Old film processing

        Threads and links

 

                Compiled by Emir Shabashvili

 http://pbase.com/amirko/walking_the_dead

[Version 11-2007]

 

Contents:

 

1. NOTES ON OLD FILMS

Kodak Film Identification Guide      1.1                      

From Historic Photo Archive site     1.2             

KODAK 35mm & 16mm FILM DATE CODE INFORMATION 1.2.1   

KODACHROME SLIDE DATING GUIDE  1.2.2                 

Slide and Film Scanning,

Kodachrome and Black & White   1.2.3                   

Kodak Panatomic, Kodak Panchromatic SS, Kodak Panchromatic SX 1.3                         

Kodak Panchromatic “Made in Belgium” film 1.4     

Kodak Verichrome Pan development times  1.5

ORWO NP20 1.6

Agfa Isopan SS 1.7                                     

Как распрямить старую скрученную плёнку 1.8

Kodacolor II (C41) instruction sheet (pdf) 1.9

Kodacolor II (C41) in HC-110: 8min; D76:10min 1.10

Kodacolor (C22) in HC-110 Dil B: 6min 1.11

Ultrapan 1.12

Ansco All-Weather Pan Film 1.13

Ansco All-Weather Film (Plenachrome) 1.14

Changes in Kodak emulsion types over the years 1.15

Plenachrome times and ANSCO 17 developer formula 1.16

Kodacolor X in HC-110: 7min 1.17

Processing of Old Kodachrome K-12 film 1.18

50 yr old Plus-x (D-19 10 min at 10C) 1.19

 

2. NOTES ON DEVELOPMENT                   

Filmrescue pages 2.1                               

Fog and Diafine, Diafine and Fog 2.2              

Kodak Super-X Panchromatic film  2.3             

Купать дольше 2.4                                       

ORWO NP20 2.5                                     

D76 and ID-11 2.6                                  

D76+ANTI-FOG 2.7                                  

Gevaert Superchrome orthochromatic rollfilm

(With comments from C-22 Lab tech)  2.8   

It is always good to overdevelop  2.9             

GEVAPAN 27 2.10                                     

C22 in B&W developer 2.11

Dektol? 2.12

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

C22 or C41 in B&W 2.14

Original Kodak Verichrome (not Pan) 2.15

Kodak recommendations on development circa 1945 2.16

Very low Temp, Very concentrated developer, Very short Time! 2.17

D-19 development times 2.18

Let’s professionals speak 2.19

 

3. CHEMICAL FOG AND SOLUTIONS            

Edwal Liquid Orthazite and Benzotriazole 3.1

Anti-fog or not anti-fog? 3.2

 

4. FOUND FILM COMMUNITIES

Found film community on Flikr 4.1

Found film community on Livejournal 4.2


 

1. NOTES ON OLD FILMS

 

1.1 Kodak Film Identification Guide

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/identificationP.shtml

 

1.2 From Historic Photo Archive site:

http://www.historicphotoarchive.com

 

1.2.1 KODAK 35mm & 16mm

         FILM DATE CODE INFORMATION:

http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/f1/ekcode.html

 

1.2.2 KODACHROME SLIDE DATING GUIDE:

http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/f2/kodachrome.html

 

1.2.3 Slide and Film Scanning

Kodachrome and Black & White

For Maximum Quality:

http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/kodachrome2.html

 

 

1.3 Kodak Panatomic, Kodak Panchromatic SS, Kodak Panchromatic SX

http://photobanter.com/printthread.php?t=164

 

Richard Knoppow

February 17th 04 03:31 AM

 

Sixty-year-old undeveloped film

"Mark" wrote in message
...

I recently liberated a box of old photos and negatives from my grandfather's personal effects.

Along with the developed items, I found three rolls of apparently exposed but undeveloped 35mm film.

One is Kodak "Panatomic," and the other two are Kodak "Panchromatic SS" and "Panchromatic SX."

I assume the latter are color film. Assuming they're contemporary with the other 35mm negatives,

they were exposed around 1940. Is there any chance that they'll produce usable negatives, or are they junk?

Thanks
-Mark

Panatomic is the predecessor to Panatomic-X. Panchromatic SS is black and white film SS means super-sensitive.

Not sure of the SX, are you sure it says that? Both of the others are 1930's films older than sixty years, more like 65
or more years old.
Its possible for the latent image to survive that long. Roll film seems especially long lasting perhaps because the

tight rolling prevents oxidation. There is an outfit called Film Rescue that specializes in processing of old films,

not cheap but they have a good record of success.
http://www.filmrescue.com/
Otherwise I suggest using a fairly active developer at much lower than normal temperatures. I have film data going back

to the mid 1940's but not much before that. I'll look but I don't think I have specific instuctions on these
films.
Panatomic replaced a fine grain motion picture stock called Background-X c.1938, I think Panatomic replaced Background-X shortly after.

By the early 1940's Panatomic-X had replaced both. I would guess these films date from c.1937, maybe even earlier.

It is certainly worth trying to develop them.

 

1.4 Kodak Panchromatic “Made in Belgium” film

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

help ID mystery kodak 620 film

Jeffrey Lanhttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Apr 19, 2005; 09:02 p.m.

i just purchased a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash that held in it an exposed roll of 620 film. judging from the yellow backing paper

and pointing fingers at the beginning of the roll (i already spooled the film and put it into a tank), i've deduced that it's a kodak film.

i'm guessing that it's b/w. of course, the backing paper doesn't say the name of the film, so i'm looking for suggestions.

it does say "88A" at the beginning of the paper roll, and the sealing band at the end reads Panchromatic EXPOSED Panchromatic

(again, offset to the right of the first "Panchromatic) MADE IN BELGIUM the flash unit lists information on Verichrome,

Plus-X, Super-XX, and Kodacolor, Type A - i assume my mystery film is one of these. any suggestions? i have HC-110 on hand and

will develop in that if i can find a semi-suitable dev time for the film (or even something that would work for most of them,

if i can't get a positive ID). otherwise, it might be fog land with Diafine....

 

Answers

Robert Marvin, Apr 19, 2005; 09:30 p.m.

If its made in Belgium its probably Gevaert (long since merged with Agfa). IIRC I used to buy Sears house brand

rollfilm in the mid-60s which was made in Belgium (no doubt by Gevaert) so that is also a possibility

<…>
Kodak? Gevaert?

Alan Gagehttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Apr 19, 2005; 09:40 p.m.

I've used both Diafine and HC-110 on old rolls of found film (oldest being from the 40's and most from the 50's).

I've had the best luck with Diafine. Yes, the fog is a little heavier, but the negatives are much easier to scan/print.

I suppose I could probably get equally good results from HC-110 by adjusting development time, but these aren't

really rolls you can experiment with and no two will be exposed the same. For me Diafine is the clear winner.

You can see some of my results if you look in my portfolio; there are a few presentations of found film rolls.

Good luck,

Alan

Rowland Mowrey , Apr 19, 2005; 09:55 p.m.

AFAIK, the only films made in Belgium were Gevaert as stated above. At no time was any EK film made in Belgium.

EK plants in Europe were at Harrow England and at Vincennes (outside Paris) but now moved to Chalon in south France.

