1.12 Ultrapan

2.5 ORWO NP20

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddzcdmzw_7hhrkd9

ORWO NP20 (120, exp. 1992), ISO 80
Pre-soak 20 min in 23°C, then flush twice
20°C:

18 min in HC-110 1+63
9 min in Rodinal 1+40

25°C:

12 min in HC-110 1+63

2.6 D76 and ID-11

http://www.freelists.org/archives/pure-silver/12-2005/msg00006.html

[pure-silver] Re: OLD FILM Developing suggestions ????

• From: "Leigh Solland (on Chickadee)" <solland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:53:33 -0700

Speedy. wrote:

I am about to attempt to develop a roll of film found in a camera given to me by a friend. The camera belonged to her mother...

The film is 616 size K_dak Verichrome PAN. I have no idea how long this film has been sitting in the camera waiting to be processed.

Given that the film is old and was probably exposed at least a couple decades ago, are there any special considerations

I should take in processing? What developer would you suggest, at what time and temp?

I have done a few of these, and I just keep it simple, with D-76 (or ID-11) at 1+1. I give it a little extra time, maybe 10-20%.

If you are into chemicals, perhaps adding a little bromide would reduce fog, but I haven't ever tried it.

I have had good success, at least enough to see what is on the film and make prints. I don't expect perfection, but on the other

hand, most of these old snapshots aren't very good anyway. The best thing about them is that they will bring back memories of times and people.

Chances are that the film was exposed in bright sunlight, so expect lots of contrast. And hope the photographer didn't shake the camera.

My grandfather's pictures are tack sharp, but my grandmother's, taken with the same camera, are nearly all fuzzy,

apparently because she poked the shutter release instead of squeezing it.

One roll of 116 Verichrome that I developed was very old, probably from the early 1930's, and it gave me no images, just a

wonderfully strange paisley abstract pattern. One of these days, I'm going to print it.

I believe that it was caused by fungus or some such that ate the emulsion. Yum, yum, gelatin!

2.7 D76+ANTI-FOG

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2005/08/msg00081.html

I remember reading this article in the National Geographic, it was a recent issue when I saw it

around 1987, don't have it any more.  A Kodak 3A was recovered on a Polar exploration, I think 

the camera dated to the 1920s.

They opened the camera in a darkroom and cut the film before removing it.

They presumed that the film in the focal plane likely contained the last picture, the film on the 

takeup roll was exposed and the film on the supply roll was unexposed. They used the 

unexposed film to experiment with a developing strategy, then processed the film on the takeup 

roll, then developed the film from the focal plane.  Let me know if you figure out which issue it 

was.

I have read all of the photography magazines published in the US during the twentieth century 

and indexed (among other things) everything that i found about developing old film found in 

cameras, etc., All of these are anecdotal and amateur, but do indicate success in many cases.

In 1993, I had to develop several hundred rolls of still film that was exposed thirty years earlier.  

It was Super-XX, a relic of the old thick-emulsion films, none of which is made anymore.  I tested 

many developers and techniques to find out what worked best.  The best result came with D-76 

with Kodak Anti-Fog added.  I made a saturated solution of anti-fog and added one ounce per 

gallon to the developer working solution until clip tests showed a manageable fog level in the 

center of the film. You don't want to add any more than necessary because you lose shadow 

detail.  Kodak has discontinued the chemical, but old bottles of it can be found here and there.  

The worst results came with Rodinal.  HC110 did not produce as strong an image as D-76.  At 

the time, Xtol had not been invented yet so it would be worth revisiting the question again, 

although I doubt that Xtol would be better than D76 when anti-fog is being used.

I recommend a pre-soak in a mild balanced alkali.  Presoak the clip tests too since the alkali 

carried over in the emulsion does affect the development.

--

Thomas Robinson

http://www.historicphotoarchive.com

2.8 Gevaert Superchrome orthochromatic rollfilm

(With comments from C-22 Lab)

Link

2.9 It is always good to overdevelop

http://www.photosig.com/go/forums/read;jsessionid=ao-NvUay4CK4H-_qef?id=233710

From markj913/Mark (6,269)   on February 18, 2007 3:49:45 PM EST

I have a roll of exposed Hauff Pancola-S-25 film, ISO 250. I cannot find any processing data for it.

I've tried Google and The Massive Dev Chart to no avail. Does anybody have any idea what times to use?

I am using ID-11 developer. By the way, the film is slightly expired (August 1969).

  From robertwallis/Robert (3,164)   on February 18, 2007 5:03:35 PM EST

Get some anti-fog tablets and add them to the ID-11. Develop for 17-20 minutes on the premise that it is

easier to reduce/bleach a overdeveloped neg than add detail that wasn't developed.

It would be a safe assumption that the film is panchromatic and you can't develop by inspection,

although a very dim greem bulb has been used for pan films.

…..

From robertwallis/Robert (3,164)   on February 18, 2007 9:53:49 PM EST

Given that it was old film and recent exposure, I would guess that the film has probably lost speed,

so the 17-20 minute developing time is a fair guess, and use the developer full strength, no dilution.

The negs may be dense, but you can always bleach a dense neg. It's a lot harder to intensify the

neg after the fact, especially since Kodak doesn't package the intensifier kit any longer due to toxicity problems.

The anti-fog tablets could be purchased through Photographer's Formulary.

2.10 GEVAPAN 27

http://www.beststuff.com/forum/read.php?36,66435,66435

old film (was ned help with film of yesteryear)

Posted by: Peter Wallage (IP Logged)

Date: September 26, 2002 03:28PM

Hi,

Sorry to be rather late in replying to the query about old films, I haven't been on the forum for a while.

The only Belgian maker I can think of is Gevaert. In the 1960s they produced a range of panchromatic

roll films called Gevapan identified by numbers. Gevapan 27 was very fine grain (for its time) and slow at 40 ASA.

Going up the speed range there was Gevapan 30 at 125 ASA, Gevapan 33 at 250 ASA and Gevapan 36 at 400 ASA.

The numbers 27 to 36 referred to the old BS Logarithmic speed index which dropped into disuse years ago.

If it is a Gevaert film it should be marked with one of these numbers. If it is completely unknown,

I would hazard a guess at 10 minutes in D.76 or ID 11 at 20 degrees C. These are old-establised

Metol-Quinol-Borax developers, and though there are many more modern high-acutance developers

about, you may find M-Q Borax is more tolerant with old film.

