Tri-x exposed uncorrectly, how to save?

[ipu]

Hi,
this weekend my girlfriend used a film camera after a long long pause..
The result: Kodak Tri-x film, it was supposed to be exposed at 200ASA, but most of the frames are not exposed correctly.
The problem was that she forgot the exposure setting to manual and shot away thinking it was on AE. Now it seems that most of the frames are heavily overexposed. The problem is that we have no idea, what times and apertures she used while shooting on manual settings...
Is there any way to save these images?
They don´t have to be perfect, but is there a way to get something out of these?
I was thinking Rodinal 1:100 stand development....?
Would that work?
If you guys have some questions to specify your advices, feel free to ask.
Thank you all for your answers!!! Please help!

 

[Moriturii]

What aperture64 said, and yea, if it was me, I'd reckon 1:100, or even higher, 1:150, 1:200 (if it's waaaaaaay over-exposed) rodinal dev, let stand for 60, 90, 120min with maybe an inversion at the halfway point. Tri-X can't be exposed incorrectly 🙂

 

[coelacanth]

How about giving Diafine a try?

It is a two-part developer and can develop various speed (shot at) films without time adjustment.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/16128-Acufine-Diafine-Film-Developer-to-make-1-gal.

 

[charjohncarter]

Cut back your development if you decide to NOT do stand. The Massive Development chart gives times for overexposed films, especially for TriX. Here for instance is the TriX-Rodinal page:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Tri-X+400&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search

 

[charjohncarter]

By the way, the battery died on my Olympus 35RC on a trip, so it overexposed TmaX400. TmaX400 is not a film that forgives, as TriX is. I didn't realize the battery was dead until after the development which I did normally. With scanning and PSE6 I still got something:

 

[ipu]

Thank you all for your answers. I tried to ask what aperture and shutter speed she used, but she did not have any idea, maybe 1/125 and 4 on a bright sunny day, maybe shutter speed and aperture were something else...
I would like to try that Diafine, if that would work... also stand dev in rodinal 1:100/150/200 is something i could try... please keep your ideas and advices and experiences coming, we really appreciate them!!!!!

 

[Spleenrippa]

I'll second the suggestion to try Diafine- IMO, it really is the magic bullet that will let you get something, (pretty much) no matter what you've shot at.

 

[PICHA]

Hi,
+1 for diafine.

 

[charjohncarter]

I would find someone that has done stand development of Rodinal before I just jumped in with this. The difference between 400 EI and 800 EI (Rodinal regular timed development) on the massive chart (which has been known to be wrong) is about 50%. So dropping the EI to 100 or 50 would appear not the the way to go with 1+100 stand development. It looks to me that 1+100 for 15 minutes or maybe much less would be the way to go not one hour. But I don't do stand so hope for someone that has done it to jump in.

The theory of development using to old 'expose for shadows (which you more than have done) and develop for the highlights' would require holding back on development (not increasing it at least in the case of 1+100 Rodinal).

 

[P3tr]

I also recommend trying Diafine.

 

[gho]

I also would not recomment Rodinal stand in that situation. (Maybe uneven development if overexposed and you will still have to find out the correct time). The best thing would be to find out the settings of the camera, the light situation in which the frames were shot and to adjust the regular development from there. If it is not possible to recover the data, Diafine may indeed be worth a try.

In short: Diafine +1. Good Luck!

 

[charjohncarter]

I have a few worries about Diafine too. I have never used it but here is one comment that may be helpful, followed by the Diafine pdf file.

Frank Schifano, Mar 26, 2003; 06:02 p.m.

As was stated earlier in this thread, Diafine develops film to a specific EI. Changes in time and temperature will not affect this in any way. It is in effect, a true "push" developer. So if you want to shoot HP5+, then rate it at 800 and make small adjustments from there if necessary. If you shoot it at EI 400, I'd expect to see some rather dense negatives, possibly with blown highlights. I've not used this film in Diafine, so I can't say whether the speed claim is true or not. I have recently shot and developed a few rolls of Tri-X at EI 1600 in Diafine and the results were quite good. The result would probably have been a bit better at EI 1250, but it's not bad at EI 1600. You can see some examples here:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=292911

TMax 100 is also quite good at EI 160, but that's really not much of a speed increase. Diafine is very easy to use however, and the ability to process two different film types concurrently makes the combination attractive.

The data from the spec sheet for Diafine suggest that this developer works best with thick emulsion films - exactly what you'd expect for a two bath developer. Part A contains the developing agent and part B activates the absorbed developer. You need to have a film with a thick emulsion so that it can absorb and hold a sufficient amount of developing agent to do the job. That's why the old Tri-X and Plus-X emulsions work so well in this developer. They are old fashioned, thick emulsion films that in my opinion, deliver results that cannot be obtained from the newer tabular grain and thin emulsion films. I've yet to try the newer versions of these films so I can't comment about them, but I expect that they will be similar.
Using Diafine with something like Tmax P3200 is just a waste of time and money. This film responds particularly well to development in XTOL, and to a lesser extent, TMAX developer.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/Acufine_Diafine.pdf

 

[gho]

I used to use Diafine mostly for low light situations. 1600 is the recommended ISO rating for Tri-X on the box, but some users prefer 1250.

Once I rated Tri-X at 200 and let it sit fo 12 minutes in solution A and then for 3 minutes in solution B, if I recall correctly. The negatives came out quite ok, but I would not recommend this method without prior testing.

 

[Chris101]

All this exotic stuff is nuts. How about 5 min or less of 1:1 D-76? You might just have to take the hit and have them come out very dense.

 

[charjohncarter]

All this exotic stuff is nuts. How about 5 min or less of 1:1 D-76? You might just have to take the hit and have them come out very dense.

Right or Rodinal 1+100 for 6-7 minutes or HC-110 dilution B for 4-5 minutes (or less on both).

 

[Roger Hicks]

How badly overexposed is it? One stop is trivial. Two stops is not a disaster.

Cheers,

R..

 

[ferider]

If you have two tanks, cut out a piece of film and try in one tank. Then adjust for the second. Over-develop.

Roland.

 

[Chris101]

How badly overexposed is it? One stop is trivial. Two stops is not a disaster.

Cheers,

R..

It sounds like 5 or 6 stops according to the OP's estimate.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Did she use the same settings for all photographs?
Which shutter speed is set on camera? Aperture on lens? Did she change aperture? Speed?
Were all images shot under the same kind(s) of light? Which or which ones?

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Chris101]

Did she use the same settings for all photographs?
Which shutter speed is set on camera? Aperture on lens? Did she change aperture? Speed?
Were all images shot under the same kind(s) of light? Which or which ones?

Cheers,

Juan

According to the OP:

... I tried to ask what aperture and shutter speed she used, but she did not have any idea, maybe 1/125 and 4 on a bright sunny day, maybe shutter speed and aperture were something else...
...

So I recommend an extreme underdevelopment. IThis will lower contrast, increase latitude with an increased likelihood the exposure will match the development.