Age-fogged B&W materials: the definitive guide to working and succeeding with them

Welcome back David, I've missed you. I always followed your posts in the past.

lamerko said:

I wonder if this approach would work for color film. I have a great candidate for testing - Eastman EXR 500T, over 30 years old. The film has a very massive base fog.
But I think I will have a problem with measuring the chemicals by volume - I do not have access to sodium carbonate monohydrate, only the anhydrous form, which is a very fine powder - it will have a large volume, but a small weight...

Click to expand...

I do not think that my method will work with color film. I have tried adding Benzotraizole and got nothing good out of it. - David Lyga

koraks said:

Ah, yes, but there's the question of exposure. Note what @David Lyga proposed for TMZ:

This suggests that significant overexposure is part of the approach. And that would indeed make sense, as it would boil down to a two-pronged effect:
1. Dramatic overexposure to drown out the fog
2. Minimal development to ensure only the image-wise exposure is developed while leaving the underlying fog relatively untouched

This is why I think that the same could be achieved by taking a normal developer and a very brief development time - but it would likely be an impractically short time, indeed (maybe 1-2 minutes or so). In a similar vein, one might consider taking something like D76 and dilute it 1+5 or even 1+10 while maintaining a normal development time.

The big question is whether the M:Q ratio really is so significant here. It may or may not be, and it would be interesting to test it.

Click to expand...

NO NO NO, abbreviation of development time with normal developers gets you extremely weak negatives which cannot be effectively enlarged. You need to SUPPRESS threshold density (be it either fog or emerging image density). And when you suppress, you force more exposure to be made. - David Lyga

Here are the processed prints and negatives. I have categorized negatives and prints with letters in order to follow the text better and to understand better.

First, the negative film is Kodak TMZ 3200 kept at room temperature for 20 to 30 years. Normal box speed is EI 800 but I had to expose at EI 8. Enlarger is Meopta Axomat 5 with El Nikkor 50mm f2.8. Bulb in enlarger was a household LED bulb (my now normal light for enlarging). Paper used was Ilford MultiGrade that is so badly fogged, old, and abused that the rear of the paper is yellowed just like old newspaper. (See alternate image comparing back with copy paper white.) NOTHING taught me about these developers like this precious box of paper did. It is sensationally ugly. All prints were enlarged to 4 by 5 inches (about 10 X 12 cm).

Negative A: A facsimile of an image does actually emerge (very very dimly) when processed in a “D-76 type” of developer. Processed normally.

Negative B: My age-fog developer was diluted 1 + 4 and processed for only 4 minutes in order to show a ‘no fog’ image which, nevertheless, is lacking adequate contrast. Right now I do wonder if even more exposure would have made this a better negative than Negative C, by the extra exposure somewhat enhancing the contrast. That is something to think about for the future.

Negative C: IMPORTANT: This is my ‘best negative’ and was used to print ALL prints shown (A, B, C). It has adequate contrast. It was processed for 8 minutes with the same 1 + 4 dilution of my age-fog developer. After fixation, I used Farmer’s at 1 bleach + 1 paper fix + 12 water for a few minutes to get the fog to tame down. You do not want to let the Farmer’s act too quickly because it will be more difficult to stop.

Print A: processed in the normal Dektol 1 + 2 for only 30 seconds because I knew that, otherwise, the print would be jet black. The 30 second development time led to ugly mottle but still held a very faint emerging image. I placed a penny near the center of the photo but you can hardly see the round outline. THIS is what the paper is like, folks. NO ONE READING THIS WOULD EVER KEEP THIS PAPER. There is an alternate photo of the back of this paper compared to a copy paper white. Exposure time was 20 seconds at f8.

Print B: This paper demanded even a stronger developer than the max age-fog dilution (2 + 8) I had recommended. For this and for Print C I used 3 + 7 dilution. It is hard with such a paper to gain contrast. REALLY hard. Exposure was a whopping 4 minutes at f4!!!! (THAT, more than anything else is the price you pay for working with age-fogged materials; effectively, the films become “tripod films”.) You can see that this print is over-exposed, but on purpose. I gain a little contrast by doing that, then, after fixation, I bring the tones back with my Farmer’s. And putting a print like this through Farmer’s is what results with Print C.