Kodak Verichrome Pan was rated at 125 ASA. Kodak's recommendation for developing was

8 minutes in D.76 at 20 degrees C. Ilford ID 11 is almost identical to Kodak D.76.

Kodak also gave developing times for Gevapan in D.76 starting at 9 minutes for 27,

10 minutes for 30 and 33 and 12 minutes for 36.

Your films will probably have lost some speed with age, probably about 1 to 1.5 stops but you should still

get a reasonable image at these times. You may have a slight problem with "age fog", a sort of fine grey

misting all over the neg, but slightly darker at the edges. It will still print OK, but you may lose some contrast.

You could try your local photo shop for an anti-fogging agent. There used to be several of these on the market

some years ago, some used as a preliminary bath before developing and some to add to the developer.

I don't know if they're still available. Hope this helps.

2.11 C22 in B&W developer

http://www.nelsonfoto.com/v/showthread.php?t=264

ImageMaker

C-41 almost guarantees destruction of the images on C-22 film.

The problem is that the C-41 stabilizer won't react correctly with the C-22 film dyes, and leave them in a white,

"leuko" state that produces no visible color image (white on clear, kind of) and will deteriorate rapidly.

Also, C-41 at reduced temperature (to keep from simply stripping the emulsion off the older film) doesn't even work well with C-41 film.

What *is* possible is to process the roll in conventional B&W developer (though in my experience Diafine is a poor choice for old film,

because it has little fog inhibition), see if there's anything worth recovering, and then if there is do the following: bleach the silver

 image with rehalogenating bleach (in the light) -- C-41 bleach works well for this, as long as it's not blix – and then submit the film for

processing through the correct C-22 chemistry, which will, on redeveloping the bleached halide, render the color image as well as the

aged film is capable of doing.

Film Rescue and similar companies are probably familiar enough with this process that you can just submit the film with the original

B&W image, if you contact them first and ask how they want it notated so they bleach and reexpose before doing the full process.

The advantage of this method is you don't waste months and lots of money for a roll that's fogged, unexposed, out of focus, etc.

 No guarantees on the color quality after 35+ years, though, and it might be prodent to scan the B&W image before sending off the film,

 if you can do so without cutting it...

08-28-2005

Alan Gage 

I've had good luck using Diafine with very old negatives (from the 50's-60's).

Yes, it does produce more fog and the negatives seem a little flat; but they've been easier to work with then many of the negs

I've done with other developers. Many times it's a generic roll of film and you don't know who made it, the age,

or what the film speed is. Diafine has gotten me more consistant results and after some photoshop work they look fine.

As far Diafine and color film; I don't know. I've only used HC-110 and had great luck with it. For me there's no reason to try

another developer for old color film as long as HC-110 is working for me.

Alan

ImageMaker

B&W Geek                             

HC-110 is what I generally recommend for old film -- it's got a strong antifog in it anyway, to counter dichroic fog

from the high ammonium concentration, so no additional antifog agent is required, but Kodak Anti-Fog or

Edwal Liquid Orthazite added to D-76, or even a little potassium bromide added to most conventional developers, would be good.

C-41 bleach can be had (by the gallon of concentrate, mostly) from the larger mail order dealers;

the gallon is going to ship at well over 10 lbs. E-6 bleach would also work; it's the same stuff (dichromate bleach

with chloride present), and may be available in smaller quantity, marketed to workers who do more than is economical

for kits, but too little to have a processing line. At least one company that sells home C-41 kits sells the individual

components, also, possibly in smaller than gallon sizes; look on B&H, Freestyle, or Adorama for photo chemicals.

Either way, the bleach must not include a fixer, which would remove the bleach-produced halide.

Reversal bleach designed for B&W would not work; it doesn't rehalogenate, but simply dissolves away the silver

(so as to avoid confusing the rehalogenated, bleached former image with the unexposed, undeveloped original halide).

You could use a bleach homemade with potassium dichromate and HCl instead of sulfuric acid, as this would convert

the silver to the chloride, when would then be sensitive to fogging and redevelopable.

Farmer's Reducer might work -- I don't recall if it includes fixer. Alternately, you might be able to bleach with simple

tincture of iodine diluted out with water; this will bleach silver to silver iodide, but might result in some changes in

the redeveloped image (when done with a B&W print, the redeveloped image has a warm tone, indicating a change

in silver grain size; I don't know whether this would affect the dyes in a color film).

Bleach made for bleach/redevelop sepia or color toning kits would work fine; those processes depend on

having developable halide after bleaching.

This process should work for any C-22 film -- like C-41, they all used the same process, so all should work with the same alternate.

The potential gotcha here is you have to find a time for C-22 material in your developer, and there probably isn't a published value

out there. Develop too little, and there won't be enough halide to get a good image in the second stage (and maybe not enough silver

image to scan well). For C-41 in HC-110, I've found it works pretty well to just treat it as Tri-X, using my usual high dilution, long

process with reduced agitation (this process is also very tolerant of variations in exposure). I don't know how the original C-22 time

and temp (longer and cooler than C-41) would translate, but HC-110 Dilution G, 21 minutes, continuous agitation first minute then 5

inversions every 3rd minute should produce something close enough to scan and recover.

BTW, this whole process also works with C-41, requiring only that you apply a C-41 process at the end instead of C-22, to recover the

color image. I derived it from a Kodak recommendation for color film accidentally processed as B&W. I haven't actually tried it,

but the only modification from Kodak's recommendation is intentionally applying the B&W process they consider an accident...

Don Day 

O frabjous day!                      

A report on stage 1 of a C-22 recovery attempt.

The roll in question was a completely wound-through roll of Kodacolor-X 116, of the C-22 process. I had to roll the film backwards

and leave it for a few hours to counter the curl before I could wind it onto a modified Patterson-style reel. For stage 1,

I used D-76 1:1 with 1 Kodak Anti-Fog tablet, developed at the equivalent of Tri-X 120, N+1 time/temp. Fixing time was longish,

but otherwise there were no surprises here. The usual dark mask is still part of the background, but by scanning as a color negative,

 the software removed the mask as "background fog" and I simply desaturated the colors to create a gray scale positive image.

The tone range was very narrow, and the edges significantly fogged relative to the central area, but by golly, there were recoverable

images there of someone's camping trip that included Las Vegas. The quality of the shots is not great (Kodak's cheapest lens and

shutter on their Junior 116 line), but the story is interesting enough to warrant taking these through stage 2, as outlined in the

discussion above. More on that once I locate some appropriate bleach and line up a willing lab.

