Pulling Neopan 400

[Gregoris]

I have overexposed a roll of Neopan 35mm by nearly two stops, due to trusting the iphoney light meter.

How do I pull this in development? I have Rodinal (R09), AM74 and possibly some D76 still in the box, somewhere.

Massive Dev Chart gives me 8 mins in R09 1:50 for 200 ISO
but there's another french site, bw-reeltime that gives me the same time, 8 mins for the full 400 ISO development time.

What say you?

 

[Freakscene]

For Neopan 400 at EI100 I use Xtol 1+3, 13.5 min at 20C. I've exposed at EI 50 once (accidentally) and reduced the time a little more, and that worked ok too. If the shots are important, shoot a test roll and do a trial development first, or do a clip test.

Marty

 

[x-ray]

Take the normal time you use and reduce it by 20%. If possible do a test with a short clip from one end.

I haven't pulled neopan but have pulled plenty of other films for contrast controll.

 

[Gregoris]

Thanks x-ray, but the question remains: what is correct development time for Neopan 400@400 in Rodinal 1:50?

massive dev chart says 11 mins with 60sec initial agitation, bw-reeltime says 8 mins with 30sec initial agitation

??

 

[rodt16s]

I dev'd Neopan @250 in Rodinal 1:100 20mins very gentle agitation with some success, also Perceptol 1+2 (18mins) although I dont have the temp to hand.

 

[Roger Hicks]

True ISO in R09 maybe ISO 250. Drop dev time 10%: my suspicion is that 20% would be very flat indeed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DominikDUK]

If you are a Ralph Gibson fan you could go tthe opposite way and overdevelope the film by a bit. You will end up with very grainy and contrasty photographs a la Ralph Gibson.

 

[x-ray]

Thanks x-ray, but the question remains: what is correct development time for Neopan 400@400 in Rodinal 1:50?

massive dev chart says 11 mins with 60sec initial agitation, bw-reeltime says 8 mins with 30sec initial agitation

??

I use HC110 B but to answer your question there are only starting times recommended. Everyone agitates different, their enlargers print different particularly condensors vs diffusion, scanners are different and what you see as a perfect print is most likely different than what I see. This is why you see a broad range of times.

I'd start with the massive development chart times and as mentioned before clip a short section from the roll and test it. If the images are very important take another roll and expose a few frames at 100 and clip that and run a test. This is the only safe way to determine development.

Flat negs print fine. It's much easier to add contrast than reduce contrast. Nothing is blocked in a flat net but contrasty negs often have blocked highlights.

 

[john_s]

Any Rodinal times that came originally from Agfa are for a fairly contrasty neg (0.65) whereas for straight prints 0.55 or so is preferred.

Your overexposure might not be as bad as you expect, depending on the subject. If it's close portraits fo example they might be the best negs you've ever done.

I usually set my camera's meter on 200 for Neopan400 and also take care to not let bright parts of the scene (e.g. sky) from causing less exposure, so I would be inclined to develop normally. If you have contradicting times for a develper that seem to be well sourced, I'd go with one of the shorter ones but I wouldn't deliberately underdevelop. You said "almost 2 stops" which would be only a little more than I regard as normal.