Overexposed HP-5: How Do You Preserve Contrast?

[reinhold_schable]

Oops-- I accidently overexposed some HP5 by 1-1/2 stops. (8x20

negs, taken 90 miles away, so going back and doing it right is

not an option). If I reduce the development, the contrast will be

lowered. Grrrr. I'd like not have to resort to intensification

afterwards.

 

<p>

 

Ok, folks, what sort of never-fail tactics have you used to maintain

contrast when developing overexposed negatives?

[wilhelmn]

You might consider using a developer which is known to lose a stop of

speed, such as Microdol-X 1+3 or, even better, in ABC Pyro.

[greg_rust]

Reinhold,

 

<p>

 

About two weeks ago, I accidentally overexposed a sheet of HP5 and

also overdeveloped it by 2 minutes. I was able to make beautiful

prints from it anyway. The reason is that I developed it with PMK.

You've probably heard this before but With PMK it is very hard to

block up highlight detail.

Conventional developers will not adequately handle your negative. I

would develop it in PMK for 11 to 12 minutes at 21 deg. Celsius. I

would also expose a negative the way you exposed your subject

negative and test develop it. It is very hard to appreciate Pyro

developers until you have tried them in contrasty situations. The

above recommendation of another Pyro developer is also a good one. I

wish you success.

 

<p>

 

Greg

[dbltap4]

two possibilities: try perceptol normally, or id-ll minus athird of

the normal developing time. perceptol because you lose film speed

anyway, or id-ll+ because its as reliable as the sunrise and sunset.

i prefer off-the-shelf chemicals anyway, especially those made by the

film manufacturer.

jim

[nigel_smith2]

I overexpose most of my negatives... so I guess what you've done

isn't that strange! (you haven't underexposed by 1.5 stops!!) I'd

use my normal developer, maybe dropping the time a little (say 10%)

and print through the denser neg with longer exposure times.

 

<p>

 

As was mentioned, pick a methos, do a test using something less

important!

 

<p>

 

Is "8x20" inches?

[john_hicks___]

Don't do anything weird; develop normally. Many would say that HP5+ is an EI 160-200 film anyway. The curve shape is fairly straight out about 14-15 stops at least in most "standard" developers so you wouldn't block up the high end.

 

<p>

 

If in doubt, shoot a test neg and develop it first.

[pete_andrews]

Two alternative suggestions:<br>1) Use T-max developer and develop

normally. This developer gives an extended straight line portion to

the film curve. The negs will be dense, but they should print

normally, without the highlights blocking up; with just an increase in

your printing time.<br>Option 2: Follow Ilford's recommendation for

downrating HP5plus. Ilford recommend using Perceptol at stock

strength. The times they give are for ratings of 50, 100, and 200 EI.

The 50 and 100 EI times are both 9 mins @ 68 F; and the 200 rating

time is 11 minutes. I guess you could interpolate the +1.5 stop time

as 10 mins.<br>Good luck! Let us know the results.

[reinhold_schable]

Thanks, everyone for your suggestions. I was so grouched about

the overexposure mistake that my brain shut down, and you've

helped to kick start it again. At this moment I'm weighing the

following...

 

<p>

 

The suggestions to make some overexposed test negatives is

well received. Thanks.

 

<p>

 

I normally develop by inspection, using a Pat Gainer vitamin C

developer for my larger negatives. (Yep, Nigel, that's 8x20

inches). So far, I have no experience using Pyro when

developing by inspection.

 

<p>

 

Greg: have you developed by inspection using Pyro, and how

would the image look, compared to traditional chemistry? I'm

concerned that the Pyro stain might not be easily interpreted

during inspection.

 

<p>

 

I'd also forgotten about the extremely high shoulder on these

films (thanks, John); yours, Petes' and Nigels' suggestion to

develop normally, ignore the extra density and print through is a

practical one. It reminded me of another tactic that I've used in

the past... good old Farmers Reducer. The right concoction (can't

remember which one at the moment, got to check the books...)

will correct for overexposure, rather than correct for over

development. That ought to make a more "normal" negative.

 

<p>

 

We'll see how it goes...