2.12 Dektol?

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/1998/1353.html

Subject: Recovering film from Mount Everest
From: Morten Ryhl-Svendsen (morten.ryhl)
Date: 11-10-1998

• Next message: Marta Barandiaran: "Beva film"
• Previous message: Niccolo Caldararo: "Objects Specialty Group list"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Gary L. Moore <gcmoore [at] sprynet__com>

>... Hopefully

>we will be able to locate and recover a camera which might contain

>film showing their summit success or failure.  Should we recover the

>camera, and it is structurally intact, is it possible the film might

>still be developed? It would have remained frozen through the years.

>How should the film be handled?

I must say that I don't have any experience with developing old films myself. However, at the 

History of Photography list there were just recently a similar question, and most of the answers 

given there sounds quite reliable. The film in question then was a 60-year-old Pan X Safety Film. 

To summarize, the advices given by various list members then were:

    *   To a start only develop a short length of the film, to see

        if your development time should be altered. (And if you are

        dealing with sheet films of course start with one sheet

        only).

    *   If the first piece of developed film is very fogged, you

        might want to use a restrainer, as eg. Kodak as Anti-Fog

        tablets #1.

    *   One suggests using straight Dektol at 68 to 70 degrees for 5

        minutes with the agitation cycle that you normally use. Then

        stop bath, fix, and wash/dry as normal.

    *   Another one recommends 50% longer time than "normal

        development".

    *   To beware that a too long immersion into water can make the

        emulsion lifting of the base.

I must add myself, that if there is something on the films, it will probably be developed to a more

or less useful result no matter what developer you use. If the contrast is weak, it will be possible 

to correct this when making the prints. What would worry me much more,

is the danger of the emulsion leaving the film base during processing, leaving you with just about 

nothing. This is (among other things) dependent of the pH of the developer. Developer is

more or less alkaline, and a high pH will make the gelatine swell more (and higher the risk that 

the emulsion floats away). As a Dektol solution easily can have a pH around 11, another 

developer called Amidol is almost pH-neutral, which will be much more gentle on the gelatine 

emulsion. Amidol is used today in photographic conservation when re-developing old negatives 

after bleaching, a situation probably quite similar to developing a 70+ years old film.

I don't think you can buy ready-to-use Amidol today, but you can find the recipe in most older 

photographic recipe books. Finally I will draw your attention to an article by Jesper Stub Johnsen 

of the Danish National Museum: "Image Quality of Chemically Restored Black and White 

Negatives", in Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 36 (1992) pp. 46-55. The use of 

Amidol (among other things) in conservation is described here, and even the subject here is

*re*-development of older negatives you might find some information still useful regarding your 

problem.

Morten Ryhl-Svendsen

Conservator - Photographic Materials

The School of Conservation, Copenhagen

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/bdbc1538c2f6d1b0

Gary Beasley    Dec 12 1997, 4:00 am  

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: beasley...@mindspring.com (Gary Beasley)

Date: 1997/12/12

Subject: Re: Developing Film in Paper Developer?

edinman <edin...@earthlink.net> wrote: 

>I know that D-72, which is the Kodak formula that Dektol 

>is supposedly based on, was originally billed as a universal 

>developer for papers, films and plates. 

>Ironically, a 1940s-era chemical formula publication I have 

>actually suggests a higher dilution of developer to water 

>for film than for paper, although there is no reason given. 

>Grain was not seen as so critical when almost all films were 

>slow and most everybody used large format sheet film negatives. 

>It was quite routine to toss the films and paper into the same 

>trays to process.  With the advent of high speed emulsions and 

>small format roll films, fine-grain developers became more 

>common. 

>If I could only have one developer, however, it would probably 

>still be Dektol or a similar substitute.  With slower films I 

>am told it can produce quite acceptable results as a negative 

>developer.  But, of course, the best thing to do is just to 

>experiment and make up your own mind about this if you're 

>interested. 

>--Ed 

Back when I started you could buy a Tri-Chem Pack whick was Dektol, 

stop and fix. The instructions were to mix the chemicals, process the 

roll of Verichrome in the straight Dektol for two or four minutes 

(don't remember which) the dilute the developer for making the prints. 

Results were acceptable. 

I have done Kodak High Speed Infrared in Dektol 1:3, about 4 minutes 

at 72F and got good results, grain wasn't too bad for this film 

either.

2.13 Old film processing: T=20C/68F

Howard Bingham    Aug 27 1998, 3:00 am  

…Be sure to process the film with the chemistry & wash water at 68  degree's, as the older films 

were not designed to be processed at warmer  temperatures. Do pre-soak the film, before 

processing, as other poster's have mentioned.

2.14 Developing C-22 or C-41 in B&W

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I3y3

Karl Blessinghttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Sep 15, 2006; 03:46 p.m.

Ok, I already seen many people say you can develop it in D76 or in Hc-110, the problem I'm having of course

is with all the people that say they've done it for years and post example don't say the critical bits... For example...

TIME , TEMPERATURE & DILUTIONS

Saying you can do it, or have done it doesnt mean a thing to me if you cant tell me 'how'.

Answers

mad mad, Sep 16, 2006; 01:15 a.m.

here is a slide kodak duplicating film that has been processed in b+w dev and color bleach and fix (inverted, fix 1st and bleach after)

times are about 18min in hc-110 dil.B 20 deg. Cel. if you under expose your slide by three stops. (100 iso exposed at 800) and 10 min

Fix 20 deg. cel. and 12 min bleach same temp. After If you wish (I recommend you this) Process in regular c-41 process (the whole process)

My choice of film is REALLY Bad and it's half processed, still need the c-41. You can process in day light after the second step (FIX).

Between the dev and the fix use a b+w stop bath or water. Dry the film carefully between the 2 Major Steps. (before the whole regular c-41)...

Dont use BleachFix, Find a Bleach and a fix separated... Good Luck. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4860705

John Shriver , Sep 16, 2006; 10:40 a.m.

Tri-X times are fine. Nobody really works out exact times, since it's a somewhat marginal solution. That is, I'd use it to get some images from

old C-22 film, but any C-41 film I'd pay a minilab the $3 to process only. Even totally dead C-41 film will give you a better image in C-41 process

than in B&W.

Don't expect great results, as the colloidal silver yellow mask will still be in the negative, so Dmin will be mighty high. It's removed in C-41

processing when all the silver is bleached out.

