gliderbee
Well-known
While experimenting with multiple flashes and a flashmeter, I realized the flashmeter was set at 100 ASA instead of 400 ASA, so I unknowingly overexposed with two stops; since the pictures aren't that important, I considered them "lost" and went on exposing at 200 ASA outside, nice weather with some sunshine, not too strong.
These last pictures, I would like to come out ok.
I have XTOL, Rodinal and Studional (Rodinal Special) ready to use. What would you recommend to use as developer ? What development time and method ? I think stand development is better on films that are pushed (i.e. underexposed), but in this case, I don't know ..
Thanks,
Stefan.
These last pictures, I would like to come out ok.
I have XTOL, Rodinal and Studional (Rodinal Special) ready to use. What would you recommend to use as developer ? What development time and method ? I think stand development is better on films that are pushed (i.e. underexposed), but in this case, I don't know ..
Thanks,
Stefan.
kzphoto
Well-known
You've over exposed your film one stop so you'll need to "pull" process -- IE shorten your development. I haven't pulled Delta 400 in a few years but if memory serves me, the film is low-contrast in Rodinal. I'd say shoot for your normal development times and see what happens.
If you ever need to *push* process Delta 400, the tones become exquisite when rated at ASA 1000 or 1250 developed in Rodinal 1:1 + 60% time.
Check here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xbleh/sets/72157614645496177/
Natural light with the ZM Biogon 35/2
If you ever need to *push* process Delta 400, the tones become exquisite when rated at ASA 1000 or 1250 developed in Rodinal 1:1 + 60% time.
Check here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xbleh/sets/72157614645496177/
Natural light with the ZM Biogon 35/2
George Bonanno
Well-known
I agree. But if you have no normal just process in Rodinal 1:31 for 6 minutes at 68ºf with vigorous agitation every 30 seconds. Your negs will be most likely be picture perfect. All in all... it's not a big deal.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stefan,
No, you don't need to reduce development time. All that will do is reduce contrast and screw up tonality. "Pulling" for reduced speed is mostly an internet myth: the only real reason to do it in the wet darkroom is to tame VERY contrasty scenes, and then, only if you're wedded to Grade 2 paper. The only reason to do it if you're scanning is because you have a cheap scanner that can't see through dense highlights.
Your very best bet is is fine-grain developer, as this will give a true ISO reduction to about 200-250 anyway, and a one-stop overexposure is neither here nor there. I'd suggest Perceptol.
Failing that, normal development in Rodinal will give less than ISO 400 anyway, so you're looking at minimal overexposure (slight loss of sharpness, somewhat bigger grain) which, as George says, ain't a big deal.
Cheers,
R.
No, you don't need to reduce development time. All that will do is reduce contrast and screw up tonality. "Pulling" for reduced speed is mostly an internet myth: the only real reason to do it in the wet darkroom is to tame VERY contrasty scenes, and then, only if you're wedded to Grade 2 paper. The only reason to do it if you're scanning is because you have a cheap scanner that can't see through dense highlights.
Your very best bet is is fine-grain developer, as this will give a true ISO reduction to about 200-250 anyway, and a one-stop overexposure is neither here nor there. I'd suggest Perceptol.
Failing that, normal development in Rodinal will give less than ISO 400 anyway, so you're looking at minimal overexposure (slight loss of sharpness, somewhat bigger grain) which, as George says, ain't a big deal.
Cheers,
R.