Ron Mowrey

Scott Walton, Apr 20, 2005; 12:05 p.m.

It is B/W film and judging from the packaging, old, slow Verichrome type stuff. You'll need to push the stuff so

Diafine would be good with an addition of some Benzotriazole or (something a bit easier) Edwai's Liquid Orthrozite.

It is a benzo liquid restrainer buffered with Sodium Sulfite. Does a really nice job and has a REALLY long shelf life.

It also does a nice job with sulfite type developers to make the grain finer and a better gradation... handy stuff to

have in the darkroom.

Jeff Adlerhttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Apr 20, 2005; 02:25 p.m.

About a year ago I was sent a roll of this same film on a 120 spool. It had been sitting in a Yashica TLR for decades.

It is probably Gevapan with a nominal speed of 100. I developed it in Ilford Microphen using the time for Ilford FP-4 Plus

and then I doubled the time. The negativs were quite dense and fogged. My enlarger does not have a glass negative

carrier so I was worried about the negative buckling during a long exposure. My solution was to use a Bogen 60mm f/4

Wide Angle enlarging lens. I printed wide open at f/4 and the results were not half bad.

If I had to develop another roll of this film I would still start with the Microphen (undiluted) time for FP-4 Plus but I would

multiply that time by 1.5 rather thah by 2. There was one odd thing which turned up when I first saw the negatives.

It seems that the ink from the backing came off on the emulsion side of the film because it sat for so long tightly wound.

If you scan the negatives and make digital prints you should be able to lessen the effect of this ink transfer.

Lynn Jones, Apr 21, 2005; 01:16 p.m.

Hi Jeffrey,

It is either Gavaert 30 or Gevaert Dandi Pan. They are both about ASA 64, really good films and work best in either

UFG or Acufine. The developing times in UFG were about 5 minutes at 68F and the Acufine would be about 5 1/2 minutes at 70F.

Gevaert did indeed merge with Agfa in about 1965.

Lynn

Helen Hockinhttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, May 05, 2005; 01:44 p.m.

Many thanks in particular to Jeff Adler! Your advice helped me develop a roll of 1950s Kodak Verichrome Pan 620 that

I was given from a box Brownie of my mother-in-law's. I developed it in Promocrol Fine Grain developer mixed 1:5,

time 11 minutes (as for modern HP5). Result not bad at all!

Helen Hockinhttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, May 05, 2005; 01:57 p.m.

...and for the record the temperature in an open-topped container started at about 68 degrees F, which dropped as the

process went on to about 60. If you do it this way, make sure you've got enough ventilation as it gives off fumes!

And I had to do this in total darkness, so make sure you're organised...

 

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004NHj

 

need help with OOLLLLLDDDDD film

david dunhamhttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Jan 16, 2003; 07:59 p.m.

Hi, I have some old (probably from the 60's) rolls of film that I would like to get developed. I have 2 rolls of kodak verichrome pan 127,

two rolls of kodak verichrome pan 120, and 1 roll of 127 labeled panchromatic made in belgium. One ofthe rolls of 120 is labeled kodak D-76 microdol-x.

Where can I get these developed?

Al Kaplan - Miami, FL, Jan 17, 2003; 12:30 a.m.

The film made in Belgium is Gavaert, which merged with Agfa of Germany in the 1970's.

The speed was ASA 100. It was frequently packaged under private label.

The Walgreen's drugstore chain sold it in 127, 120 and 620 sizes, 3 rolls to a box for 89 cents.

Kodak Verichrome Pan listed for 55 cents a roll at the time. It was very good quality film, and a lot of pros

used it for portraits and weddings back in those black & white days. You could buy it in bulk, foil wrapped,

100 rolls to a carton for $14.95.

 

1.5 Kodak Verichrome Pan development times

 

 

 

http://community.livejournal.com/foundfilm/3045.html

Emir Shabashvili:

My standard protocol for 20-30-50 years old rolls is giving me consistently good results. It is basically high concentration HC-110 and low temperature:
Keep temperature 58F/15C at all stages
Pre-soak in water for 30~60 min
One more rinse to get rid of anti-halation
HC-110 dil A for 5 min
Agitation: 5 inversions every minute+one more every 30 sec
Stop 2 min
Kodak non-hardening fixer 8~10 min
Water rinse
Hypo solution 2 min
Water 5 inversions
Water 10 inversions
Water 20 inversions
Photoflo 15~30min

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/VP/vp.html

Note: This film was introduced in 1956, an upgrade to the original Kodak Verichrome which first appeared in 1931.  It is now available only in 120 roll film.  Kodak’s data sheet is at http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f7/f7.shtml.

 

 

 

 

Ed Buffaloe’s Recommendations for Kodak Verichrome Pan

Developer

Dilution

Time

Temperature

E.I.

PMK

1:2:100

9 m

70° F

125

Pyrocat-HD

1:1:100

9 m

70° F

125

Comments:  For PMK continuous agitation for first 30 seconds, then 5 seconds (2 inversions) every 30 seconds thereafter. For Pyrocat-HD agitation for first 30 seconds, then 10 seconds (4 inversions) every minute thereafter--very clean working.

 

 

 

 

FW’s Recommendations for Kodak Verichrome Pan

Developer

Dilution

Exposure

Time

Temperature

E.I.

D-76

Straight

N-1

6 m

20° C

80

D-76

Straight

N

7 m

20° C

125

D-76

Straight

N+1

10 m

20° C

250

Comments:  Agitation: constant for the first 30s, then 10s every 30s thereafter.  ...gives some beautiful tones.

 

 

 

 

John Welton’s Recommendations for Kodak Verichrome Pan

Developer

Dilution

Time

Temperature

E.I.

PMK

1:2:100

7 m

74° F

80

Rodinal

1:50

10 m

72° F

80

Comments:  PMK: continuous agitation for 30 sec and one vigorous inversion every 15 sec (see Gordon's PMK book).   Rodinal: continuous agitation for 30 sec, then 5 sec every 30 seconds (two inversions). 

 

 

 

 

David Parmet’s Recommendations for Kodak Verichrome Pan

Developer

Dilution

Time

Temperature

E.I.

HC-110

1:14 (from stock**)

8 m

68° F

80

Agitate for the first 30 seconds and twice every thirty seconds afterwards.  Beautiful stuff.  It’s basically 2X Dilution B.

 

(** the dilution 1:14 is for European type of HC-110

concentrate, it is equal to dilution E (1:47) and it is not 2x

Dilution B)

    

1.6 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

 

1.7 Agfa Isopan ISS

 

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/fd34700b9f010574?hl=en&

 

dancke     May 6 1999, 3:00 am 

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: dan...@online.no

Date: 1999/05/06

Subject: Development of old film

 

I have to deleop an old Agfa Isopan ISS-film (about 40 years old) Dopes

anybodu happen to have a table showing the recomended developingtime i for

instance Rodinal developer ??

 

John M.E. Dancke

P.O.Box 98

N-4371 EGERSUND - Norway

----------------------------------------------------

dan...@online.no

----------------------------------------------------

 

Francis A. Miniter   May 6 1999, 3:00 am 

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

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

Date: 1999/05/06

Subject: Re: Development of old film

Hi John:

 

Having just developed some rather old Kodak film - shot about 80 years ago, I

can offer some suggestions, though I cannot give you specifics.  The film you

describe is probably a very slow panchromatic film.  If you have a No. 3 dark

green Safelight, you can probably inspect it during development *very*

briefly.  If it were orthochromatic, you could use a No. 1 red safelight.