Kelly Flanigan , Sep 16, 2006; 11:21 a.m.

Many of us just use old D76, and process it just like Verichrome or tri-x, with say 0 to 20 percent more time. Folks have been doing this for at

least 1/2 century, often with old films found in old cameras. One gets an orangish base film, harder to print. If your "old film" is jsut c41, a local

c41 lab will yield far better results than a B&W attempt. Here I have developed several hundred rolls of C22 and c41 in B&W, mostly old rolls

found in cameras, or the old "free" 620 films we got as kids with each film we got processed. The difficultly of developing c22 or c41 is like boiling

water, growing weeds, ie easy.

With a film or flatbed scanner today one can pulle an image out of a redish negative easier then farting around in a darkroom. The grain is often poor.

Since the age, storage times, humidity of old c22 or old c41 varies radically, there is no magical TIME , TEMPERATURE & DILUTIONS that will

fix a fogged roll of film. The base fog increases with an old film. A found film that once had shadow detail often has its detail lost in the base fog.

with old box cameras and exposures done in sunlight, often the cameras had margin, ie a tad of overexposure, this helps.

Kelly Flanigan , Sep 16, 2006; 11:36 a.m.

You can also shoot a brand new in date roll of c41 as a control, to see "best case" what one can get from a B&W development event.

When developing say an old roll Kodacolor roll of 616 or 620 found in a box camera, the film will often be a devil to load on a film reel, with sometimes

massive curl, if really old. Each false loading can generate frustration, new swear words to be coined, chinks and weird half moon marks on the films.

In some brands the curls is alot worse, and loading frustration more. With the bigger negatives of a box camera or folder, the results are often decent

for moderate sized prints, since the enlargement factor is low.

For a known roll that was in your families camera with possible personal value, having it processed in the old c22 or modern c41 might be explored.

Larry Dressler, Sep 17, 2006; 09:22 a.m.

C-22 in Diafine 4+4 not the normal 3+3. IF in HC-110 Dil-B use the times for old Tri-X plus 20%. D-76 will result in lowered contrast but if you must

use it add 30% to the time you would use for Old Tri-X. And a scanner because if you try to print it you will be using so much Panalur that is no

longer made you will be out there.... A Scanner and even a cheap Vew-Scan type software will produce great pictures if you work them over enough,

Why even try C-41 in B&W unless it is XP-2 and then that is a last resort like all the C-41 processing machines on Earth died.

Larry

Getting rid of orange cast of c41 developed in bw chemistry: 8G of citric acid/1L of fixer solution

Link1

Link2

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: "Some Dude" <fotoobsc...@gmail.com>

Date: 3 Jan 2005 08:55:48 -0800

Subject: getting rid of orange cast of c41 developed in bw chem.

I have done this succesfully with E6 films removing the remjet but the

same doesn't seem to work for C41 films too well.  I have mixed citric

acid with non-hardening fixer per Kodak and it will not bleach out

(much) of the orange cast.

Are there any other (perhaps stronger) recipes out there to get the

orange cast off the negative?  

<...>

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: "Some Dude" <fotoobsc...@gmail.com>

Date: 4 Jan 2005 13:51:04 -0800

Subject: Re: getting rid of orange cast of c41 developed in bw chem.

Analyst:

Thanks.  I actually made a very strong bleaching recipe (about 3x

stronger than kodak recommends) and was able to get a decent amount of

the cast off..enough for the scanner to see the frame spacers and scan

the film well..so it was worth it :)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: "Some Dude" <fotoobsc...@gmail.com>

Date: 5 Jan 2005 10:04:19 -0800

Subject: Re: getting rid of orange cast of c41 developed in bw chem.

Well in most cases yes (assuming you are developing semi-normally

c41-bw.  But if you get extremely dark and unwieldly negatives that are

nearly opaque my 8000 won't scan the negative at all (even with Vuescan

set all manual).  It will reject scanning the film because it can't see

*any* image.  By bleaching the negative I was at least able to scan the

roll.. I have been doing a lot of experimentations with c41 in bw

chemicals and some development times are in the days...

<...>     

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickb...@ix.netcom.com>

Date: 12 Jan 2005 07:18:11 -0800

Subject: Re: getting rid of orange cast of c41 developed in bw chem.

The orange color is not in the support. It is the unconverted color

couplers in the emulsion. The couplers in two of the layers (in Kodak

films) are designed to be complimentary to the "parasitic" transmission

of the dyes. This results in automatic masking which improves color

rendition. In normal color development the couplers are converted to

dye by a chain reaction of development. The type of developer used for

color reacts with the silver to produce another compound which

subsequently reacts with the couplers to produce the dye. Most normally

used B&W developers do not produce the right reaction products to

generate the dye to the result is a silver image along with the

unreacted couplers. The couplers can be removed with a bleach without

affecting the silver image. The bleach mentioned earlier, namely rapid

fixer with citric acid added, is a mild silver solvent recommended for

removing dichroic fog (which is metallic silver) and for mild reduction

of the density. I am not sure how effective it is for removing the

couplers. Kodak, at one time, had a bulletin posted on their website

about how to remove the couplers, but I could not find it when I looked

recently. I probablly have this bulletin stored somewhere. I suspect

that someone at Kodak customer service could find it, at least its

worth a phone call or e-mail. I will look among my collection of stuff

for this.

As long as the couplers remain the film can be redeveloped to bring

out the color. Once the couplers are removed they are BW silver images

forever.

<...>

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: "Process C-22" <i...@processc22.co.uk>

Date: 12 Jan 2005 14:59:06 -0800

Subject: Re: getting rid of orange cast of c41 developed in bw chem.

Thanks Richard for a most comprehensive answer as usual!  If you do

find that memo, coupld you email it to us, as it will prove very

useful.

Another point to note is the citric acid bleach will also remove the

yellow filter layer, which accounts for the 'orange stain', as well as

a portion of the silver anti-halo - the 'brown stain'.  This is

particularly noticeable if your are BW processing older films such as

35mm Kodacolor II.

2.15 Original Kodak VERICHROME (not Pan)

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EiV4

Robert Meyerhttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Jan 03, 2006; 01:06 p.m.

See also: 2.12

2.16 Kodak recommendations on development circa 1945

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/34307-pre-war-1930s-look-3.html

2.17 Very low temperature,

         Very concentrated developer,

         Very short time!

