How to develop over-exposed film

Please, ignore the troll.


Francis A. Miniter wrote:

: That might work (1) if the slope of the film curve was a straight line
: indefinitely and (2) you did not have to deal with reciprocity failure
: when printing from an overdense negative.

: 1. The real world limitation is that virtually every film develops a
: shoulder a couple of stops above the standard range of stops for which a
: negative is usually developed. Overexposure pushes the film in the
: direction of the shoulder to begin with and overdevelopment pushes it
: even farther in that direction. This itself reduces contrast. The
: corollary of your advice would be to underdevelop underexposed film.
: That won't work because the stops will all be pushed into the toe of the
: curve. So the traditional advice to underdevelop overexposed film is
: the only way to compensate so as to keep the negative's density range in
: the straight line part of the typical film curve.

: 2. Besides being a real pain to deal with on the enlarger [focusing,
: length of exposure to obtain an image], overexposed, overdeveloped
: negatives strain the paper's reciprocity failure limits. When dealing
: with long exposures - 2+ minutes - there is also the concern about
: fogging from the safelight, a risk which may require the exposure to be
: done without the safelight on.


: Francis A. Miniter

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

MOST of the time moderately severe overexposure will result in flat
negatives when coupled with normal development, and useless negatives
with reduced development. Reducing development will produce a thinner
negative to be sure, but it will only exacerbate the low contrast and
is not a good approach.

Increasing development will add a little contrast. Reducing the final
result will then allow for a thinner negative, just as you point out.

A sub-proportional reducer is the way to go if normal development is
used, a proportion reducer if over-development is used.

Nothing. You?


wrote:
OK, Alexis, what were you drinking last night?

Nothing. You?


wrote:
OK, Alexis, what were you drinking last night?

oh brother. Give it a rest.


wrote:
I had not planned on this. The evenness of the illumination of the
condenser is not quite right. The center is a little too hot. I'm
going
to try another head, and mess with the bulb a little.

oh brother. Give it a rest.


wrote:
I had not planned on this. The evenness of the illumination of the
condenser is not quite right. The center is a little too hot. I'm
going
to try another head, and mess with the bulb a little.

ScarpettiKnowsNothing wrote:


I thought you wanted to help get rid of the troll. If you do ignore him.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

ScarpettiKnowsNothing wrote:


I thought you wanted to help get rid of the troll. If you do ignore him.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

ScarpettiKnowsNothing wrote:


I thought you wanted to help get rid of the troll. If you do ignore him.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Has it worked yet? Not that I've seen. Some poor newb is gonna see
that and go to it and get more false info. Can we let THAT happen?





Frank Pittel wrote:
ScarpettiKnowsNothing wrote:


I thought you wanted to help get rid of the troll. If you do ignore
him.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------