 

 

If the film size is not 120, 620 or some other standard reel size, I would

recommend that you use 3 plastic window planter inserts as troughs.  Get them

at least three feet long, and attach film clips to each end of the film to

keep it from curling.  (Richard Knoppow gave me this advice and it works

well.)

 

 

There is a debate as to whether you should use an antifoggant/restrainer in

the developer or not.  (See recent discussion in rec.photo.darkroom under

"Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak film Development.")  I favor not using the

antifoggant.

 

 

You should figure that development times will be significantly extended from

those for modern emulsions, in part at least, because the film itself is

thicker.  I extended mine about 35% and it was not enough.  Probably, 100%

more is more like it.  BUT, this is why you want to have the No. 3 safelight

to turn on about 2/3 of the way through the 2x development time, so that you

can judge how much more time is necessary.

 

 

When you first get the film in your hands in the dark, feel for how thick it

is compared to modern films.  This will give you some idea of the amount of

extra time needed.

 

 

Good Luck.

 

 

Francis A. Miniter

 

 

Richard Knoppow    May 6 1999, 3:00 am 

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

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

Date: 1999/05/06

Subject: Re: Development of old film

 

dan...@online.no wrote:

>I have to deleop an old Agfa Isopan ISS-film (about 40 years old) Dopes

>anybodu happen to have a table showing the recomended developingtime i for

>instance Rodinal developer ??

 

>John M.E. Dancke

>P.O.Box 98

>N-4371 EGERSUND - Norway

>----------------------------------------------------

>dan...@online.no

>----------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 The closest I can find is a listing for Isopan sheet film in an old  Photo-Lab-Index.

 This dates from 1943. Agfa and Ansco used the Isopan  name for a long time and its possible the emulsion was changed at some point.

 It is described as a slow, fine grain, panchromatic film, the Weston speed is given as 50, General Electric speed 125 which would make it around ISO-80.

 Developing times are given for Ansco/Agfa 17, which is similar to D-76.  I've found that Times for D-76 full strength and Rodinal at

1:25 are about the same for many films.  At 68F (20C) about 8 to 12 minutes, depending on desired contrast. I am assuming this is exposed film.

  Since the film is panchromatic it should not be devloped by inspection although a dark green safelight can be used for a few seconds

after the developoment is half completed to check the progress.

 

---

Richard Knoppow

Los Angeles, Ca.

dickb...@ix.netcom.com

 

 

1.8  КАК РАСПРЯМИТЬ СТАРУЮ

       СКРУЧЕННУЮ ПЛЁНКУ (RUS)

http://community.livejournal.com/ru_fotoplenka/2702.html

 

 

1.9 Kodacolor II (first C41 film) instruction sheet

http://carlmcmillan.com/Pdf/FilmData/KodaColor%20II_Code_5035.pdf

 

1.10 Kodacolor II in HC-110 (Del B): 8min;

D76: 10min; Tri-X times

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=281150

 

Alan Gage

 

I found this roll of Kodacolor II in a camera last weekend at an Antique store.

I'm not sure how old the film is, but I think the camera I got it from was much older.

From the little bit of research I did it looks like Kodacolor II was introduced in the early 60's and

was produced until somewhere around 1980? This roll had a plastic spool in it; most of the old rolls

I've seen from the 50's and 60's were metal spools. When did they start using plastic?

The camera was an old Kodak box camera (tan leather), but I don't know which model.

It must have been pretty old to still take 120 film. It was one of the old ones with no lens in front of the shutter.

I wasn't interested in the $15 price tag on the camera; but the owner said he'd sell the film for $1...how could I pass that up?

I wasn't expecting much if anything to still be on the film. This is the first roll of color film I've ever souped in B&W chemistry,

I must say I'm very pleased with the results. I used HC-110 dilution H for 8 minutes.

I scanned as a color neg and then converted it in photoshop.

 

http://www.nelsonfoto.com/v/showpost.php?p=1875&postcount=3

 

I've done quite a bit of old color negative film in B&W chemicals.

While searching Photo.net trying to find some guidelines for times I found a lot of people had ideas and such,

but not many of them had actually done it more then once (if that). I finally read some comments from

someone I trusted who said they'd done it A LOT of times and they basically said that when

they used to do it they just treated the color film as if it was Tri-X.
That sounded good to me so that's what I've been doing; and the results have been great.

When I scan the negatives I scan them as a color negative (gets rid of the orange mask)

and then desaturate them in Photoshop.

Good luck
Alan

 

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006iUm

 

Chris Evehttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Dec 10, 2003; 04:25 a.m.

10min in D76 at 68F will give you scannable negs ... the orange mask on colour negs, even when processed

in b&w dev, makes them difficult (not impossible) to print in a conventional b&w darkroom.

It is possible to bleach out the orange mask, in part at least, but I don't have the details to hand at the moment.

 

1.11 Kodacolor (C22) in HC-110 del B: 6min

 

http://westfordcomp.com/foundfilm/acro/index.htm

 

1.12 Ultrapan

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/2005/nov05/0015.htm
 
From: Richard Knoppow ^lt;dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 11/02/05-06:16:11 PM Z
Message-id: <009001c5e00b$cf0ffa00$83ff5142@VALUED20606295>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Wang" <stwang@CLEMSON.EDU>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:06 AM
Subject: OT info on Ultrapan film needed

>A friend found 3 rolls of Ultrapan film exposed 60 years
>ago. Does anyone have suggestion on developing them? Please
>contact me off-list if you do. Thanks!
>
> Sam Wang
> stwang@clemson.edu
>
>
    Greg at Film Rescue specializes in processing old film.
I don't know exactly what he does because its proprietary
but there is mention in the literature of using very active
caustic activated developers, like Kodak D-8, at very low
temperatures, I have no further data. Greg told me he has
more success with roll film than any other type and
speculates it is because its usually pretty tightly wound
protecting the surfaces from air.
    If this is Agfa Ultra Speed Pan it was Agfa's fastest
film in the 1940's, about ISO-250.
    The developing charts for Agfa/Ansco 17, which is
similar, but not identical to D-76, gives development times
of 8.5 minutes @ 68F for a gamma of 0.55 and 12 minutes @
68F for a gamma of 0.70.
    Do not add bromide when developing old exposed film
because anti-foggants may destroy some of the remaining
latent image.
    If the cassett or roll has the Agfa trademark rather
than Ansco it was made before 1944.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
 
1.13 ANSCO ALL-WEATHER PAN FILM
http://home.rmci.net/deanw/Ansco_All_Weather_Pan.html
 
PC-TEA for 15 minutes

 

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B0cT

 

Did a little more digging through back issues. I found a March 1960 magazine (U.S. Camera, I think)

that had an article on revised film speeds.

This is when the safety factor was reduced for black and white films.

Ansco had already relabeled theirs by then: Ansco All-Weather Pan 1960 or later should be ASA 125.

