The image formed by the optical system () of the Brownie will probably be low in contrast.
Developing the film longer will increase the contrast.
Christopher, you may have inadvertently discovered for yourself the reason why it is best to fine tune your technique to the conditions you are working with.
I'd warn you though that the results you get doing this with film from a Brownie Hawkeye are much more likely to be satisfactory than results you might get doing this with film from something like a top quality lens on 35mm or 120.
And by the way, did anyone else see the thread title and think the thread was going to have something to do with Jimi Hendrix?
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
can i come and pick it up?
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
Pick up my Brownie?
do you have any negative sleeves and photo paper handy ?
make a sun print of your negatives no darkroom needed.
sandwich under a sheet of glass or in a contact frame, it really doesn't matter ...
it will take anywhere between 45mins to a few hours, and you will have
low tech traditional prints to skn rather than film.
Overdeveloped negatives are dense and contrasty and usually hard to print. You overdeveloped by some 40 percent, equivalent to over two paper grades for printing most film. Highlights may be a bit blocked. Those negatives will be difficult. Scanning (sorry about the S word) may be a good way to evaluate them and possibly get a hold on the situation.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by nworth
See the gallery.
Your shots in the gallery are great!
I think what MattKing is saying is, developing film 40% longer as a general rule, is not necessarily a good idea even though it is spectacular for the Brownie.
That's because the optics of the Brownie reduce your contrast.
I had a couple sets of film jump around on me. The shots from the Ikonta with bellows leak needed Grade 3 1/2 or higher while the shots from Spotmatic F w/SMCT lens are going to need Grade 2 or lower... Even though the films were developed to similar contrast index. The different "contrast" of the different cameras made a big difference in my case. And I always wondered what they meant when they said Pentax lenses were "contrasty"... Now I know.
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
Sure. What I understood was, with the cheap Brownie lens this much over development may work, but this probably wouldn't work as well if it were a roll that I shot with my Hassy. As I understand it, 'professional' grade lenses produce better micro-contrast in images to begin with, so the over-development is not needed. This was something that I first noticed when I went from a kit lens to Nikon's 'pro' lenses.
I think I may have pushed the development time a little too much on this roll, but it was an experiment and something that I hadn't done previously. More than likely I'll only go a minute more next time, although I do like the extra contrasty images from this first roll, even if a few of the highlights are a little too light.
i regularly over develop my film, and over expose my film ( sometimes 4-5 stops over exposed )
i use some vintage optics and some expensive schneider optics, and i really can't say that one works better
than the other.
if you you are trying to get "clinical" images over developing by 40% ( or in my case 400% ) probably isn't going
to give you that sort of look, but if you want to push your equipment to what some may suggest is
lunacy, and the unknown, by all means keep over processing your film, even more than your 40%.
get some expired photo paper and make lumen contact prints ( as i described earlier ) or
a cyanotype kit, and make more permanent prints ( lumen prints i described are a lot of fun to make, but are ephemeral / can't be fixed ).
David Vestal in his great to learn photography from book, called The Craft of Photography, a mid 70's book does the test of under and over expose film, and encourages you to do the same.
I did so back around 1982, and boy, it shows you good (not necessariliy great) things can be wrung out of very over exposed film, and somewhat the same with over developeed film.
The testing shows you what to expect when you vary from the nominal normailzed marks for exposure and developement with your equipment.
It also quickly dispells the quality claims espoused at the time for the beneifits of 'pushing' (ie under exposing and over developing) a film.
my real name, imagine that.