Print C: Same as Print B, but with Farmer’s (1 bleach + 1 paper fix + 8 water), the print does come to life. Here you finally have a print that is at least somewhat acceptable. But …. That tortured film does exact a penalty. Take a look at an enlarged face of Ms Mullova: It looks like she is growing a beard!!! That is out of control grain from TMZ 3200 after being tortured into submission. But, the print is night and day better than the one processed with Dektol. Remember, this print evolved from a severely age-fogged negative printed upon even MORE severely age-fogged paper.

Afterthought:

This thread is both informative and cumbersome; enlightening as well as frightening. There is no easy all-inclusive solution, but there are methods that turn out to be downright intriguing. You give up a lot, you gain a lot. To some, this might be a feigned attempt to draw blood out of a stone; to others, a worthwhile endeavor. I feel satisfied that I have come this far and I have no regrets. It does give me tremendous pleasure to know that there are many copying my formula and keeping it intact.

There are those reading this thread who will come to the foolish ‘conclusion’ that David Lyga has to be smarter than any scientist or chemist who has ever worked for Eastman Kodak. We all know, at least subliminally, that that conjecture is unmitigated rubbish. But what we CAN safely surmise is this: For decades the top producers of sensitized materials had willfully suppressed methods which would have led to today’s conclusions with my post a whole lot earlier than NOW. Capitalism had reigned supreme here and prevented my methods from being better known in order to sell more sensitized materials. Good or bad? I do not know, all I do know is this: like Pope Francis humbly (and accurately) said: “Who am I to judge?” – David Lyga

Melvin J Bramley said:

Does this anti fog mix give optimum results for film and paper or is it just a way of making a bit of use of old film and paper?
I have about 500 sheets of old Agfa and Kodak paper that shows fogging, will I be able to obtain premium results with your approach?

Click to expand...

I will bet that your paper problem is easily solved. - David Lyga

koraks said:

Anyone is free to offer links to related posts if they so desire. It's unrelated to someone being a moderator.
The thread title change was the work of a moderator who (successfully) made the thread easier to identify to interested users.
Complaints about moderating should be addressed to us using the 'report' function or by sending a message to the moderator(s) involved with a link to the specific case(s) in point. General/vague hand waving is overall unproductive and I don't really appreciate it; please come talk to us - not about us. Thanks for taking this into consideration.

Click to expand...

The sane alternative, koraks, is to get rid of the 'problem'; if that means me, so be it. - David Lyga

Good to have you back!

David Lyga said:

The sane alternative, koraks, is to get rid of the 'problem'; if that means me, so be it. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

No need to victimize yourself here David. We're all glad to see you back. There's no problem if you make none. Carry on.

NOTA BENE TO ALL: Although my previous posts related to age-fog in B&W materials were well-thought out at the time, I do consider those writings, now, to be subordinate to those within this current post. Much experimenting has been done in the interim and, although the previous writings (concerning this specific matter) do contain still-relevant ideas, exact particulars have been modified. Honestly, I cannot foresee saying anything negative about this current post in the future, so happy am I with the results. My advice is to take my previous writings on the specific topic to be something to compare this thread with, but please allow this thread to predominate. With this (necessarily) said, I have no objection with the mods thus "illuminating" the past. Thank you. - David Lyga

MODERATOR'S NOTE: We have copied the contents of this post to David's opening post as well.

mshchem said:

David, so glad to hear from you. This is great information!
Best Regards Mike

Click to expand...

Thank you so much mshchem. However, when I look at myself in the mirror I say "big deal!" - David Lyga

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

Is the small amount of Metol meant to reduce the induction period of Hydroquinone while not working superadditively?

Click to expand...

It certainly seems that way. Without waxing 'scientific' it seems to me that that 'trigger' that the tiny amount of metol provides is what makes hydroquinone act like hydroquinone, and not act out the synergistic effect that the M/H marriage provides. Dumb response but, to me, relevant. - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

I do not think that my method will work with color film. I have tried adding Benzotraizole and got nothing good out of it. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer.