Cheers,

Mike

 

1.14 ANSCO ALL-WEATHER FILM (PLENACHROME)
 
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/48a5e81ec18f35bc?hl=en&
 

   This is an Ah-Ha.  Looking again at a 1953 Ansco film handbook I

find the illustrations of Plenachrome roll film say "The All-Weather

Film" on the boxes and it is referred to that way in the text, missed

it the first time.  Plenachrome was Ansco's Orthochromatic box-camera

film, similar to the original Kodak Verichrome.

  Plenachrome was ASA 50 Daylight, 25 Tungsten.  The ASA speeds still

had a 2.5X safety factor at this time so the ISO speed would be around

125.  The developing times in this book are given only for two Ansco

proprietary developers of the time and I have no idea what their

formua equivelants are.  However, the earlier Photo-Lab-Index has

times for Ansco/Agfa 17, a formula very similar to D-76.  This

recommends about 10min @68F for intermittant agitation in full

strength develooper for a gamma of 0.8, which is rather contrasty

although probably about right for contact printing.  For condenser

enlargers somewhere around 7 min would be right or about 10 to 12 min

in D-76 1:1.  Getting some additional contrast may be desirable

considering the probable age of the film.  The fact that it has

probably been overexposed a stop will help overcome the effects of any

fogging.  

  Good luck and please post back to tell us what your results were.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickb...@ix.netcom.com

 

1.15 Changes in Kodak emulsion types over the years

 

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/5f100992889bdc39

 

 

Richard Knoppow      More options Sep 9 2000, 6:18 pm 

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

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

Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT

Local: Sat, Sep 9 2000 6:17 pm

Subject: Re: Developing Old Films

Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Francis A. Miniter" <mini...@attglobal.net> wrote:

 

>Hi David,

>I saw your post earlier this week, but had no time to look things up

>until today.  In the 1967 British Journal of Photography Annual, p. 236,

>the following development times are given for development of the

>respective films in D-76:

 

>Kodak Panatomic X Mini Film       7 minutes

>Kodak Panatomic X Roll Film        9    "

>Kodak Super XX Sheet Film         16 minutes.

 

>On the other hand, the Amphoto Photographic Lab Handbook from 1969 gives

>(at page 46) 7 minutes for Panatomic-x mini or roll film at 68 degrees

>with full strength D-76; and does not mention D-76 at all for Super XX

>sheet film but instead recommends HC-110 (Dil B) for 7 minutes or DK-50

>(full strength) for 5 minutes.  I do not find any information for Super

>XX other than for sheet film.

 

>I am unable to find anything yet on the other films mentioned.  I would

>suggest you look for earlier issues of the BJ Photography Annuals and you

>will probably find the information you need.

 

>I engaged in this process over the last year and have had some reasonable

>success, even with films that spent the last 20  years in a hot attic.

>The older the film, the greater the risk of fogging.  That would suggest

>doing one at a time and determining whether you need to add an

>anti-fogging agent to the developer and increasing development time

>accordingly.

 

>Good Luck.

>Francis A. Miniter

 

The problem is that Kodak, at least, changed the emulsion of some of

its films over the years. Tri-X, Plus-X, Panatomic-X, etc., of fifty

years ago were not the same emulsions of thirty years ago and

development recommendations can be very different.

  In general, the older emulsions too much longer developing times.

This may be in part due to the early charts being designed for higher

contrast than was considered desirable later but I think the emulsions

were made thinner and probably other changes made.

  Sometimes the age of roll film can be told from the design of its

backing paper, sometimes you just have to guess.

  The latent image stability of film made for the last fifty or sixty

years is surprizingly good. A number of people who have processed very

old exposed films have posted here that they have had good results and

printable, if not perfect, images.

  Generally "normal" development is suggested. Extended development

tends to build up fog faster than the image. Anti-foggants tend to

destroy what is left of the latent image so are not desirable.

  If Kodak, or anyone else, knows of any magic method to recover

images from old film they seem not to be talking.

 

>pbccon wrote:

 

>> I am developing some exposed old films taken by the late husband of a

>> neighbour.  I have successfully developed Ilford FP4, FP3 and HP3 in

>> Microphen 12 min. but am now onto the older more difficult films.

 

>> Because of the uniqueness of each film, I cannot experiment but have

>> to get it right (ish) first time.

 

>> The films are:

>> 120 Kodak Panatomic X 120 1960s?

>> 620 Kodak Super XX Panchromatic 1960s?

>> 127 Kodak Super XX Panchromatic 1960s?

>> 127 Gevaert Ridax Ortho Superchrom  1940/50s?

>> 127 Standard Ortho 1940/50s?

>> 24x36 mini roll film (not 35mm) Lumiere Super-Lumichrome 28o develop

>> by date Dec 1945

>> 24x36 mini roll film (not 35mm) Lumipan probably 1940s also

 

>> Can anyone help with development advice please?

 

>> David Morris

>> Accrington, Lancashire, England.

 

 

---

Richard Knoppow

Los Angeles, Ca.

dickb...@ix.netcom.com

 

1.16 Plenachrome development times

        and ANSCO 17 developer formula

"Elaine" <fridayn@m...> wrote on Feb 18, 2001

Does anyone have info on processing Plenachrome film?
           "ArtKramr" <artkramr@a...> wrote on Feb 19, 2001

 

I have data for developing Plenachrome in Ansco 17. This is a developer you
must mix yourself from scratch. If you want to use something like D-76, I would
suggest 8 minutes at 68F with 5 second agitation every 30 seconds. If you want
the Ansco 17 formaula, I'll post it for you. BTW, it is identical to the Agfa
17  MQ formula. 
 
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
 
           "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@i...> wrote on Feb 19, 2001 
 

 

FWIW, Plenachrome was Ansco's box camera film, the compitition to
Verichrome. It will be very old, discontinued in maybe the late 1960's
(Art probably knows the date). If this is exposed film there is a good
chance of recovering the images, but it will be fogged to some degree
depending on how it was stored. The cooler the better. 
  Anti-foggants tend to interfere with the latent image so are of
questionable value. Normal development in a developer which yields
full emulsion speed is about the best that can be done.
  If the box says Ansco it was made after 1944, if it says Agfa or
Agfa-Ansco its older. 
  Since its orthochromatic film it can be developed by inspection
under a dark red safelight. 
  There is one poster to this list who is in the business of
processing old film and states he has worked out proprietary methods
of salvaging them. I have no idea if his methods work, but if they do,
and the potential images are valuable it might be interesting to
explore this. 
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
 
          "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@i...> wrote on Feb 20, 2001 

 

  AGFA/Ansco 17 Fine Grain Film Developer
 
Water (at 125F, 52C)                                             750.0 ml
Metol                                                     1.5 grams
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous                     80.0 grams
Hydroquinone                                        3.0 grams
Borax, granular                                      3.0 grams
Potassium Bromide                                0.5 grams
Water to make                                       1.0 liter
 
The bromide is enough to overcome the slight tendency to fogging of
un-used developer of this type and results in a slight speed increase.
 
  This is nearly identical to one of the variations of D-76 described
in the 1929 paper announcing the buffered version. 
 
 Performance is probably identical with D-76 although there is a
little less developing agent and borax in 17. 
 
