8 year old TX 400

[rwboyer]

Just wanted to share some results that I obtained recently when I developed some Kodak Tri-X 400 that i SHOT about 8 years ago. I found 5 rolls of Tri-X and 3 rolls of TMZ that I shot all around the same time. I thought they would be a disaster considering that I actually exposed them 8 years ago and the various storage conditions have been far far from optimal considering they were found in moving boxes that have sat in un-airconditioned garages in TX, etc, etc, but...

No fog to speak of on the TRI-X and I used my normal time/temp for development since I have never done anything like this before.

Tri-X probably shot somewhere between 250 and 320 based on my normal M.O. processed in Pyrocat HD 1+1+100. God I love TRI-X in all it's various forms. We'll see how the TMZ fares??

 

[BetterSense]

I got a roll of TMY in a darkroom lot. It said PUSHED TO 1600 and I'm sure it was exposed at least 8 years ago, 15 wouldn't surprise me. It had a bit of base fog but the images came out fine...it was a football game.

 

[fschifano]

I can't say that I've developed any Tri-X that was exposed 8 years ago, but I do come across some old stock that had expired about that long ago. Most of it comes from people in my local camera club who have stopped using film in favor of "that other form of image capture." Most of the time it's pretty good. Tri-X that old seems to pick up a little base fog and drop a bit of speed, but is otherwise quite useable. It depends on the storage conditions. Stored cold, it's not too bad. Stuffed away in the back of a sock drawer somewhere? Not so good. TMZ, well that's another story. I have some in my freezer that went out of date about 4 years ago. It hasn't held up well, nor had I expected it to. Lots of base fog and speed loss. Sure you can print through the fog, and there is lots of grain. If I were to use it, I'd probably rate it at 800 and use a development time for between 1600 and 3200 to pump up the contrast. I suppose there is some use for it if I wanted a really grainy look and didn't need a whole lot of speed, but that's not really my style. Maybe abstract macro photographs of flowers and such would work.

 

[rwboyer]

I can't say that I've developed any Tri-X that was exposed 8 years ago, but I do come across some old stock that had expired about that long ago. Most of it comes from people in my local camera club who have stopped using film in favor of "that other form of image capture." Most of the time it's pretty good. Tri-X that old seems to pick up a little base fog and drop a bit of speed, but is otherwise quite useable. It depends on the storage conditions. Stored cold, it's not too bad. Stuffed away in the back of a sock drawer somewhere? Not so good. TMZ, well that's another story. I have some in my freezer that went out of date about 4 years ago. It hasn't held up well, nor had I expected it to. Lots of base fog and speed loss. Sure you can print through the fog, and there is lots of grain. If I were to use it, I'd probably rate it at 800 and use a development time for between 1600 and 3200 to pump up the contrast. I suppose there is some use for it if I wanted a really grainy look and didn't need a whole lot of speed, but that's not really my style. Maybe abstract macro photographs of flowers and such would work.

I have a bunch of TMZ unexposed about the same vintage that was in the same box along with other crap. That is a great idea - abstracts. I knew I would never shoot the stuff seriously but didn't want to throw it away.

Give the shape and characteristics of the exposed TX I will probably shoot it at 250 process it normally and not give a hoot how old it is.

RB

 

[naugastyle]

TMZ, well that's another story. I have some in my freezer that went out of date about 4 years ago. It hasn't held up well, nor had I expected it to. Lots of base fog and speed loss.

Well, that's discouraging. There's some rather cheap outdated TMZ on Ultrafine, cold-stored.

 

[rwboyer]

Well, that's discouraging. There's some rather cheap outdated TMZ on Ultrafine, cold-stored.

I have never shot the old stuff as I have heard from many many sources that TMZ is about the only BW film that you have to care about the expiration date on. I figured why bother with all the work just to have the film fogged. I will probably try some of the really old stuff that I have for some experimental stuff that might benefit from a really really grainy look. We'll see.

RB

 

[nickandre]

At a certain point I value my work more than several cents a roll of film. It's nice to have film to burn though.

 

[naugastyle]

I like Delta 3200 better than TMZ anyway, but...$3 difference is pretty good. Oh well!

 

[fschifano]

I think you'll find that old Delta 3200 won't hold up any better than old TMZ. Very fast emulsions are just like that. I'm no chemist and certainly not a film designer, but it seems pretty clear to me that whatever needs to be done to make a very fast emulsion does not make for a film with a long shelf life.

 

[naugastyle]

Oh no no, I don't mean that I have old Delta 3200 lying around or believe that age doesn't affect it. I meant that if I'm buying NEW film I would choose Delta 3200 over TMZ, I was only considering the TMZ because Ultrafine had old cold-stored film for very cheap. Since it apparently doesn't hold up well, I would continue buying D3200 instead.