Delta 400 overexposed by 4 stops. How to develop?

[pascal_t.]

<p>Hi, <br>

I accidentally overexposed a roll of Delta 400 by four stops (iso 25) in my point and shoot by making a mistake taping the dx code. I read that it can handle two stops of underexposure. I haven't developed film for some while and have to buy developer anyway. What would you recommend to save the pictures? They were mostly shot with in-camera flash, so there should be a lot of contrast in them. <br>

I found this picture, but can't really believe that it was really developed for 12 minutes in D76.<br>

Any help is greatly appreciated and I thank you in advance.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Pascal</p>

[lwg]

<p>You will almost certainly be fine with normal development. The images will be much denser than normal, but the contrast range on the negative will still be correct. If you want to make sure you don't hit the shoulder of the film, subtract about 10% from your normal development time.</p>

<p>As far as developers to use, you would be best off with one that doesn't give an increase in speed. D76 would be fine, and probably better than XTOL. Microdol-X will usually cost you a full stop of speed with Delta 400. It also gives excellent results in my experience, so that would be my choice in this case. But it has been discontinued by Kodak. Freestyle has a clone of the developer, which I have not tried. http://www.freestylephoto.biz/749710-LegacyPro-Mic-X-Film-Developer-to-Make-1-Gallon</p>

[michaelging]

<p>I would dilute D76 to 1 to 1 and cut the time by 20%. You will have a printable or scannable negative. If you develop it normal, your highlights will block up and the contrast will be off the charts. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Similar to Michael's suggestion, I'd cut development from the box speed 400 at least 25%. Possibly more if the photos were in bright, contrasty lighting with important highlights. For example if the photos are of a combination of black glass skyscrapers and white or light older style buildings in bright sunlight, I'd cut as much as 50%. But if the important subject matter is mostly midtones and moderate to low contrast, 25% would probably do.</p>

<p>The problem with cutting development to less than 5 minutes with roll films on reels in tank development is the risk of uneven development. So adjust the developer dilution to ensure the development time is at least 5 minutes. With common developers like D-76 or ID-11 the only significant difference between 1+1 and 1+3 dilutions will be a slight increase in acutance at 1+3. But with HC-110 and many other liquid concentrates, there may be little or no change in acutance or any compensating effect and dilutions simply give you more control over total time in-tank.</p>

[pascal_t.]

<p>As the subjects are mostly close-up portraits with in-camera flash, I want to avoid blowing out the skin tones. I don't care too much about shadow detail, a dense negative would be fine as long as detail in the faces is not lost. I'm in Germany and am not sure if the local shop has D76, but they should have ID-11.<br>

Massive dev chart gives me 14 minutes for ID-11 diluted 1+1 for Delta at 400. I think I'll try nine minutes at 1+1, which is about 35% less.<br>

Thank you very much for your suggestions!</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Overexpose and underdevelop was a standard procedure to get smooth flesh tones, less pores, wrinkles and blemishes showing. For more wrinkles, pores and blemishes (90 year old man smoking a cigarette) one would underexpose and overdevelop.

[chris_waller]

<p>As a rule-of-thumb, I reduce development by one-third per stop downrating. So for a 4-top downrate that gets us down to about 20% of development at rated speed. The MDC gives 18 minutes in D76 at 1+3 dilution at 400 ASA so at 25 ASA I get about 4 minutes, near as damn it. You could try diluting 1+5 and give it 6 minutes. However, you negs will be as flat as a pancake.</p>

[alekos_elefteriadis]

<p>-Don't worry either, the most film if you make a zone test is 1,5-2,5 stop less sensitive than they say..<br>

-Just under-develop about 30-40% and maybe you find the holy grail of tonality...</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Over or underdevelopment affects the highlights and not the shadows. That works fine on a well exposed film. Shadows stay where they are at zones 1 and 2. Highlights can be moved up and down from zones 7, 8 and 9 with lesser movement on zones 4, 5 and 6.

 

You don't have zones 1, 2, 3 or 4 on your film. If the subject was wearing a black suit or dress, that would have fallen on zone 1 and the flesh value would have fallen on zone 6. Your exposure placed the dress on zone 5 and the flesh tones on zone 10. Using 50% less development may bring the flesh tones down to zone 8 and the dress to zone 4-1/2. That would be a flat negative but it could be printed. I don' t know if I would try to give even less development and get an even flatter negative.

[alekos_elefteriadis]

<p>-James you are right about flat negatives, but even this can exceed the contrast of paper or at least have the same. I prefer flatten negatives any day than contrast, it's easy to print those day's with multicontrast paper. The problem is the opposite, when you don't have shadows details.</p>

[djthomas]

<p>You probably considered this already, but if you've got the time and the photos on that roll are important to you, why not deliberately recreate your shooting conditions on another roll of film (with improper ISO as well) and develop that roll following the procedure you think will provide you with the best results and see how that roll turns out--and adjust accordingly. </p>