 Development for c.1943 Plenachrome is given as about 6 to 8 minutes
@68F
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

 

1.17 Kodacolor X in HC-110: 7min

 

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JJZ4

 

1.18 Processing of Old Kodachrome K-12 film

 

http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/k12bwnegdev.html

 

by Martin W. Baumgarten ©2000

Let me quickly review the processing steps and times. It should take you one minute to pass the film from one reel to the other, regardless of film volume.

Thus, if only processing ONE 50ft reel, the film will move slower thru the solutions, and the processing times will be cut down to 75% of the times for 100ft of film.

The times mentioned in this breakdown and all information relative to rewind processing is based on a full 100ft load of film at 68°F (20°C).

The steps outlined are for archival quality long term keeping of the film. Some short-cuts can be made for less-than-long-term keeping of the processed film.

(e.g. just a quick exposure test or something etc) I do RECOMMEND that you splice film 2ft-3ft of film leader onto either end of the film.

This will help insure even processing consistancy throughout the roll, otherwise, you'll get severe chemical effects on either end of the roll

(meaning the entire roll to be processed, e.g. 50ft or 100ft).

PRE-BATH Step - This is generally a solution to allow for even wetting of your and may contain an anti-fogging compound if you scratch-mix Kodak's PB-3

(Pre-Bath Formula #3) from Kodak's instructions. (A Photo-Flo or similar wetting agent can be used otherwise)...........4 minutes(passes)

RINSE - Water only, four passes of the film..................4 minutes

HIGH CONTRAST DEVELOPER - Recommended is Kodak formula D-19, but you can also use D-11 or D-8, or another manufacturer's high contrast

developer which is similar in composition and strength. Your own results may vary. KODACHROME-II(old Process K-12, 1962-1973) - 5 minutes (5 passes).

KODACHROME (old pre-1962 Process K-11 films) - 4 minutes (4 passes).

RINSE - Water or use a simple Stop Bath made from 28% Acetic Acid mixed at 125ml per liter or quart of water. (ALWAYS add Acid to Water,

not the other way around!) - 4 minutes (passes).

FIXER - Fix in a hardening fixer similar to any rapid fix or Kodak's F-6 Fixer formula - 10 minutes.

PRE-FINAL WASH - The remjet anti-halation backing on the Kodachrome film will not remove entirely during the developing process.

You need to physically wipe it off using a piece of clean soft cotton cloth or flannel, that is kept very saturated with water and wipe it

off a foot at a time. This will be tedious - but it has to be removed. Transfer the film to a plastic takeup reel and using a set of rewinds

with a tray of solution between them, a photo grade sponge or chamois or soft white cotton flannel - prepare to wipe off the backing.

If the backing is very stubborn to remove...then bath the film in a solution of simple BORAX and Water (made up at least 2 Tablespoons

Borax per liter of water), and run this for 5 minutes (5 passes). Then with the Borax solution still on the film - wipe it off a foot at a time,

applying firm pressure only to the base side of the film, taking care not to damage the emulsion. Once completed, return the film to the

rewind tank for the Final Wash (first rinse & wipe out the rewind tank and reels since residue will remain from the backing).

FINAL WASH - Washing in a rewind tank is incredibly long! (40 minutes/passes), so it's best to use Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent to

shorten this time significantly. Rinse-in-water for one pass - 1 minute. Change to fresh water and Rinse-in-water for one pass - 1 minute.

Change to fresh water and Rinse-in-water for two passes - 2 minutes. The above are necessary to remove the Borax solution and any

Fixer residue compounds in high concentrations the following is to shorten your wash time overall. Pass-twice-thru in Hypo Clearing

Agent 2 minutes Rinse-in-water for 6 passes - 6 minutes.

DRYING AGENT - Although not mentioned in some steps/procedures, use Photo-Flo (or similar) wetting agent to aid in even drying.

A few drops in a water bath of a liter or two to cover the film and run the film for two passes, will aid in preventing water spots.

This helps especially in hard water areas - in very hard water or poor water areas - use distilled water for your final rinse and wetting agent

(also consider mixing your developers in distilled water as well) - 2 minutes.

DRYING THE FILM - Attach the end of the film to a film drying rack via a rubberband/paperclip combination, emulsion side up/base down.

You can even use a film chamois dampened with the wetting agent and rung out, by very carefully pulling the film through the chamois.

Keep the film in the wetting agent bath the entire time as the film is being pulled out of the tank and then onto the drying rack.

Attach the paper clip and rubberband to the end of the film. Loop film as needed so that the clip will reach the next dowel.

IF too much of a loop is required, then just add another rubberband/paperclip to compensate for the gap, to carry you to the next dowel.

This will help prevent you from having to snip off too much of your film, especially if there are images towards the end.

Since the times for certain steps are long, I would recommend having a timer or large clock to watch so that you can keep-the-pace

of the one-full-wind-per-minute method - music helps too. This way you aren't in the middle of the roll when all of a sudden,

it's time to dump and move on to the next step. The "normal" photographic method of including the draining time within each step

doesn't apply here, since sections of the film wouldn't receive the full treatment. So DRAIN after each processing step is complete –

not a big rush - there is plenty of leeway - but do try to be consistent.

 

Best wishes,

Martin W. Baumgarten

Super8mm@aol.com

 

1.19 50 yr old Plus-x (D-19 10 min at 10C)

 

Steve Barker

 

Oct 23 2001, 12:07 am 

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: "Steve Barker" <n...@bisness.com>

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:06:38 GMT

Local: Tues, Oct 23 2001 12:06 am

Subject: Developing 50 yr old Plus-x

 

I've got on my hands two 523 4x5 film packs that are exposed.  The data

sheet tells me to use d-76 at 68 degrees for 17 minutes.  These are from

about circa 1950.  Do you suppose the d-76 time still holds?  Or how would

you all go about developing these 24 4x5's?  It is Plus-x panchromatic film.

 

PS, I have a daylight tank for 4x5.

 

 

s

 

Greg Miller    Oct 23 2001, 2:13 pm

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

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

Date: 23 Oct 2001 11:13:14 -0700

Local: Tues, Oct 23 2001 2:13 pm

Subject: Re: Developing 50 yr old Plus-x

 

The recommended time and temp with D-76 will likely render a very poor

fogged negative if anything at all.  What will be very important is

how these sheets were stored.  The less exposure to oxegen it has had

the better.  My company specializes in processing very old film and

have found that old roll film processes much better then anything in a

cassette.  We believe that this is because the roll film is protected

from oxidization were as the cassette film (135, 126)is wrapped losely

in the cassette and can mingle with the elements.  Sheet film is more

simular to the latter then the former.  The way we develop this film

is propriatory but I will tell you that the trick is to use a much

higher potency developer at a very low temperature.  Good luck with

it.

 

Greg Miller

Film Rescue International

1 800 329 8988

 

Dominic Roberts

Oct 24 2001, 10:45 am 

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

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

Date: 24 Oct 2001 07:45:21 -0700

Local: Wed, Oct 24 2001 10:45 am

Subject: Re: Developing 50 yr old Plus-x

 

Steve,

 

Instead of Ilfotec, 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.

 

Good luck (again!)