Link

filmrescue Jun 23 2001, 12:21 am 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: filmres...@sk.sympatico.ca (filmrescue)

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 04:21:53 +0000 (UTC)

Local: Sat, Jun 23 2001 12:21 am

Subject: Re: Developer 1930 era? Verichrome

We get between 20 to 40 old rolls of B&W film in each month for processing.  These rolls on occasion date as far back as to the 1920's up to the late 60's. 

On properly exposed roll film we are getting around 99% success on the newer ones going down to about 60% on the very oldest.  I'm not going to tell

you how we do them but will give you a clue.  When we first started doing this work we were using D-19 in varying degrees of success.  Over time this

 process has been further and further modified and what we have found is the more concentrated the developer the better the result.  But in order to work

with these extremely potent developers we ended up  dropping our time to such a very small amount that getting even development was impossible. 

We were doing some clips down as short as a 45 second development.  The result was good but the artifacting was ridiculous.  Even though at this point

we were down to about 18 degrees c we continued to drop the temperature to a point I thought we would begin to have a problem with crystallization. 

Fortunately with the formula we were using this was not a problem.  At this time some of the film we are processing into a B&W negative, the developer

is dumped into the drum just after the top begins to skim over with ice.  It has taken about 7 years of slow modification to get to this point but I am quite

confident little more could be done to improve on what we are getting.

One other thing that I will mention that is a huge contributor to the success you will have in processing this very old roll of film is how tightly the roll has

been wrapped over these decades.  The tighter the better.

Greg Miller

Film Rescue International

Processors of old film

2.18 D-19 development times

50years old Pan film: See 1.19

Fuji Neopan 400 in D-19:

Link

Kodak’s published development times            

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f13/f13.pdf

Kodak Tech Pan:

               C.I: 2.4 to 2.7

               Dilution 1:2

               Time 4 to 7 min at 68F/20C

               E.I. 100 to 160

Kodak HIE:

               C.I: 1.65

               Stock

               Time 7 min at 65F/18C

               Time 6 min at 68F/20C

               Time 5 ½ min at 70F/21C

               Time 5 min at 72F/22C

               Time 4 min at 75F/24C

2.19 Let’s professionals speak

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/browse_thread/thread/83f0ed585e03f37a

Dominic Roberts   (Process-C22 Lab, UK):

Jan 11 2002, 7:09 pm                            

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: process...@yahoo.co.uk (Dominic Roberts)

Date: 11 Jan 2002 15:09:01 -0800

Local: Fri, Jan 11 2002 7:09 pm

Subject: Re: Job Possibility at Film Rescue

<…>

The name of our game is breaking all the rules, be it correcting colour shift in thirty-year old E-4 film by altering the chemistry mid-process,

or boosting gamma by upto 500% in C-22 film developers. I formulate ALL my own chemistry, and not just developers.  We use unique bleaches,

hardening baths, backing removers, dye stabilisers, and post processing treatments.  Control strips are nigh on useless in this twilight world,

we utilise temperature change for its beneficial effect, not as a method of control.

Until very recently I had never corrected an image in Photoshop.  Can anybody else predict dye levels when developing colour neg films by

inspection?  Thought not.  How about predicting colour shift after Colour Slide First developer?  Try receiving a blank cassette and

working out the age and process from the colour of emulsion, spool, label etc.  Any error could destroy somebody's memories. <….>

Subject: Re: K-14 Oopsies! (yeah, you know in BW chemistry)

Date: 24 Nov 2004 14:02:20 -0800

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/1280ef0b3cb11623?hl=en&

<….>

You can indeed develop new K-14 in B/W dev, just try 15min @ 20degrees

C with D-76.  Comes out quite well, but high contrast.  You will get a

very yellow/magenta base which is the yellow filter, this can be

carefully bleached with dilute farmers reducer or similar.  You will

need to wipe and rinse off the remjet backing with a clean damp cloth

and running water.<….>

Subject: Developing 50 yr old Plus-x 

24 Oct 2001 07:45:21

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/f5e4cae47fb38019?hl=en&

<….>

try Kodak D-19 or D-8 for about 10 mins at very low temps (10-15 deg C as a start).

And experiment! You may just hit upon success.

Both Greg and I run propriatory processes for old material in our labs

and it has taken much research to get the results.  Using a standard

process you have found the negative to be fogged, but you may end up

with a dense but printable neg with a modified D-8 formula.<….>

Greg Miller    (Film Rescue International, USA):

Jan 11 2002, 8:52 pm 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: filmres...@hotmail.com (Greg Miller)

Date: 11 Jan 2002 16:52:55 -0800

Local: Fri, Jan 11 2002 8:52 pm

Subject: Re: Job Possibility at Film Rescue

<…>

P.S.  We process between 200 to 600 rolls each month each requiring

special handling and we are the small guys on the block.  Rocky

Mountain does 8 to 10 times that volume.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fh9e

<…> to process his disc film <…>Includes development in AN-6 high contrast aerial film developer which puts a lot of punch back into these old films.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/bd0755c162c360b1?hl=en&

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: filmres...@sk.sympatico.ca (filmrescue)

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:37:24 +0000 (UTC)

Local: Wed, Jun 20 2001 9:37 am

Subject: Re: Re: Old Colour Film Developing

<…>for C-41 film, that as a rule of thumb is 7 years beyond its expiry date,

we recommend it be processed in AN-6 developer.  This is a high contrast developer

designed for the aerial industry.  Once the film has been processed we do a test color

print onto Kodak Altra and if we can not get a fair print onto this paper we resort to

printing it onto the high contrast Panalure paper in order to salvage a better print.  For

long expired E-6 we recommend that you take it to a custom lab and have it

cross-processed C-41 pulled about one stop.  This is your best bet for getting something decent off of it.  If you must have slides process the film E-6

pulled one half.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/1d9bf443e09fad80?hl=en&

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: filmres...@my-deja.com

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:02:28 GMT

Local: Sat, Jan 20 2001 12:02 pm

Subject: Re: High contrast developer question

  jwallace2...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I am trying to process some Ortho/Litho plates, and the recommended

> developer is "Kodalith A-B", but there is no photo store or graphic

> arts supply house within 200 miles of here that carries this stuff or

> anything similar.

> Can anybody suggest a way to improvise, using a more commonly available

> developer?? (I think I could obtain D-11, D-19, Rodinal, HC-110,

> Accufine, etc., etc.)  The objective is to get highest possible

> contrast and highest possible resolution.