I bought the film in question years ago, not because I needed it for something, but simply because it was cheap. In fact, the shipping cost more. And that's for 400 feet. But it seems that the seller actually knew exactly what he was selling.
My first attempts with this film were... disappointing. With normal development, the base was almost black, extremely dense. It was very difficult to distinguish whether there was an image at all or the film had been fully exposed to light. But it's not. It was just poorly stored for decades.
Some time ago, I had made several attempts with it - pre-bleaching. I loaded a piece of film into Jobo, first bath - removing the remjet, second bath - rehalogenating bleach. Intensive washing and soaking in alcohol, taking it out and drying - in absolute darkness. Then in the camera, a walk, photos and normal processing. And the big surprise - the base was CLEAN - like on a new film, with a nice mask. Unfortunately, in the rush of shooting I forgot to set the light meter - instead of 6-12 ISO, I shot it as 320. Too optimistic, but hey, THERE WAS COLOR!

Sorry for the deviation, but let me mention my idea, looking at this topic:
- overexposure 5-6 stops;
- developing as black and white, according to your scheme, with maximum suppression of the base fog. Full process - developer, fixer, washing and drying;
- analysis of the result - if necessary, repeat with corrections;
- if we have a clear image and an acceptable base, we proceed to color:
1. water bath - 15 min;
2. rehalogenating bleach. I can add a little ammonium bromide;
3. reexposure;
4. color developer. Can be double strength or with an extended time;
5. bleach;
6. fixing;
7. washing and drying.

David Lyga said:

NOTA BENE TO ALL: Although my previous posts related to age-fog in B&W materials were well-thought out at the time, I do consider those writings, now, to be subordinate to those within this current post. Much experimenting has been done in the interim and, although the previous writings (concerning this specific matter) do contain still-relevant ideas, exact particulars have been modified. Honestly, I cannot foresee saying anything negative about this current post in the future, so happy am I with the results. My advice is to take my previous writings on the specific topic to be something to compare this thread with, but please allow this thread to predominate. With this (necessarily) said, I have no objection with the mods thus "illuminating" the past. Thank you. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

This is a very helpful post David because, as we moderators have discovered over the years, when someone posts on a subject, many members go looking for other threads on the same subject. By putting your current post in context, all those interested in doing that review will be aided greatly.

Would you like us to move this NOTA BENE to the first post in the thread? We can do that if you wish.

MattKing said:

This is a very helpful post David because, as we moderators have discovered over the years, when someone posts on a subject, many members go looking for other threads on the same subject. By putting your current post in context, all those interested in doing that review will be aided greatly.

Would you like us to move this NOTA BENE to the first post in the thread? We can do that if you wish.

Click to expand...

Yes that does make more sense to have this caveat up front and more readily accessible. - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

NO NO NO, abbreviation of development time with normal developers gets you extremely weak negatives which cannot be effectively enlarged. You need to SUPPRESS threshold density (be it either fog or emerging image density). And when you suppress, you force more exposure to be made. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Development progresses from the grains that received the most exposure down to those who received less (and ultimately none at all). Based on this, I find it hard at this point to determine whether your 'suppressed threshold' really is any different from just very weak development. As I said before, it would be interesting to test this by taking a regular developer and develop very briefly, and compare the results to your developer. Mind you, in both instances very liberal exposure would be necessary.

koraks said:

Development progresses from the grains that received the most exposure down to those who received less (and ultimately none at all). Based on this, I find it hard at this point to determine whether your 'suppressed threshold' really is any different from just very weak development. As I said before, it would be interesting to test this by taking a regular developer and develop very briefly, and compare the results to your developer. Mind you, in both instances very liberal exposure would be necessary.

Click to expand...

With a developer like this, grains do not typically go "plopp developed", it takes time. What David's developer seems to do is slow down the weakly exposed grains but give full development to strongly developed grains. A regular developer applied for short time doesn't do this: it develops weakly exposed regions a bit slower, but it also doesn't develop strongly exposed regions all that much. Look at this posting here to see the effect of severe underdevelopment.

Looking at David's developer I see a blend of "speed losing high contrast HQ only dev" with "regular Metol based developer". HQ only may be too inactive in the weakly exposed but still image relevant areas, so a small addition of "regular dev" seems to reach the sweat spot.

