Am I under-developing or over?

[jpa66]

OK, here's a royal bone-headed question that I used to know, and should know, but can't seem to figure out anymore...

My recent foray with HC 110 brought about what I feel are under-developed negatives. I'm going to try and use the same formula ( with the same film ) and develop another roll. For some reason I can't seem to wrap my head around how to adjust development time for a roll of film that appears to be under-developed. For example, my negatives from the first trial of HC110 look too light overall - so they would print as too dark. If I wanted to make the negative images darker ( when developing ), then would I INcrease the development time or DEcrease it?

If the negatives are all very dark to look at, then the film has been over-developed - is that correct? And if the negatives look too light, then it's been under-developed?

Basically, I just need to know how to compensate development time-wise from my base of 8 minutes in HC110 ( based upon the above description of the previous roll ).

Any help would be appreciated. I feel like an idiot asking such a basic question that I should already know, but I guess that's what happens when you get older...

 

[MartinP]

More or less right, but the question is what is 'dark' and what is 'light' of course. I recall the example of putting the negative over a printed page and being happy when the thickest parts only just showed the print through, and the thinnest parts were not empty.

Also, try to think back to the shots you made and consider whether there is any detail in the shadows (that is the thinnest parts of the negs) which you expected to see when you exposed the frame. These things being what they are, there is a strong possibility that the initial idea of exposure was a bit out as well. The exposure and development go hand in hand. Have a look on Roger's website for some better explanations.

🙂

 

[Al Kaplan]

Two things increase density: MORE exposure and MORE development time. More development will also increase contrast.

 

[Kozhe]

Usually too dark negatives means overexposure. Too much development time increases contrast, but the dark areas should still be there, even if you let it like 1 or 2 minutes more.

 

[David William White]

The systematic way to know is to make a proper contact sheet, so that the film rebate (clear edges) is only just indistinguishably black from the paper around the film. That is the exposure that gives you the blackest blacks from the thinest part of your negs. You will then make your contact sheets exactly the same each time (same height, time, aperture, #2 filter).

You can then judge the exposure (contacts too dark or two light) and the development (not enough contrast or too much contrast). By altering exposure or development over a few successive rolls of film, you should get your negatives consistently sweet.

Contact sheets aren't just for filing!

D.

 

[notraces]

David hit it right on the head -- I jumped back in the darkroom recently for a brush-up with a really great printer who stressed the importance of contact sheets -- and creating a consistent and repeatable process like David described. Extremely important.

As to your question -- yes, more development time would be good - without seeing the negs, I'd start increasing times by 20% -- and work from there.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I "cheat" all the time and scan frames directly off of my contact sheets for posting on my blog, film perforations, dust, and all. http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[gns]

If the shadow areas look good, but the highlights need more density, then yes, you need to lengthen development time. If the shadows need more density, then you need more exposure.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[ymc226]

Thanks to the OP for bringing to light the importance of using the contact sheet to judge how correct exposure and development are.

I just need more advice on how dark black should the film rebate be in relation to the directly exposed paper adjacent? I've attached a link to a similar issue on another forum site. One of the posts state the contact sheet needs more exposure but I think the rebate looks black enough. What do you all think?

Link to thread:
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00FX8Y


Link to example of contact sheet:

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00F/00FX8Y-28624984.jpg

 

[jpa66]

Yes, I know that I should make contact sheets, and I will ( hopefully ) soon, but I have limited access to a darkroom right now. That's probably why I've been having trouble wrapping my head around the problem.

I find it hard to believe that I underexposed, simply due to the fact that I metered ( in camera ) for the shadow areas of each frame, and not the highlights. Although, as someone suggested in my earlier post focusing on HC110, maybe I should be shooting the Tri-X at 200 or 250.

Gary, the shadow areas ( the "light" areas of the negatives ) don't have enough density, so maybe I should be rating the film at a lower speed, or I'm simply screwing up the metering...

 

[Al Kaplan]

Not all meters are accurate, and/or might need to be adjusted. Did you check your meter against another meter or two? The angular coverage can result in slightly different readings, as can the types of photosensitive cell in different meters.

In general, with either B&W or color negative films, bias on the side of overexposure. You can print through too much density (although it might look like crap) but you can't print what just plain ain't there to begin with. As you gain experience you'll get better with your metering. You might aso want to try using an incident meter and reading the brightness of the light itself falling on the subject rather than the light reflected off of the subject.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks to the OP for bringing to light the importance of using the contact sheet to judge how correct exposure and development are.

I just need more advice on how dark black should the film rebate be in relation to the directly exposed paper adjacent?

It is supposed to be almost pure black: holes pure black, and the rebate should show the darkest gray distinguishable from black. For this, film must be given enough light, usually more than box speed says... Contacts should show the real contrast that prints will show.

Some people prefer to print them without going that much towards black, so they can see shadow detail more clearly to know what's there to play with when printing.

I prefer going dark on contacts to see the real exposure and development result.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Ronald M]

Print the darks as they should be rendered. Then examine the detailed whites. If they have no detail and they are pure white, cut development time. If they are grey rather than white, they need more density. A grooms black tux and a brides white dress is the classic test.

Exposure controls the amount of detail in the shadows, development controls how much density there is in the dark part of the neg or light portion of the print.

The Golden Rule, exposure controls shadows, development controls highlights.

Providing the equipment is well calibrated, I have not found a film where the box speed was not correct, Agfa, Kodak, Ilford, anyway.


I also find the development time provided by the manufacturer, Kodak or Ilford, using their developers only, to be very close for a diffusion enlarger, 10% less if you use a condenser. Those negs will print on #2 paper providing the light meter is correct, shutter correct, thermometer correct, paper and developers fresh and up to spec.

 

[Trius]

There is no substitute for proper calibration. With experience you can "eyeball" it, but even that is living on the edge. If a densitometer isn't available for use, then David's method (see Zone VI Workshop for a full explanation,) is the way to go.

Cheating is only allowed with at least 20 years of experience. 😉