> TIA,  jwall...@karta.com

>Here's a quick fix.  Why not use a paper developer.  It is loaded up

with restrainer and will result in a very high contrast film neg. but it will require lower concentrations and very low temperatures.  Here's a starting point. 

Use a liquid concentrate developer and mix it to about .7 of it normal concentration.  Develop the film with the developer cooled to 12 degrees C for 4 min.

Don't  worry about the temp. of the developer rising during processing, just keep it consistant during each test.  If you want more contrast increase the

concentration and lower starting temperature.  If you are not getting even looking negs you will have to increase the processing time and further reduce

temperature.

Good luck.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/b407e58cffb09db7?hl=en&

Jan 2 2001, 11:10 pm 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: filmres...@my-deja.com

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:57:16 GMT

Local: Tues, Jan 2 2001 10:57 pm

Subject: High contrast paper developer

Does any one out there have a formula for a extremly high contrast paper developer.  I have tried all of the high con formulas in the darkroom cookbook

and some others from vintage photographic formulary books but none give me more contrast than Kodak Polymax RT 3 to 1 in fact most are significantly lower. 

Now I am going to ask for the world because I also would like to have a formula for a replenisher along with replenishment  rates for this developer.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/10bb5aab0b7eec07?hl=en&

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: filmres...@hotmail.com (Greg Miller)

Date: 26 Mar 2003 08:07:49 -0800

Local: Wed, Mar 26 2003 12:07 pm

Subject: Re: E-4 processing

<…>

Typical success rates are as follows:

   Processed in propriatary bleach omitted process   80 to 90 %

   Processed into a color print film using AN-6 high contrast developer 50 to 60 %

   Processed into the intended color slide 30 to 40 %

These success rates are based on properly exposed film.  Even when processed into color we often resort to B&W printing in order to salvage

the clearest image.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/927ab5e14d3fb91a?hl=en&

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: filmres...@my-deja.com (Miller)

Date: 2 Jan 2002 19:18:29 -0800

Local: Wed, Jan 2 2002 11:18 pm

Subject: I just have to bragg about this one

Having received and processed a film found recently at the site of a 1957 aircraft crash in Arizona we were able to process the film and get

several discernable images from it. This film had been sitting out in the weather for over 44 years unprotected in the Arizona heat.

This was a Kodachrome film and was developed in an extremely potent developer at the freezing point.  You can't polish a terd but I think

we did gloss one up a bit.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/5030b95fa5025f9a?hl=en&

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: filmres...@my-deja.com

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:57:51 GMT

Local: Tues, Jan 23 2001 11:57 am

Subject: Re: Ansco Super Hypan Film

This may have been good advice forty but at this point this treatment will likely end up in a very low contrast dense negative.  You will need to add restrainer to your developer

to reduce the inevitable base fog problems this film will have.  With the formula we are using we about triple the resulting gamma and boast about 90% success on pre 1970's B&W film. 

Our record for getting an image is from an unprocessed film dating from the 1920's.

The fact that your film is a roll film is a big plus providing it was rolled tightly.  The backing paper on these films went a long way in protecting the film from oxidization which is a bigger

problem than base fog conciderations. <…>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.film+labs/msg/5d04f81baef30b8e?hl=en&

<…>

I deal with processing deleted film and have successfully salvaged images off of B&W film that was unprocessed and shot in the 1920's. 

It was no Ansel Adams but you could still see what was on it.  This was done with a developer loaded up with restrainers at an extremely

low temperature for a very short period of time.  You need not take such drastic measures.  If it has been frozen the whole time it should

be fine but to be safe you may want to underexpose it one half stop and then push process it one full stop.  This will help to keep your

gamma up because it may be reduced due to base fog problems. 

3. CHEMICAL FOG AND SOLUTIONS

3.1 Edwal Liquid Orthazite/Benzotriazole

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002q9s

Cosmo Genovesehttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, May 08, 2002; 08:46 a.m.

Dennis,

Steve is correct when he points out that Edwal makes benzotriazole under the

trademark name "Orthazite". I used to buy it from Zone VI in a 2% solution form as

"Zone VI Benzotriazole Solution (Antifoggant)". Calumet still sells it as the same Zone VI

product in a 32-oz bottle (go to http://www.calumetphoto.com/ and in the "Speed

Search" box type in benzotriazole).

"Orthazite" is basically the same thing, but I believe it may contain Sodium Sulfite. The

pure 2% solution I'm referring to only has directions for use for print developer; the

"Orthazite" bottle has the directions for use with film developer, namely, Edwal FG7, viz-

"Finer Grain With Borax type Semi-Fine Grain Developers Addition of a very small

amount of Liquid Orthazite to D-76 and similar developers will cause some improvement

in graininess, though there will be some loss of film speed. 2 cc. of Liquid Orthazite

added per gallon of Borax developer causes a slight improvement of graininess with no

apparent change in film speed. Addition of an extra 4 cc. of Liquid Orthazite (total 8 cc.)

per gallon will result in a speed loss of 2 f-stops but also grain improvement. Further

addition of Orthazite causes more speed but no particular grain improvement.

Getting Satisfactory Density From Manufacturers' Film Speed Rating with FG7[.] FG7

usually produces negatives which are denser and grainier with the manufacturers'

recommended film speed than with the higher film speed recommended [in] the Edwal

FG7 Bulletin and instructions. For those who prefer to use the manufacturers' film

speeds and want the finer grain and excellent negative quality which FG7 produces,

Liquid Orthazite can be added to the developer. If 2 cc. Orthazite are added to 16 ounce

of FG7 either 1:3 dilution [or] 1:15 dilution, the effective film speed is reduced by about

one f- stop. An additional lowering of speed by another f-stop can be achieved by

adding another 2 cc. of Liquid Orthazite (total of 4 cc.) per pint of working developer."

See: http://www.falconsafety.com/edwal/liqorth.html

These are probably good starting points for experimentation. I think I use to add about

2cc to 4cc/gal of D76 1:1, so it was pretty diluted. Since I don't process my own film

anymore, I don't know what formula the custom lab I go to uses (I've been using the

same custom lab for almost 20 years; the owner has--for almost an equal number of

years--ordered benzotriazole solution from Calumet and kept it on hand to process my

film).

Kodak also sells benzotriazole as something like "Kodak Anti-Foggant" in a tablet form.

