Adjustments for expired P3200

So I have about two bricks worth of TMax P3200 film that expired in 2004 that was kept around (non-refrigerated in the class cabinetry with all the other equipment) by my professor for nostalgic reasons. Though he doesn't miss a thing about shooting film, so I was able to help myself to it if I could use it.

The first roll I tried, I exposed it as if it were 1600, but developed it in HC-110 dil.B as 3200, figuring give it least a stop over since it was older.

A scan and a print off one of the frames (the print course is on also expired paper, Afga Brovira that expired in 1957, so not a solid basis for comparison).





And some other scans.







Now the issue of course is that the base of the film seems to be fogged. If that's what you can call it, it's completely even as a darker grey base reducing the overall contrast of the negative. But doesn't look like your typical fog in that it's not well... foggy, just one solid even tone across the whole strip.

I'm assuming the rest of the bricks would be more or less the same if they were bought together and stored together in the same condition.

I'm thinking the next roll I try, I go +2 over to get it much denser to compensate for the darker fog. (will try to get a picture of the negatives themselves later).

But I thought I would ask here, from the more experienced crew.

You need to give it more exposure - try an EI of 800 or 400.

MattKing said:

You need to give it more exposure - try an EI of 800 or 400.

Click to expand...

+1

I'll try 400 just to punch it. It's 'natural' ISO is usually 800 or 1,000 right?

The development I was using was HC-110 Dilution B (1:31), 68F at 10.5 minutes. (in other words EI for 400, develop as 3200 as usual)

Though the school uses the sprint system (1:9 standard dilution), not sure if the P3200 would be better or worse in that, I just know that sprint with HP5+ doesn't give me the smoother grain I remembered from developing HP5+ in HC-110 in the past, so not sure how it would behave with Tmax film. Seems they only use that system because it's convenient and it's what the professor used at the university he attended.

I had some 1995 dated kodak P3200 so i did some tests and found my 'home-made' Microphen formula 1+1 for 9 mins @ 20oC gave good negs rating film at 400 ASA in a Nikon FG I have 'taken over' from my Wife who never uses her film Nikon Gear any more.

Nikon FG Tests by Peter Elgar, on Flickr

Nikon FG Tests by Peter Elgar, on Flickr

Lovely and not too gritty looking. Have you tried any 8x10 enlargements?

I've found that TMax P3200 is affected much more by the ravages of time than Ilford Delta 3200. I've had almost no luck with rolls of P3200 that expired in 2004, were kept refrigerated and eventually exposed and developed in 2014 and 2016. It just doesn't seem to age well. My examples were quite seriously fogged and had lost at least two stops sensitivity - and they'd been kept in the fridge.

So I would cautiously advise listening to those who suggest exposing at 400 and try a test roll.

Agulliver said:

...
So I would cautiously advise listening to those who suggest exposing at 400 and try a test roll.

Click to expand...

I have two bricks of 20 or so rolls each, I think I can afford to test 2 or 3 rolls at various EI (or least note which frames were treated at which EI)

expose it with a handful of extra stops, maybe at iso 50 or 100
and process it in caffenol c with a shake of dekto or ansco 130, you won't have too much trouble.

Shooting it at night will just exacerbate the problems displayed, so try added exposure and shoot in favorable conditions.

Given that the film expired in 2004 and the paper in 1957, I'd say that the first shot looks great. The scene is right in atmospheric terms for the resultant print

Best of luck with the rest. I hope that you can get reasonable prints at 1600 or at worst 800. If you have to use it at 400 then all of the benefits of 3200 tends to go out of the window. Clearly microphen, as evidenced by pentaxpete's pics would seem to be the stuff to use

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Given that the film expired in 2004 and the paper in 1957, I'd say that the first shot looks great. The scene is right in atmospheric terms for the resultant print

Click to expand...