 

 

Dominic Roberts, 'Process C-22'

http://www.processc22.co.uk


2. NOTES ON DEVELOPMENT

 

2.1 Filmrescue pages

http://www.filmrescue.com/samples.html

Samples and Procedure

 

Without exception, the film we receive is not processed as originally recommended when the film was new.

We have provided the following samples to make it clear why we do this and why our proprietary processes

plus digital enhancement are the most likely to render recognizable results, compared to other labs.

 

High Contrast Bleach Omitted Processing

Synopsis: Conventional processing (#1) of a Kodacolor II film, dated 1981, versus our proprietary bleach omitted processing and digital enhancement (#3, #4).

Conventional processing: This sample was processed in

standard C-41 developer and then printed on a

printer calibrated to make a good print from a good negative.

This is how most labs would treat a C-41 film, regardless of its age.

We processed this sample with the high contrast

color developer reserved for select films.

The quality of this sample is average for the brand and age of film.

We do not attempt to get color results from most color films,

because there is a good chance nothing will turn out.

This print was made from the negative processed

in our proprietary bleach omitted process,

without any digital enhancement.

Though the image is now B&W, it is far superior

to what would have been possible in color.

This is the same print after digital enhancement, an additional

step included in our service.

The difference would be more significant

with more distressed negatives.

A more detailed explanation: The above samples are from a 1981 Kodacolor II 126 film which we purchased on E-bay.

The same photo was taken on each frame; the film was then cut into sections and processed using three different methods.

The condition of this film is about average when compared to other Kodacolor II films in cassettes*.

This is one of the first C-41 process films manufactured. Although the recommend process is C-41, this film is at least two

decades beyond the best-before date and there are better approaches to handling this film which greatly compensate for its age.

As with most of the color film we handle here, our process for this film involves an extremely high contrast developer and

eliminates the step of bleaching the silver content from the film. Color film has two essential components –

a silver layer and three color dye layers - and this bleach step is normal when processing newer color film.

Our reason for not removing the silver from most of the color films that we process is that the silver layer stands

up much better over time than the color dye image. Our experience is that most people prefer a much higher quality

B&W image over its poor color conterpart. In fact, most people prefer any kind of image in B&W versus no image at all in color.

·        Worth note is the fact that unprocessed cassette films (126, 35mm, 110) do not tend to stand up as well as roll film (120,127,620 etc.)

      over time. Film is wound loosely in these cassettes, allowing oxygen to mingle with the surface of the film.

·        Oxygen is a catalyst to the aging process. Unprocessed roll films, if wrapped tightly, have a shelf life approximately 2 to 3 times longer than cassette films.

High Contrast Color Processing (generally used only with Kodacolor X roll films and some off market newer

35mm cassettes loaded with 35mm motion picture film i.e. Seattle Film Works)

Synopsis: Very old color film processed conventionally (#1), similar to other labs, and printed without any digital enhancement(#2).

Compare with processing the same film in our high contrast color developer (#3), plus digitally enhanced prints - color (#4) and B&W (#5).

This is the difference between Film Rescue International and other labs.

This is what a negative from Kodacolor-X roll film looks like

after conventional processing in normal color film developer.

It is very low contrast and the orange mask has deteriorated with age;

the orange mask allows the negative to print properly on automated printers.

This is the same negative printed conventionally,

without any digital enhancement. The purple/ magenta color

cast is typical of prints made from distressed or old negatives,

using an automated printer set up to make a good print from a good negative.

This is the same Kodacolor-X film processed in our

proprietary high contrast film developer.

Though not perfect (color fidelity is lacking),

it is a significantly superior result from a film of this vintage.

While this digitally enhanced print is superior to the image

from the negative processed and printed conventionally,

it still lacks the contrast and color fidelity of a new negative.

The digital enhancement brings faded color closer to normal,

but also exagerrates the grain and imperfections.

We consider this a borderline acceptable color result.

Color film has three dye layers, sensitive to different colors of light.

Typically, the blue sensitive layer in Kodacolor-X film is more resilient.

By isolating that layer, we are able to create a monochrome (B&W) image.

Even working with very distressed or faded negatives, the final result is often very good.

 

A more detailed explanation: The film used was a roll of Kodacolor-X, dated 1966, which we purchased on E-bay.

The same photo was taken on each frame and then the film was cut into pieces and processed by two different methods.

Compared to other Kodacolor-X roll films we have received from customers, the condition of this particular film was better than average.

Kodacolor-X roll film (as opposed to cassette film) is one of very few types of old color film that we do make an attempt to get

 color image from and still offer our success guarantee. Even so, the final result rarely ends up in color. When the difference is obvious,

we provide a better quality digitally enhanced B&W image rather than a poorer color one. If you are sending Kodacolor-X roll film,

and color image is preferable, you can indicate this in your instructions. We cannot guarantee that you will get color images,

but we will take this into consideration when we work on your film.

 


2.2 Fog and Diafine, Diafine and Fog

 

NO DIAFINE>>

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

Brian Schallhttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Jan 19, 2006; 12:49 p.m.

When in doubt, stick it in Diafine.

Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins , Jan 19, 2006; 04:36 p.m.

I have to disagree with Brian. When I first became enamored of Diafine I was enthusiastic about the possibilities of using it to develop

unknown or outdated film. Since all films are developed the same way in Diafine - 3-5 minutes in each of Part A and B - it would

seem to be a dream developer for anything and everything.

Unfortunately Diafine produces excessive fogging on expired film. Even Tri-X, which is probably the soulmate of Diafine,

doesn't get along when it's expired. I developed some seven year old Tri-X that had been stored at room temperature in Diafine.

The fogging was so horrendous the negs were pratically unprintable.

Microphen produced much better results with film from this same batch.

 

YES DIAFINE>>

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

Alan Gagehttp://photo.net/member-status-icons, Apr 19, 2005; 09:40 p.m.

I've used both Diafine and HC-110 on old rolls of found film (oldest being from the 40's and most from the 50's).

I've had the best luck with Diafine. Yes, the fog is a little heavier, but the negatives are much easier to scan/print.

 I suppose I could probably get equally good results from HC-110 by adjusting development time, but these aren't really

rolls you can experiment with and no two will be exposed the same. For me Diafine is the clear winner.

You can see some of my results if you look in my portfolio; there are a few presentations of found film rolls.

Good luck,

Alan

 

NO DIAFINE>>

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)

 

 


2.3 Kodak Super-X Panchromatic film

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

 

John Shriver , Jan 18, 2006; 10:11 p.m.

The cartridge is from Super-X Panchromatic film, the mid-1930's predecessor to Super-XX. The only earlier 35mm film was Super Speed,

which was really their current B&W movie stock.

HOWEVER, it's quite unlikely that is really what is in there. Lots of folks reused the old Kodak cartridges, which were reloadable back then,

and reloaded them with bulk film. So it was probably reloaded with newer film. Obviously, once you load in in a reel, and cut the leader off,

it will be obvious if the leader was factory trimmed, or is hand-cut from a bulk load job.

If it really is Super-X, it will be on a nitrate base, and will be very tightly rolled indeed. It will be a challenge to get on the reel.

The Kodak time for processing it was probably on the order of 17 minutes in full strength D-76 at 68F. But, for any film that old,

you probably would get black film at that time.

Consider HC-110, Microphen, or DD-X, and develop for a time similar to, say, Tri-X.