Stay away from the Kodak product if you plan to use benzotriazole in your film

developer. I don't know anyone on earth who's ever been able to successfully dissolve

those little anti- foggant pills, even after pulverizing them with mortar and pestle. It's

impossible and you run the risk of having microscopic granules of the tablets imbed

themselves in the emulsion of your film. Not a desired result; and, for some reason, the

Kodak tablets are inordinately expensive, comparatively speaking.

Buona fortuna.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Z6X

David Goldfarb, Jul 23, 2003; 08:58 a.m.

Response to ANY IDEAS

Well, you have a lot of film to play with. I've done a few experiments in film

archaeology, and it can be interesting.

I recently tried some Royal Pan 4x5, exp. 1965 and processed it in Acufine and rated it

at half the expected speed. Base fog was heavy, so I added 30ml Edwal Liquid Orthazite

per liter of developer, and that helped a bit. Results were not great, but Royal Pan has a

kind of interesting grain structure, so I might use it for something at some point.

Test it like any other film, but presume you've lost about 1 to 3 stops of speed and will

need to extend development time to get reasonable contrast, and you might need to

add a restrainer like Liquid Orthazite or benzotriazole to keep down the fog.

3.2 Anti-fog or not anti-fog?

Link

Francis A. Miniter     Apr 22 1999, 3:00 am 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: "Francis A. Miniter" <mini...@ibm.net>

Date: 1999/04/22

Subject: Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak Film Development

Dear Richard, Tim and John and members of rec.photo.darkroom

As some of you may recall, I posted a query a few weeks ago about some exposed, ancient film

that I found when cleaning out my father's house.

The film was size 116 (2.5" x 4.5"), with 6 frames, on a wooden core spool, and indicated "1A-

FPK", which Richard Knoppow informed me was the Folding Pocket Kodak, Model 1A, which was

made up to about 1915.  I am writing, as requested by John Douglas, to apprise you all of the

results of my efforts to develop this film.

But first, a few words of appreciation.  I would like to acknowledge the good advice I received

from Richard Knoppow and John Douglas, and later from the Kodak Special Products people, and

the encouragement I got from Tim Rudman.  I also spent a good bit of time reading Anchell and

Troop, "The Film Developing Cookbook" for that further bit of reassurance before I stepped of

the cliff and dropped the film into developer.

Given that D-76 was invented in 1927, I decided to use that as the developer, on the hope that

the film was less than 70 years old.  Also, I figured, if it was older, D-76 was probably developed

to handle some existing emulsions as well.  Besides, Richard recommended it.  I took

John's suggestion and did not add any restrainer.  (Kodak's man recommended I add some, but

the comments of Anchell and Troop about restrainers helped sway me back to John's

suggestion.)   John and Richard both recommended 9 minutes or so.  The Kodak representative

recommended starting with the time for Plus-X (7 minutes) and adding at least 20% and maybe

as much as 100%.  In the end I went with 9:30 or about 35% addition to the Plus-X time.  John

recommended that I develop at 70 degrees, so I started at 72 degrees, figuring that cooling over

10 minutes time (the darkroom was ambient about 64 degrees) would give me an average of 70

degrees.

Richard recommended that since I would not easily find any reels for 116 film, I should use a

tray and put film clips on the ends of the roll.  I accepted this, but did not really want to use a

20x24 inch tray because of the awkwardness and the volume of fluids.  Besides, I really did not

know if the roll would fit in it, even diagonally.  My wife went to Photo Depot (aka Home Depot)

and got me three film developing troughs (aka plastic window planter inserts, about 33" long x 5"

wide x 6" deep).  As it turned out these were just long enough to hold the film and film clips

stretched out.

Richard also suggested that the film was probably orthochromatic and that I could develop it

under a dark red (No. 2) safelight. Unfortunately, I only have a No. 1A (light red), so I decided to

do it in total darkness and briefly turn on the light for inspection at the end of the 9.5 minutes.

Finally, yesterday, with D-76 and F-24 freshly mixed, I took the leap.

I followed the above described procedure.  At the brief inspection after 9.5 minutes, I could not

discern any detail on the negative strip, and it looked rather dark.  So I removed the roll and

proceeded to stop bath and fixer.

When I inspected the roll under normal light, I observed the following. Light had over the years

got into the edges of the roll on both sides for a distance of about a quarter to half an inch.  The

emulsion itself was severely deteriorated in the middle of the roll, but less so at the ends,

especially one end, probably the start of the roll, which would have been on the inside of the

take-up spool.  I obtained one recoverable image, but the contrast on that was minimal.  I should

have gone for about 13-14 minutes, but the necessity for that was not foreseeable.  So I soaked

the roll in selenium rapid toner 1:10 for ten minutes to try to heighten the contrast, then washed,

used HCA, washed and dried.  Very little contrast seemed to have been gained by the use of the

selenium toner.

Tonight, I attempted to contact print the image onto Kodak PolyMax II RC  using my Beseler

23CII, with condenser head.  (I probably will try again  with Ilford because of the harder contrast

it can take.)  Using all of  the magenta in the world (VCF filter #4 in the VCF filter drawer, 155

units of magenta CP filters in the filter drawer and a VCF #4 filter  held below the lens), with the

lens wide open at f4 for 1:30 minutes (elevation 18 inches), I got a poor but viewable image.

The image is of two children, about ages 6 to 8, both dressed all in  white with black stockings,

the girl wearing a bonnet, and they are  standing on or in front of a low porch.  The boy's outfit

could be a  sailor's outfit.  It is still hard to say.  I am no expert in clothing and its era, but having

viewed a number of photos from my father's collection, I would hazard a guess that the photo

could be from about 1915.  If so, it was probably taken by my grandfather not my father, and I

have been working on negatives over 80 years old.

My recommendation to others who may encounter this situation.  Double the time for a modern

emulsion.

Interestingly, in today's newspaper, The Hartford Courant, there was an article about a local man

who is taking part in an expedition to Mt. Everest.  The group is going to try to find Mallory and

Irvine, two Englishmen who tried to scale the mountain in 1924.  They were last seen at elev.

28,230 feet, in tweed jackets with oxygen tanks, no less.  In 1976 a Chinese man reported

seeing "dead English in tweed jacket" at about 27,670 feet, before he died in an avalanche.  The

current expedition hopes to find the men and find the camera they took with them - a Folding

Pocket Kodak - and are hoping that if the men made it to the top they took a photograph, which

can then be salvaged.

