I messed up and need help....please

[jason_hall5]

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I screwed rather badly yesturday, I shot a roll of Ilford Delta 100 (35mm 24exp.) at....um well....800ASA. I will not go into the details of how I did it and I started to go ahead and throw it away. However I can not find any info on anyone dareing to push it that far so I figured this could be an interesting experiment.</p>

<p>I figure DD-X would be the best bet and as it turns out, I have just enough in an open bottle for the job. Its a little old but plenty active as I used it on two rolls the other night.</p>

<p>The massive development chart gives DD-X 1+4 @ 20C for 12 min for EI 100 and 1+4 @20C for 14 min for EI 200ASA. <br>

I am not sure what would be a good guess as a starting point but I am thinking something like 25 minutes with 1+4 @ 20C.</p>

<p>I know that what ever I do, it will be a shot in the dark and but I also know that the knowlege around here can most likely give me good info on how to figure out a good guess of a starting point. At least there maybe something to learn from it....like remember to check the ISO setting on the meter :o)</p>

<p>Also does anyone have suggestion on aggitation....or will it really matter at this point.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[jakenorcross]

<p>I've pushed something like that... and mostly figure about 20% increase in dev time per stop. Last time I did that, it was 100 ISO sheet film developed in double-strength HC110 and developed for about 25 minutes. Came out so dark that I may have to reshoot, but if it's not as bad as my situation and don't think it would be a problem.<br>

100-800? That's three stops. Just expect a lot more grain than usual.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>It's not impossible. Maybe. It is entirely possible that there was not enough light to record an image; but you won't discover that if you throw the roll away. If you go ahead and develop it, and it doesn't work, how much more are you going to lose? Already, either the images are there or they're not; I'd say, go for it and develop the negs.</p>

<p>You can risk two bucks' worth of developer on the thing. Go ahead. </p>

<p>It'll be impossible to get standard, high quality, well-balanced images out of the thing, but if you can accept some high contrast, you can get it to work. Just the other day, I pushed a roll of HP5+ to 6400. [Exposed at 1600 and then pushed two stops.] It came out with a darker base; I used one of my homemade developers to do it (hope for you there, because mine are much more crude than what's on the market); and the development time took 81 minutes.</p>

<p>For my planning on that one, what I did was go to the Massive Development Chart, looked at what was the highest ISO for my film, and then applied the push factors from there. Keep in mind, this will not yield images that a Zone System lover will drool over; but, it will create a printable image; your pictures are probably not a total loss. [i liked mine; but I know they are not typical of what's recommended.]</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I don't have enough breadth of experience to comment on the specifics of your proposed plan; but, I would encourage using the MDC as a reference because it's built from a pretty effective pool of collected data. If you base your plan on what's there, you're more likely to be successful because you can probably do a better job of matching up the materials you have on hand against known past performance. Good luck. J.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Everybody's done this. At least a couple of times I've exposed FP4+ at EI 250, when I'm using a handheld meter with two different films.</p>

<p>If the roll is valuable, consider doing a clip test at your best guess of development conditions. Then if that works, do the rest of the roll. You'll have printable high values, but I think your dark greys are going to merge with black.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Thanks for the encouragment guys, I am going to develop this with out question. The contrast level will be interesting to see as it was a fairly high contrast scene. My son at T-Ball practice. I did shoot another roll of TriX (shot at 200....on purpose this time). Anyway, I plan to try it tonight and see what turns out.</p>

<p>It is due to the high constrast that I figured on a fairly low aggitation approach. keep the ideas coming....</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[doremus_scudder1]

<p>Jason,</p>

<p>Three stops underexposed is a lot, but you may be able to get printable images. Keep in mind exactly what the effects of underexposure and "overdevelopment" are when determining the time you wish to try.</p>

<p>First, by underexposing three stops, you have effectively erased a lot of shadow detail. Things that you perceived as textured blacks and deep greys in the scene will be clear on the negative and print as pure black (at least, that's the goal). </p>

<p>Also, by underexposing, you have moved the highlights down the scale by 3 stops as well, meaning that if you developed "normally," the areas you wished to be white in the print will be just above middle grey (or, if you do print them white, the "blacks" will be just below middle grey).</p>

<p>What you want to do is expand the contrast of the negative so that the middle and high tones are somewhere around where you originally wanted them, while letting the shadows go black. This means that you do not want to "adjust you agitation" for a less-contrasty negative! Contrast increase is what you want.</p>

<p>Keep in mind as well that you have some leeway in printing because you have access to higher contrast grades of paper. Since you are shooting 35mm, and overdeveloping (i.e., increasing contrast from "normal) increases grain as well, you might want to try for a "happy medium" by "pushing" one-and-a-half or two stops and using higher contrast paper to compensate.</p>

<p>The suggestion to add about 20% more development time per stop of "push" is a good rule of thumb. </p>

<p>If you have a normal time you use successfully, I would suggest pushing two stops. Calculate your increase in exposure in two steps, e.g. add 20% to your normal time to arrive at the time for pushing one stop, and then add 20% of that time (which will be more than the 20% of the "normal" time) to arrive at the final developing time. </p>

<p>Develop with normal agitation. You want that extra contrast. Compensation is for high-contrast negs; you have a low-contrast negative with no shadow detail. You won't get anything to develop in the shadows, since nothing was "recorded" there on the film due to the underexposure. With a bit of luck, however, you can get decent mid- and high tones.</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Doremus Scudder</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Great info Doremus! I am glad that I did not go ahead and develop the film last night. So with the Massive development chart calling for 14 min for EI 200, I will use the 20% rule of thumb you gave me to push two more stops. Also thanks for answering the Agitation question as well and thanks for explaining why to do it that way.</p>

<p>I know you suggested to only push two stops total and then compensate with paper, however I will be scanning these negs. I do not have a way to print in a dark room as I really wish I could. Rental rates are high and the camera shop is nearly an hour away. I am month two of unemployment so not the time to start building the dark room I have planned out (it is planned out and I have permission from the wife to build it!)</p>

<p>So I will shooting for 20mins @ 20C and if the entire roll comes out blank (I am sure that will not happen)....I should at least get a good laugh out of it :o)</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for the info and I will post results when I get it done and scanned in.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Jason</p>