Or only develop part of the roll at once, and see how it comes out. Or consider development by inspection with a dark green safelight.

 

2.4 Купать дольше

http://community.livejournal.com/ru_fotoplenka/173620.html

 

Entry tags:

мнение, химия

Проявка древних чб пленок: купайте дольше
Возвращаясь к старой теме проявки сильно лежалых пленок. Я писал тут как-то, на ORWO NP20 приблизительно

1989 года выпуска эмульсия очень шелушится, оставляя мелкие неприятные черные точки по всему кадру.

Предварительное замачивание на 15-20 минут помогло сильно уменьшить шелушение, но не до конца.

На днях я проявлял снова такие же рулончики, и в этот раз пленка провела в воде в общей сложности полтора-два часа:

довольно долго замачивалась перед проявкой, и после фиксажа долго ждала пока место для сушки освободится.

Также я вместо кислой стоп-ванны промыл пару раз водой - где-то читал, что слишком резкая перемена кислотности

может разрушать эмульсию, особенно старую.

Результат, можно сказать, ошеломительный: шелушения больше нет, и поверхность пленки гораздо глаже чем раньше.

а вот вам история на закуску: http://community.livejournal.com/photophile/390128.html

P.S. как насчет нового тега - ретропленка? :-)

 


colorfool
2007-03-30 10:15 am (local) (link)

кстати, я в HC-110 при 25С проявлял, с вполне хорошими результатами. скорее всего сможет и теплее. смотри development chart в моей инфе

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

 

 

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

 

Processing very old film, possibly 50 years old
     
#446491 - 01/03/2007 23:43

 


I've been given a roll of film to process which was found in an old box camera.

It is a Gevaert Superchrome orthochromatic rollfilm, probably been in the camera since the 50's.

First thoughts were to throw it into some D76 for a quarter of an hour, but I'm wondering if there's

any more suitable suggestion, bearing in mind age, fogging, fragility and so on.

It has no sentimental value so I'm not looking to send it to any specialist processors,

just looking for other suggestions on how to tackle processing. Help appreciated!

 

Re: Processing very old film, possibly 50 years old [Re: rdc]
     
#446676 - 02/03/2007 11:14

 

 


Sounds about right. Is it on a safety base or still nitro cellulose? If the latter it might be getting quite fragile, not to mention a potential fire hazard.

--------------------
David.
www.theromangaskproject.org.uk

 

 

 

Re: Processing very old film, possibly 50 years old [Re: Woolliscroft]
     
#446778 - 02/03/2007 13:46

 

 


Sounds like a job for us! I know you aren't looking for a specialist processor such as ourselves, but I've had Gevaert Superchrome in before. It does indeed date from the 1950s, possibly slightly earlier.

The trouble is, I formulated my own developer specifically to handle old films, one which simply does the job after seemingly endless testing. However as I make my living from this and the developer is proprietary, I'm sure you can understand my position here! I'm sure we can help though.

D-76 is a classic and the benefit there is you'll be able to find a developing for it if you research hard enough. If in doubt, use 12mins@20C, thats what we always used to start with when playing about with our original clips and test rolls. D-76 is relatively low-contrast and high fog though. DK-50 is lower fog, but troublesome to get hold of and use if you only have the one roll. Microphen pushes the film nicely but will exacerbate the grain and also give high-fog levels. D-19 will improve contrast but also is difficult to buy and use for one roll. Beware for the backing paper may well have stuck to the film base over the years.

So basically just for experiment, any developer will do, at about 12mins@20C, but don't expect great results. A hardening fixer is also recommended. If you want the best chance of getting results, I'm afraid the simple answer is get the specialists in to help

Good luck!

--------------------
Dominic Roberts - http://www.processc22.co.uk

 

 

 

Re: Processing very old film, possibly 50 years old [Re: Woolliscroft]
     
#446922 - 02/03/2007 19:35

 

 


Oh, one more thing, it is definitely Safety Base, so don't worry. I have it on reasonable authority (although open to suggestions!) that both Kodak and Agfa (and therefore presumably Gevaert) *never* used Nitrate base for *roll* films.

Nitrate was most frequently used for 35mm filmstock before the early 1950s, when it was rapidly phased out. The last example I have seen is bulk Ansco Supreme film, dated 1951. Others have apparently seen examples dating to 1954 but that is very rare. Also, as far as we know, Nitrate was never used for 8mm film stock, but that is another story.

--------------------
Dominic Roberts - http://www.processc22.co.uk

 

 

 

Re: Processing very old film, possibly 50 years old [Re: domroberts]
     
#447122 - 03/03/2007 11:29

 

 


I developed some 30 year old HP3 and various other ancient emulsions in D76 stock solution for 15 mins at 20c. Results were quite good, all things considered, but fog levels were, not unexpectedly, quite high.

--------------------
"I wanna hold your gland". Lemming & McCartney

 

 

 

Re: Processing very old film, possibly 50 years old [Re: domroberts]
     
#447129 - 03/03/2007 11:45

 

 


Thank you for the comprehensive and helpful replies, that's got me on the right lines. If the film had any personal value, I'd put it in the care of a specialist processor, of course, but it's just something that was in the old box Brownie camera that was given to me. There are only two frames exposed on the film, so out of sheer interest I plan to reload it and shoot the remainder. I'll see if my local photography dealer can get hold of DK-50, because I could use the stock for other processing, but failing that, I'll just try it in a D76 brew as suggested, maybe taking a tail-end clip first.

When unloading the film initially to see what it was, I found that it hadn't quite rolled squarely on the take-up spool and a fraction of a millimetre of film edge was showing, and I noticed that it was coloured a strong purple-pink. I don't know if this is any indicator of deterioration or just a characteristic of the film.

Incidentally, as it's so old, would I be better advised to try dish rather than tank developing? I'm just wondering if the film might be too fragile now to load on to a spiral -- my tanks feed in from the outside of the spiral, so some frictional force is required. Years ago I used to have a spiral which loaded from the centre, which might have been better, but sadly I no longer have it.

Thanks again for the pointers, I'm looking forward to seeing what, if anything, comes out of it.

 

 

 

Re: Processing very old film, possibly 50 years old [Re: rdc]
     
#447500 - 04/03/2007 12:35

 

 


A strong pink base colour is typical of orthochromatic roll films, so don't worry. If you'd seen (and it doesn't really matter if you didn't) 'blotchiness' and a more dull yellow/pink colour in patches, that does indicate deterioration.

You should have no problem using a tank to develop it (we use spiral tanks for everything), the only problems will arise if the film has torn at all from being misaligned - although a fraction of a mm should be absolutely fine. Another thing you will notice, is that the coil of the film will be very powerful compared with what you might be used to - 50 years has turned the thing into more of a spring! The point where the film was rolled out in the camera on frame 2 will be flat as a pancake, so you may find loading the film into the spiral difficult. The key is not to panic, try-and-try again if you hit problems, and use a well-ventilated dark area to load the roll. That is, not a cramped dark-box where your hands might get sticky if things go wrong.

As for exposing the rest of the roll, the film will have hugely desensitised so use a tripod and expose about EI10 to 25. That is only a sheer guesstimate on my part though.