Rudeofus said:

Look at this posting here to see the effect of severe underdevelopment.

Click to expand...

That seems to match very well with what I said:

The red line would be representative to what I propose.
Of course, the plot above does not contain a curve that represents David's approach.

Rudeofus said:

What David's developer seems to do is slow down the weakly exposed grains but give full development to strongly developed grains.

Click to expand...

Forgive me for being somewhat pedantic, but at this point, that's a tautological statement unless we either have a decent theoretical explanation of why this would happen, or we have experimental data to support it.

For clarity, I'm not saying the theory is wrong - we just don't know yet whether it works, or how it works.

David Lyga said:

Yes that does make more sense to have this caveat up front and more readily accessible. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Done - your NOTA BENE is now added to the initial post, as well as remaining in the midst of the thread.

koraks said:

we just don't know yet whether it works, or how it works

Click to expand...

To be fair, you can develop film your entire life without knowing how it works.
As for whether or not the proposed method works, trying it would let you know.

lamerko said:

Thanks for the answer.

I bought the film in question years ago, not because I needed it for something, but simply because it was cheap. In fact, the shipping cost more. And that's for 400 feet. But it seems that the seller actually knew exactly what he was selling.
My first attempts with this film were... disappointing. With normal development, the base was almost black, extremely dense. It was very difficult to distinguish whether there was an image at all or the film had been fully exposed to light. But it's not. It was just poorly stored for decades.
Some time ago, I had made several attempts with it - pre-bleaching. I loaded a piece of film into Jobo, first bath - removing the remjet, second bath - rehalogenating bleach. Intensive washing and soaking in alcohol, taking it out and drying - in absolute darkness. Then in the camera, a walk, photos and normal processing. And the big surprise - the base was CLEAN - like on a new film, with a nice mask. Unfortunately, in the rush of shooting I forgot to set the light meter - instead of 6-12 ISO, I shot it as 320. Too optimistic, but hey, THERE WAS COLOR!

Sorry for the deviation, but let me mention my idea, looking at this topic:
- overexposure 5-6 stops;
- developing as black and white, according to your scheme, with maximum suppression of the base fog. Full process - developer, fixer, washing and drying;
- analysis of the result - if necessary, repeat with corrections;
- if we have a clear image and an acceptable base, we proceed to color:
1. water bath - 15 min;
2. rehalogenating bleach. I can add a little ammonium bromide;
3. reexposure;
4. color developer. Can be double strength or with an extended time;
5. bleach;
6. fixing;
7. washing and drying.

Click to expand...

Posts like yours force me to go back to the experimentation phase. Your info was rather revelatory. - David Lyga

Rudeofus said:

With a developer like this, grains do not typically go "plopp developed", it takes time. What David's developer seems to do is slow down the weakly exposed grains but give full development to strongly developed grains. A regular developer applied for short time doesn't do this: it develops weakly exposed regions a bit slower, but it also doesn't develop strongly exposed regions all that much. Look at this posting here to see the effect of severe underdevelopment.

Looking at David's developer I see a blend of "speed losing high contrast HQ only dev" with "regular Metol based developer". HQ only may be too inactive in the weakly exposed but still image relevant areas, so a small addition of "regular dev" seems to reach the sweat spot.

Click to expand...

Yes, the matter is a bit confusing. It is essential to know that with my developer (usually mixed 1 + 9 or 1 + 4) the length of time that you develop becomes mandatory to focus upon. IMPORTANT: My "B" negative is very valuable to look at. There is NO FOG and NO Farmer's used. Thus, I got that image with ONLY my developer, albeit with a shortened development (leading to less contrast). Had I done similarly with a normal film developer, even with truncated development, I would NOT have gotten the fog-free image of negative "B".

In fact, the more I think about it, I should have given YET MORE exposure to the "B" negative (to enhance contrast) and gotten a more robust image with absolutely NO FOG and NO Farmer's used. To use my developer you will have to do some experimenting, but I do hope that I have just helped. Given the amount of experimenting I have done, I am genuinely flabbergasted with what this developer will do, ESPECIALLY WITH PAPER.

