult negatives much more easily than conventional darkroom enlarging techniques.</p>

<p>I need to keep learning so that I can do this stuff on purpose and not by accident, though. :(</p>