Finally good luck! Don't forget to post your experiences on the forum.

--------------------
Dominic Roberts - http://www.processc22.co.uk

 

 

 

Re: Processing very old film, possibly 50 years old [Re: domroberts]
     
#449772 - 09/03/2007 00:14

 

 


Just a brief note by way of update on how it went. I processed the film in D76, stock solution, 20 minutes at 20C. The two frames already exposed gave me nothing discernible at all, however, the test frames I exposed did record images, albeit grainy, low contrast, with some fogging, although the fogging was not as much as I'd expected. Following Dominic's advice, I'd rated the film at ISO 10, and from the bracketing EVs I used, the emulsion's sensitivity was about ISO 4. I'd to stop washing the film after about two minutes, as I noticed it was extremely delicate and was coming away from the base edges where I was holding it, so I feared that a full wash might wash the coating right off.

I did learn one other practical lesson in old film handling. Having respooled and reloaded the film (I'd removed the partly-used roll in order to clean the camera optics), the initial attempt to wind on resulted in the film jamming in the camera, an old Box Brownie. Unloading it again in a changing bag, I found that the tape strip holding the film start to the backing paper had lost its adhesive properties; and during the winding, the strongly coiled film parted company from the backing paper (again echoing Dominic's caveat), and jammed in the camera. Next time, I'll know to check and fix a new tape strip. Actually I learned two lessons. When I first respooled it, I didn't notice that on very old spindles, only one side had the cutout to engage with the film winding key, the other is blank. Guess which way I spooled it first time?

In the event, though it's a shame there were no useable 'found' images on the film, it was a useful exercise and I learned a lot. Next time, I'll know how to proceed with more confidence, and who knows what interesting finds there may be in old 'junk' cameras?

Thanks to those who gave me so much valuable advice.

 

 


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

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.

I recently was asked by a friend to develop 5 rolls of old pictures that were taken by his mother, and then put away in a drawer and forgotten. There were 4 rolls of Verichrome (not Verichrome Pan), and 1 roll of un-named "panchromatic film" (the only identifier). The changeover from Verichrome to Verichrome Pan apparently took place in about 1954, so 4 of the film rolls were about 50 years old. The other roll is probably about that old. I tried several different methods with these rolls, and checked the densities on my Kodak Color Densitometer Model 10-k. The results were somewhat unexpected, so I thought I would share them.

I checked development recommendations for Verichrome, and found the prevalent recommendation was 17 minutes in straight D-76. I processed the first Verichrome roll this way. The result was extremely high background, but some picture detail was observable in the freshly-processed film. However, as the film dried (I hung it in my darkroom and left if for a week), it got progressively darker. At this point almost no detail is observable. I measure an optical density (OD) of 1.84-2.05 pretty much everywhere. Comparing this with zone system densities I found on the net, this corresponds to approximately zones XI-XIII, and is approximately the maximum achievable negative density.

The next roll of verichrome I processed in straight D-76, but added on Kodak anti-fog tablet to 1 quart of developer (as prescribed in the directions on the anti-fog bottle). Here I followed the previous procedure. Some detail was initially observable, but the negatives got progressively darker with drying. After 1 week I found OD of 1.95-2.0. Again, approximately zone XIII. The antifog tablet did nothing to reduce fog.

The next roll I processed in straight D-76, but reduced processing time to 13 minutes. Again, some detail was initially observable, but the negatives got progressively darker with drying. After 1 week I found OD in the base +background (fog) of 1.62. The darkest area has OD=1.90. Here some detail is observable, with a density range in the negative of about 0.3. This is about 1/3 the density range in a "properly exposed and processed" negative, encompasing about 2 zones. A good negative should have about 7 zones.With high contrast paper I may be able to get decent prints.

I processed a 4th roll using the same parameters as in the paragraph directly above. I found OD of base +background =1.44. The maximum density is 1.70. Again, approximately 2 zones range.

The panchromatic roll I couldn't identify, so I followed my usual procedure and processed it in Diafine (which processes all films the same, 3 minutes in each of 2 developer baths). Here I found base +background = 0.67. Maximum OD=1.08. This density range of 0.41 is about 2 1/2 zones, only a slight improvement in tonal range. However, the overall background level is greatly reduced. I believe these negatives will produce acceptable (not great) prints. I'm uncertain whether the film is much newer (I doubt it), or whether the Diafine produces much less background (the view I favor).

I'm uncertain at this point how to recommend processing of old verichrome. I definitely wouldn't use 17 minutes in D-76. I would use either 13 minutes in D-76, or Diafine. I have several rolls of old unexposed Verichrome 122 that I want to try in a Folding Pocket Kodak 3B, and several rolls of expired Verichrome Pan 620 that I want to shoot in my Kodak Medalist. If I resolve the issue I will publish the results here.

Note that I was able to get marginally acceptable prints off all of the rolls of film by using high contrast paper and long exposures (via a point source head).

 

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

 

12-02-2006, 08:18 PM

 

phfitz

 

 

 


David,

To get that look, you can do what they did back then; over-expose AND over-develope then print it on grade 0 paper.

Kodaks recommendations from 1945:

Panatomic X 25 speed x D76 for 11 - 14 min @ 68F
Plus X 50 speed x D76 13 - 16 min @ 68F
Super XX 100 speed x D76 16 - 20 min @ 68F
Verichrome 50 speed x D76 13 - 17 min @ 68F
Tri X 200 speed, not offered on in roll film only sheets.

The over-exposed would burn out the background and sky, the over-developed would increase the grain.
Have fun with your project.

 

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

  

Helling Bernie

Oct 25 1996, 3:00 am 

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom

From: hell...@uwindsor.ca (Helling Bernie)

Date: 1996/10/25

Subject: Fun with D-19 ......

 

Well, I finally mixed up the on-sale pack of D-19 and hunted around for a

developing time for my Fuji 400 neopan (outdated, bulk-rolled)....

Welll...... Kodak couldn't even supply a time for TRI-X for this stuff, (or whoever

the camera store called and claimed to be kodak...) so off to the fat red

book at the art school lab....

No luck either, but by cross referencing, I got a guess-time-ate of 5-6

minutes at 20c....  gave it 6,

Wow! that's contrast!

next time 5.5.....

I would guess 5.5 for tri-x

 

Massive Dev Chart Search Results:

 

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

 Film 

 Developer 

Dilution

 ASA/ISO 

 35mm 

 120 

 Sheet 

 Temp 

 Notes 

Classic Pan 400 

D-19 

 stock 

 400 

 6 

 6 

 6 

 20C 

  

Fortepan 400 

D-19 

 stock 

 400 

 6 

 6 

 6 

 20C 

  

HIE Infrared 

D-19 

 stock 

 n/a 

 6 

  

 5 

 20C 

  

Kodalith 6556 

D-19 

 stock 

 16 

 5 

  

  

 20C 

  

SFX 200 

D-19 

 1+1 

 200 

 9 

 9 

  

 20C 

 [notes] 

Technical Pan 

D-19 

 stock 

 100-200 

 2-8 

 2-8 

 2-8 

 20C 

 [notes] 

Technical Pan 

D-19 

 1+2 

 100-160 

 4-7 

 4-7 

 4-7 

 20C 

 [notes] 

 

 

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/