But I am prepared to bow to one who can demonstrate a better, single developer for both paper and film. My ego could care less as I am obsessed with being able to use age-fogged materials as new. - David Lyga

koraks said:

Development progresses from the grains that received the most exposure down to those who received less (and ultimately none at all). Based on this, I find it hard at this point to determine whether your 'suppressed threshold' really is any different from just very weak development. As I said before, it would be interesting to test this by taking a regular developer and develop very briefly, and compare the results to your developer. Mind you, in both instances very liberal exposure would be necessary.

Click to expand...

Your theory is rather sound but the pragmatic aspect fails. I do promise you and others that to obtain NO FOG with my TMZ 3200 you would have to develop in a normal film developer for about 30 seconds! And with that, can you begin to imagine the contrast level? Again, your theory sounds pragmatic but the pragmatism falls on its face when the implementation manifests. It is something one WANTS to believe but my endless experimentations posit otherwise.

Again, my developer HOLDS BACK threshold density, not perpetually, though. Yes, if developed long enough you will get just as much fog. But, the 'fog point' is (delightfully) MUCH LATER. TMZ 3200 out of a salt mine for thirty years is a cataclysm. - David Lyga

koraks said:

That seems to match very well with what I said:
View attachment 397073
The red line would be representative to what I propose.
Of course, the plot above does not contain a curve that represents David's approach.


Forgive me for being somewhat pedantic, but at this point, that's a tautological statement unless we either have a decent theoretical explanation of why this would happen, or we have experimental data to support it.

For clarity, I'm not saying the theory is wrong - we just don't know yet whether it works, or how it works.

Click to expand...

With an ego being kept out of the equation, I say to you that if koracs can find a better anti-fog developer than mine I will pay homage to koracs, in perpetuity. However, remember: the developer has to be for BOTH paper and film. - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

Your theory is rather sound but the pragmatic aspect fails.

Click to expand...

Well, as I said, it would have to be tested. You posit a hypothesis, we could now try to figure out whether it is indeed as deterministic as it seems at first glance, and if so, how it might work. Or we could take it at face value. For me, personally, it's kind of a moot point since I don't have much expired film or paper to work with and my interests are in other areas. From a hypothetical viewpoint, it's amusing to think about, that's all. It's not about homage etc. at all for me, just curiosity.

David Lyga said:

my endless experimentations posit otherwise

Click to expand...

So did you do the A/B testing of a regular developer with a very short development time (or a regular developer diluted way down) vs. your special-purpose developer? What kind of sensitometric or visual differences did that yield? Just to keep this clear - I don't doubt your approach works. I'm curious as to how it works, i.e. what the underlying mechanism would be. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about the theoretical aspects of developers could chime in; maybe @Lachlan Young?

koraks said:

Well, as I said, it would have to be tested. You posit a hypothesis, we could now try to figure out whether it is indeed as deterministic as it seems at first glance, and if so, how it might work. Or we could take it at face value. For me, personally, it's kind of a moot point since I don't have much expired film or paper to work with and my interests are in other areas. From a hypothetical viewpoint, it's amusing to think about, that's all. It's not about homage etc. at all for me, just curiosity.



So did you do the A/B testing of a regular developer with a very short development time (or a regular developer diluted way down) vs. your special-purpose developer? What kind of sensitometric or visual differences did that yield? Just to keep this clear - I don't doubt your approach works. I'm curious as to how it works, i.e. what the underlying mechanism would be. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about the theoretical aspects of developers could chime in; maybe @Lachlan Young?

Click to expand...

I have oftentimes, in the past, tried desperately to save old stuff, to little avail, using normal developers. At the turn of the century I had multiple buying opportunities (Craigslist, camera shows, even unmentioned government entities) to amass such. I cannot afford three freezers to maintain such. Thus, the only 'out' was to delve into the intricacies of anti-fog chemicals. I do believe that I caught something with this "trigger theory" about a bit of metol nurturing HQ. I do not want to give up what I found and I want as many as possible to copy this formula. That is why what I said to you (if you have to ban me for my big mouth), it really does not matter so much because I have now given this information to all who wish to try it. To me (that is all I can speak for): It is a fantastic developer, not perfect. If there is one better, I want to hear about it. - David Lyga