ArtKramr    Apr 22 1999, 3:00 am 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: artkr...@aol.com (ArtKramr)

Date: 1999/04/22

Subject: Re: Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak Film Development

>Subject: Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak Film Development

>From: "Francis A. Miniter" <mini...@ibm.net>

>The Kodak representative

>recommended starting with the time for Plus-X (7 minutes) and adding at

>least 20% and maybe as much as 100%.  In the end I went with 9:30 or

>about 35% addition to the Plus-X time.  John recommended that I develop

>at 70 degrees, so I started at 72

The Kodak guy gave you the standard operational procedure for developing old film. First, use a

restrainer to supress fog caused by time, heat and ambient radiation. Second, at least double the

developing oime to compensate for the loss of film speed due to aging. Of course inspection is

always the best way to go but that takes a lot of experience and practice to be able to do reliably

and consistantly.  But thanks for the intersting story. :-)

Arthur Kramer

Las Vegas NV

Richard Knoppow    Apr 22 1999, 3:00 am 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: dickb...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)

Date: 1999/04/22

Subject: Re: Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak Film Development

artkr...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak Film Development

>>From: "Francis A. Miniter" <mini...@ibm.net>

>>The Kodak representative

>>recommended starting with the time for Plus-X (7 minutes) and adding at

>>least 20% and maybe as much as 100%.  In the end I went with 9:30 or

>>about 35% addition to the Plus-X time.  John recommended that I develop

>>at 70 degrees, so I started at 72

>The Kodak guy gave you the standard operational procedure for developing old

>film. First, use a restrainer to supress fog caused by time, heat and ambient

>radiation. Second, at least double the developing oime to compensate for the

>loss of film speed due to aging. Of course inspection is always the best way to

>go but that takes a lot of experience and practice to be able to do reliably

>and consistantly.  But thanks for the intersting story. :-)

>Arthur Kramer

>Las Vegas NV

  I don't know how "standard" this is but there are problems with it. First, beside fogging old

_exposed_ film has the problem that the latent image is not stable. Even modern films suffer to

some degree from loss of latent image and the latent image on older films may disappear after

several years. The use of restrainers or anti-foggants will certainly reduce the fog but will also

tend to destroy whatever is left of the latent image. For film, anti-foggants are not really to

useful in any case since the fog level is equivalent to a loss of speed and increasing exposure will

compensate for it unless it is very bad.

  Secondly, extending development time much will tend to increase the fog level since, much

beyond normal development, the fog will increase faster than image density.

  In the above case, the development shold have been extended longer since the film required it

when new. The old films had thick emulsions and were mostly double coated. The recommended

development times were about 1.5 to 2x those for modern films. A look at Kodak or Ansco

development recommendations from the 1930's and 1940's will show times on the order of 15 to

20 minutes being recommended for D-76 full strength for most films.  This is for a contrast index

similar to the one suggested now for contact printing.

  Since I did not know the type of film the original poster had I suggested he develop it by

inspection. I should have been more exact about what I had in mind. Namely to develop (in the

dark) for about ten minutes, check the film with an appropriate safelight, and if not dense

enough go for another five minutes before inspecting again, repeating this until there is either a

satisfactory image or good reason to think none will ever appear.  A dark green safelight is safe

for both pan and ortho materials if used intermittantly for only a few seconds as indicated above.

If one knows the film is ortho a dark red safelight can be on continuously during development. 

Developers of most types rapidly desensitize film so there is little danger of fogging if the

safelight is not used for about the first half of the development period and used intermittantly

thereafter.   Judging film by inspection has a learning curve but is occasionally very useful as

when developing very old film or film of unknown characteristics.

---

Richard Knoppow

Los Angeles, Ca.

dickb...@ix.netcom.com 

Tim Rudman    Apr 22 1999, 3:00 am 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: "Tim Rudman" <tim.rud...@virgin.net>

Date: 1999/04/22

Subject: Re: Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak Film Development

Thank you for letting us know Francis. I have no knowledge about the development required for

such a film, but I wouldn't have expected more than half a grade or so intensification in

selenium. Some of the other intensifiers could have given much more but I don't know if they will

be as effective after full selenium intensification. Although it is not 'P.C.' I use mercury on

occasions and it can be reversed too. Out of curiosity I wonder if you could lith print it? I have a

very flat unprintable IR neg (due to inept processing by yours truly!) which can be lith printed

well as the blacks progress separately. It might be worth a try.

Tim

Richard Knoppow    Sep 25 2001, 3:03 am 

Link

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: dickb...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 07:02:37 GMT

Local: Tues, Sep 25 2001 3:02 am

Subject: Re: Advice on processing old film

Pjtg0...@netscape.com wrote:

>Hi,

>I bought an old non-functioning Rollei TLR at a swap meet recently,

>and I discovered there is still a roll of half exposed film in the

>camera when I got home.

>There is no telling how old the film is.

>I am wondering if anyone can give me some advice on how to develop

>this roll. I am tempted to use regular D76 developer at standard

>settings, but I am seeking advice on people  who have dealt with old

>films before proceeding..

  As film ages it picks up fog. In addition, film which has been exposed slowly looses the latent

image. Both effects depend a lot on the conditions the film has been subjected to. Cool, dry

conditions are best.

  There are some special processes for retrieving whatever is left of the latent image. Greg Miller,

who posts here as filmres...@sk.sympatico.ca has worked out some special formulas and

techniques, which are proprietary. For film which may have important images on it I suggest

getting in touch with him.

  For curiousity's sake you can process the film in a normal developer. D-76 is a good choice

because it doesn't loose any film speed. Probably Xtol would be good too.

  Adding much anti-fog may destroy part of the latent image.

  Development should be for the normal time or slightly longer. When film bigins to become

foggy extended development will bring up the fog level faster than the image, so best overall

contrast is gotten with more or less normal development.

  Latent image stability varies with the film. Most films made after about 1950 have surprisingly

good stability but its possible to recover images from very much older film.

  Unfortunately, exposure to the air isn't good. Greg Miller says that for roll film the tighter the

roll is wound the more likely it is that usable images can be salvaged.

  You can't loose anything by trying. If you post the type of film someone here will have the

developing instructions for it.   Unless the Rollei is really bashed it can be brought back to life.

If the lenses are in good condition its worth some expense to get it overhauled.

  e-mail me for recommendations.

---

Richard Knoppow

Los Angeles, Ca.

dickb...@ix.netcom.com

4. FOUND FILM COMMUNITIES

4.1 Found Film community on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/groups/foundfilm/

4.2 Found Film community on LiveJournal

http://community.livejournal.com/foundfilm/