Here's a side by side of the previous EI 1600, and EI 400 (haven't gotten around to prints yet as we only get the chemistry out for prints on tuesday/thursdays, which is discarded at the end of the night)



A scan from the EI 400 one. (I don't have microphen, and the only chemistry around here is the sprint developer, or I can use one of the ancient bottles of hc-110, ilfosol, etc)

Least under strobes you know it's going to be proper exposure (metered).

pentaxuser said:

Best of luck with the rest. I hope that you can get reasonable prints at 1600 or at worst 800. If you have to use it at 400 then all of the benefits of 3200 tends to go out of the window. Clearly microphen, as evidenced by pentaxpete's pics would seem to be the stuff to use

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Well... worse case scenario I have nearly 40 rolls of 'usable 400' speed film that's just really gritty with the current chemistry access. At least the base density appears to be close to the same between the two rolls developed so far. We don't have anything on campus to measure the density exactly though. Going to try to print one of them later tonight.

Least I know my rangefinder is correctly focused now, and that the timer/sync works.

I did a 12x10" print of the Old Gent crossing the road and it was quite grain-free at normal viewing distance and the Camera Club Judge didn't know it was on outdated Kodak P3200 !

pentaxpete said:

I did a 12x10" print of the Old Gent crossing the road and it was quite grain-free at normal viewing distance and the Camera Club Judge didn't know it was on outdated Kodak P3200 !

Click to expand...

*Big Grin*

.... I guess we do have some microphen in the back, among other things...

That last rectangular bottle looks like the 80s+ version of hc-110.









Note to Self : Remove and wipe down that hc-110 leak and discard the imploded ilfosol.

I'd really recommend a test with DD-X as you get to know different devs with this film. The shadow detail is pretty impressive, though shooting fresh 3200 at slower speeds (800)? I think Hp5+ is light years better looking at 800. Getting up around 1600, DD-X held onto a lot of detail.

DD-X get pricey at 1+4, but you can suss out the times in the 1+7 to 1+9 range - my tests showed no visibly change in contrast either dilution - which makes sense, DD-X ain't Rodinal! (Many people say you can get 2 rolls out of a one-shot mix and even three with a small bit of fresh concentrate added, BTW).

M Carter said:

I'd really recommend a test with DD-X as you get to know different devs with this film. The shadow detail is pretty impressive, though shooting fresh 3200 at slower speeds (800)? I think Hp5+ is light years better looking at 800. Getting up around 1600, DD-X held onto a lot of detail.

DD-X get pricey at 1+4, but you can suss out the times in the 1+7 to 1+9 range - my tests showed no visibly change in contrast either dilution - which makes sense, DD-X ain't Rodinal! (Many people say you can get 2 rolls out of a one-shot mix and even three with a small bit of fresh concentrate added, BTW).

Click to expand...

Right now the only advantage I see with going thru the rolls is :
1) It's free
2) Still resolves an image, maybe to suit the grit I need to change up subject matter, or mix up some Microphen and see how it goes, since I got access to that.

pentaxpete said:

I had some 1995 dated kodak P3200 so i did some tests and found my 'home-made' Microphen formula 1+1 for 9 mins @ 20oC gave good negs rating film at 400 ASA in a Nikon FG I have 'taken over' from my Wife who never uses her film Nikon Gear any more.

...

Click to expand...

So I decided I'd take a P3200 roll that I had pulled from my Mercury II a little while back (which I marked as being 10 half frames into the roll, I wound it to 12 full frames just to give a nice safe 'margin') and stuck it into the Canon 7. Rated it for EI1600 earlier today, shot off several test frames, and that evening during class developed it in Microphen 1:1 (I had prepared the gallon stock solution the day before when there was no class), I just went with 9 minutes , 20C, constant agitation the first 30 seconds, and then 5 seconds every 30 seconds. Figured I'd see what comes out.

Scanning wise, not bad at all for an EI 1600. I used my Canon Serenar 35/2.8 for all the shots. Did incident metering most of the time with the Gossen Lunasix (in reflected mode it for the most part matched my Canon 7's selenium meter if you adjusted 2 stops for ISO 400 since that's as high as the internal meter goes). Most of the indoor shots were 1/60th at either f/4 or f/5.6, sometimes f/2.8. Near the end when looking out the 4th floor window I had between f/16 and f/22 around 1/250.

The contact sheet I wet printed this evening with notations added in photoshop.



Some scans with my Canon FS4000US at home, and photoshop for resizing/toning.

One of the first frames :



A crop of that showing the focus point.

Yay !! Very impressive testing -- thanks for taking the time to show us !