20 year old Tri-X, should I bother?

Dracotype · Jan 6, 2006

Dear Everyone,

As the above states, that is my dilema. I know this question is realted to a previous post about outdated film, but mine is of a more tangible nature I think. As I said, the Tri-X professional is about 20 years old. Should I even bother? And if I should, what would be the developing times? Should I grossly overexpose and normally develop, or normal exposure and grossly over develop? I am using FG7 if that helps.

Drew

htmlguru4242 · Jan 6, 2006

If you have the film, and just want to shoot & process it, I'd say go ahead and try it; 20 year old Tri-X will probably work, though you may experience some problems. If the film has been stored in the freezer / fridge, it'll probably be just like new. If it was stored otherwise, you might have some fog or other oddities.

You might want to add a little anti-fog to your developer (Potassium Bromide of Benzotriazole), just to cut down on any fog that may be present. I do not know anything about FG-7 as a developer, though in my normal use of D-76 with old films, I overexpose about a half stop to a stop and develop normally.

I've shot old Kodacolor and FP4 with good results, and have developed a roll of verichrome from the 1940s - 1950s era, so this is certainly doable.

I believe that you may have the "old" Tri-X, which I think is a different speed than the current ISO 320 / 400 stuff, though I may be mistaken as I've never shot Tri-X that old.

Try it and see how it comes out.

jim appleyard · Jan 6, 2006

What have you got to lose? FG-7 is a nice dev that I've used a bit and liked, but I've never used for this pupose so ZI can't tell tell you if it's a good one or not. As I recall, it's a speed increasing dev., so it might work well. HC-110 seems to be the dev of choice when doin old film. A search here should give you lots of info on that.

jim appleyard · Jan 6, 2006

What have you got to lose? FG-7 is a nice dev that I've used a bit and liked, but I've never used for this pupose so I can't tell tell you if it's good or not. As I recall, it's a speed increasing dev., so it might work well. HC-110 seems to be the dev of choice when doing old film. A search here should give you lots of info on that.

Gerald Koch · Jan 6, 2006

Unless you've got a bunch of this old Tri-X why bother? Film's cheap and your time is certainly valuable. High speed films do not age well being more sensitive to cosmic rays and heat than slower ones.

Neal · Jan 6, 2006

Dear Jim,

You don't say how much you have but in 2000, I was given a bulk roll of Tri-X 400 with an expiration date in 1985. Coincidentally, I developed it in FG-7 without incident. If you have a large volume of film, I would start with your normal times. My first efforts (adding about 20% to the time) resulted in more contrast than I liked.

Neal Wydra

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 7, 2006

Go for it! I have a 100 sheet box of Tri-X that expired in 1983. It works just ducky, and I use it all the time.

- Thom

antielectrons · Jan 7, 2006

20 years is nothing. Have a look at these:

http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm

nick mulder · Jan 7, 2006

yep,

I've got some tri-x bordering on 30 years that appears all good

raucousimages · Jan 7, 2006

I found 200+ 4x5 sheets of TriX and after testing I had good results shooting at ISO 200 and developing in HC-110. I dont trust it for anything important but it has been great for teaching my children large format.

Phillip P. Dimor · Jan 7, 2006

I was given two boxes of tri-x pack film which had expired in 1973. Luckily the film had been stored in a refridgerator.

It works fine for me but I guess i'm lucky. I suppose the b+f is a little higher but I didn't really notice or care. *shrug*

pentaxuser · Jan 7, 2006

antielectrons said:
20 years is nothing. Have a look at these:

http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm

Thanks for sharing this site with us.These are amazing. It's like discovering history. Must be an absorbing hobby for the site compiler. I can really relate to his comments and thinking pattern. I first thought that the soft look and lack of contrast was proportional to age of film but I am not so sure. There are 1940's ones with better contrast than 1960's.

Pentaxuser

jim appleyard · Jan 7, 2006

Yes, a nice trip down memory lane. Who doesn't have friend and/or reletives in the same poses? Who doesn't own one of these old cameras.

I do hope you process this old roll of Tri-X. The thrill will be to see what's on it. I wonder if it will be the same in 50 years? Will someone be nostalgic when they see an old Canon digital that they used to own? At least now the old cameras in those photos have a chance of still functioning well. Will we be able to say the same of the run-of-the-mill digital crap that's out there now? Will it be the same feeling, "wow, here's a cd from 2006, let's see what's on it!"?

Dracotype · Jan 7, 2006

Dear Everyone,

Thanks for all the suggestions. I went ahead last night, shot two sheets (it is 5x7 film), one normal (320 ISO) and the other (160 ISO) and developed normally in FG7 1:15 for 7.5 minutes. I was amazed as I pulled the two sheets out that, there, before my very eyes, was a very faint image of what I had photographed. Still very thin admittedly, but none the less, an image was there. And I actually read the date on the box, 1977. Close to thirty years. I shall try ISO 25 and ISO 12 and develop for 8 min (just for a boost in contrast) tonight and see what comes of it. Again, thanks.

Drew

20 year old Tri-X, should I bother?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency