Anyone recognise this film?

Cerebum · Nov 19, 2025

I bought a bulk loader, full of a mystery film. According to the seller the loader has been stored for at least a decade. He said it could be one he bought, pre loaded. My first roll was shot at 200 and developed for 7:30 in Euro HC. You could see evidence of exposure but it looked horribly fogged. I decided to respool the film, just in case it was fogged at the outer edge. When I opened the loader (in the dark bag) it felt like it had been respooled, possibly from a larger roll. It was also spooled the wrong way, meaning it had to be wrong in the loader! Very strange! Roll #2 was shot at 200 once again and stand developed in Rodinal. Once again, there was evidence of the image, but the fog made it too dark to scan. I wondered if I was over developing (a suggestion from another thread on here). I could tell it is movie film from the shape of the sprocket holes, so I started looking for b&w movie film with a quick Dev time. I shot roll 3 at 100 & 50 iso in order to get more light on the emulsion, and developed it as Kodak Double X, 4mins in HC110, 1:31. This time I have scannable results. The carrier is quite dark with a blue/grey tinge, I wondered if that might indicate what it is. I can't see any identifiers on the film edge. I use steel spools and they tend to scratch the edge but not right along the film. So, does anyone recognise it? Any pointers or suggestions as the best way forward would be great fully received
Thanks for reading this far

koraks · Nov 19, 2025

Could be just about anything. I don't think it's double-X due to the lack of edge printing. Modern double-X comes with the modern Keycode markings. IDK about old (very old) double X. Then again, there have been EU-made motion picture films around forever, too. Might as well be something of that.
It's intended for camera capture I suppose, given the speed you get from it. Fog level seems pretty darn high so it's likely fairly old - then again, how old? Your guess is as good as mine!

Cerebum · Nov 19, 2025

koraks said:
Could be just about anything. I don't think it's double-X due to the lack of edge printing. Modern double-X comes with the modern Keycode markings. IDK about old (very old) double X. Then again, there have been EU-made motion picture films around forever, too. Might as well be something of that.
It's intended for camera capture I suppose, given the speed you get from it. Fog level seems pretty darn high so it's likely fairly old - then again, how old? Your guess is as good as mine!

It looked a bit like some Jessops Pan 400s I once had. That was another mystery film. I never found out what it was originally. I have 80ft of this stuff, so plenty of room for experimentation Thanks for replying

loccdor · Nov 19, 2025

Probably a medium speed traditional grain film from Kodak or Ilford. Just a guess. Looks like you're getting usable results, I'd be happy.

Cerebum · Nov 19, 2025

loccdor said:
Probably a medium speed traditional grain film from Kodak or Ilford. Just a guess. Looks like you're getting usable results, I'd be happy.

View attachment 411618

Thanks I think they will scan up ok. That particular one was shot at 50iso. Sadly I have another bulk loader with Pan F+ in it, and the light in Lancaster UK at this time of year is dreadful. The one saving grace is they are stored in a downstairs loo with no heating. I generally refer to it as the fridge, so neither roll will deteriorate any time soon

Donald Qualls · Nov 19, 2025

Some manufacturers package the same films for stills and cine in 35 mm -- Ilford, for instance, at least used to sell FP4+ in 400' cine rolls (35 mm) as well as the 100' bulk rolls and cassettes most of us are more familiar with. Foma did the same (may still do), though I'm not sure when or if they've offered a negative film this way (the one they still sell is their 100R reversal stock, with silver antihalation that would show as far worse fog than that). Worth noting that Foma films sold for rebranding, at least in 35 mm still perfs, have no edge markings at all.

I agree with others -- you're getting useful results. Might try adding a little benzotriazole to the developer and then developing as cold as you can manage (use a developer without hydroquinone for this) to reduce the fog. And then don't worry about what it is, just enjoy it.

loccdor · Nov 19, 2025

Cerebum said:
Sadly I have another bulk loader with Pan F+ in it, and the light in Lancaster UK at this time of year is dreadful

Well, high contrast films like Pan F are great in flat overcast lighting conditions. Maybe bracing on trees/walls or a monopod will help, or else just isolating your subject at a wide aperture.

Cerebum · Nov 19, 2025

Donald Qualls said:
Some manufacturers package the same films for stills and cine in 35 mm -- Ilford, for instance, at least used to sell FP4+ in 400' cine rolls (35 mm) as well as the 100' bulk rolls and cassettes most of us are more familiar with. Foma did the same (may still do), though I'm not sure when or if they've offered a negative film this way (the one they still sell is their 100R reversal stock, with silver antihalation that would show as far worse fog than that). Worth noting that Foma films sold for rebranding, at least in 35 mm still perfs, have no edge markings at all.

I agree with others -- you're getting useful results. Might try adding a little benzotriazole to the developer and then developing as cold as you can manage (use a developer without hydroquinone for this) to reduce the fog. And then don't worry about what it is, just enjoy it.

There was me, thinking I had narrowed down what film it was

tbh I am having great fun experimenting with it. The loader and film cost me £16 and I feel I have already had my monies worth. Now, developers without Hydroquinone. Google told me it was generally Eco developers like the Bellini. I have FX39, HC110, Euro HC, Rodinal, 510Pyro and, of course, Caffenol. Would any of these produce better images than the original HC110? Or should I just experiment? (I do love experimenting )

Cerebum · Nov 19, 2025

loccdor said:
Well, high contrast films like Pan F are great in flat overcast lighting conditions. Maybe bracing on trees/walls or a monopod will help, or else just isolating your subject at a wide aperture.

I recently shot a roll in my OM2N with the 50mm f1.8. I deliberately went out on a grim day, shot wide open and got lovely results as low as 1/15 of a second Pan F+ is gorgeous

Donald Qualls · Nov 19, 2025

Cerebum said:
developers without Hydroquinone.

The Rodinal you used for the stand development has no hydroquinone. Some have developed by standing the tank with Rodinal(-alike) in the refrigerator overnight.

If you can get benzotriazole, start with 1 g/L in the working solution, and add 10% to your developing time (though the 10% probably doesn't matter in a stand process). Based on results I've seen on the web, the combination of BZT and cold processing can recover film that's otherwise too fogged to use.

Cerebum · Nov 19, 2025

Donald Qualls said:
The Rodinal you used for the stand development has no hydroquinone. Some have developed by standing the tank with Rodinal(-alike) in the refrigerator overnight.

If you can get benzotriazole, start with 1 g/L in the working solution, and add 10% to your developing time (though the 10% probably doesn't matter in a stand process). Based on results I've seen on the web, the combination of BZT and cold processing can recover film that's otherwise too fogged to use.

Thank you. I think I have some BZT. Tbh, it seems to work reasonably well at 50iso. It's pretty nasty film but it's good enough for testing cameras

Wolfram Malukker · Nov 19, 2025

Flic Film Fog-Off is 1% BZT solution, premixed and available in the US. Comes in a huge bottle though compared to how much it takes for a roll of 35mm!

Kodachromeguy · Nov 19, 2025

Cerebum said:
Sadly I have another bulk loader with Pan F+ in it, and the light in Lancaster UK at this time of year is dreadful.

Pan-F is superb in gloomy light! Go for it (but use a tripod).

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/03/another-film-treasure-ilford-pan-f-plus.html

Cerebum · Nov 20, 2025

Kodachromeguy said:
Pan-F is superb in gloomy light! Go for it (but use a tripod).

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/03/another-film-treasure-ilford-pan-f-plus.html

I did a roll hand held, wide open and really slow (lots of leaning on things). The results were beautiful. I even got as slow as 1/15, not bad with an SLR (Olympus OM1n). I missed focus a few times lol (wafer thin dof and moving people) but the results were so nice

Cerebum · Nov 20, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
Flic Film Fog-Off is 1% BZT solution, premixed and available in the US. Comes in a huge bottle though compared to how much it takes for a roll of 35mm!

This is really interesting, especially as I can't find my BZT. I need to learn how to use it. My last attempt led to undeveloped film lol. I have 80ft of this roll of mystery film so it's worth buying a bottle, if I can find it in the UK. Thanks for this info

Cerebum · Nov 20, 2025

Donald Qualls said:
The Rodinal you used for the stand development has no hydroquinone. Some have developed by standing the tank with Rodinal(-alike) in the refrigerator overnight.

If you can get benzotriazole, start with 1 g/L in the working solution, and add 10% to your developing time (though the 10% probably doesn't matter in a stand process). Based on results I've seen on the web, the combination of BZT and cold processing can recover film that's otherwise too fogged to use.

I was looking through the ingredients of all of my developers. Pyro is another that doesn't contain hydroquinone. Do you have any experience with Pyro and Foggy film?

Caffenol is another, but that's an experiment for another day

Agulliver · Nov 20, 2025

I've used FP4+ and HP5+ movie film from the 1990s and it always has Ilford and the film name on the edge markings. So I think, while this is definitely cine film due to the sprocket holes, we can discount any Ilford product.

Cerebum · Nov 20, 2025

Agulliver said:
I've used FP4+ and HP5+ movie film from the 1990s and it always has Ilford and the film name on the edge markings. So I think, while this is definitely cine film due to the sprocket holes, we can discount any Ilford product.

I was wondering about that. I know some Foma film don't have edge markings, neither does Orwo UN54 (if memory serves)

Cerebum · Nov 20, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
Flic Film Fog-Off is 1% BZT solution, premixed and available in the US. Comes in a huge bottle though compared to how much it takes for a roll of 35mm!

Found and paid for. It is stocked by Park cameras here in the UK. There is also a version made by Bellini and sold in the UK by Nik & Trick

Donald Qualls · Nov 20, 2025

Cerebum said:
I was looking through the ingredients of all of my developers. Pyro is another that doesn't contain hydroquinone. Do you have any experience with Pyro and Foggy film?

Caffenol is another, but that's an experiment for another day

For cold development with BZT I'd suggest either Rodinal or D-23. The latter isn't commercially available any more (except possibly from boutique suppliers), but with only two ingredients is easy enough to mix. John Finch has a YouTube video demonstrating mixing it without even a scale (using spoon measures). D-23 is a fine-grain solvent developer, Rodinal is not.

BTW, the reason it's recommended to avoid hydroquinone for cold development is that hydroquinone has a sharp drop-off ("falls off a cliff") in activity below about 60F -- meaning that a nearly linear time/temperature curve will have a sudden increase in required time when you drop to that temperature.

Cerebum · Nov 20, 2025

Donald Qualls said:
For cold development with BZT I'd suggest either Rodinal or D-23. The latter isn't commercially available any more (except possibly from boutique suppliers), but with only two ingredients is easy enough to mix. John Finch has a YouTube video demonstrating mixing it without even a scale (using spoon measures). D-23 is a fine-grain solvent developer, Rodinal is not.

BTW, the reason it's recommended to avoid hydroquinone for cold development is that hydroquinone has a sharp drop-off ("falls off a cliff") in activity below about 60F -- meaning that a nearly linear time/temperature curve will have a sudden increase in required time when you drop to that temperature.

Aaaaaah. I was wondering about that. When I first got EuroHC (I couldn't afford 1l of the Kodak stuff) I read that it was good for slightly foggy, expired film, but that has hydroquinone in it. The drop of clarifies things thanks for that. As for John Finch, I love his videos. The problem is that sometimes the chemicals make the initial outlay quite expensive, but I will search that one out. My main reason for dropping powdered chemicals like ID-11 was the shelf life once mixed. I lost an important film to that! The developers I now have will last through the next ice age Liquid developers are very convenient but I get so much satisfaction from home brewing. Thanks again for all the info, indeed, a massive thanks to all. The knowledge on this forum always astounds me.

Donald Qualls · Nov 20, 2025

D-23 uses only metol (aka elon) and sodium sulfite -- both are pretty cheap and shouldn't be hard to obtain even in UK. And the other beauty of D-23 is that it's so simple to mix you can make it up an hour before you plan to develop (to let the solution cool), make only what you need (no microscopic amounts) and one-shot it and it's still cheap. It can be used as stock, 1+1, or 1+2 (though diluted times are a little harder to find in my experience).

Not long ago, I developed a roll of film that came in a Vest Pocket Kodak -- Verichrome (the ortho version discontinued in 1955) in D-23 with a little borax added to speed things up (making it almost like D-76H) and benzotriazole to reduce fog; I got five good images from a roll of eight that had probably been in the camera for more than six decades. I did cheat a little and developed by inspection under red safelight, since I could...

Agulliver · Nov 20, 2025

Cerebum said:
I was wondering about that. I know some Foma film don't have edge markings, neither does Orwo UN54 (if memory serves)

Did Foma ever make 35mm motion picture film with those perforations?

Donald Qualls · Nov 20, 2025

Occurs to me, it could also be Ferrania -- their recent resurrection started with an ISO 80 B&W film (P30?), derived from the movie stock that was their bread and butter for decades. They were the last company to package 126, and were still making both C-41 and B&W films (the latter for still and cine) through the 1990s.

Donald Qualls · Nov 20, 2025

Agulliver said:
Did Foma ever make 35mm motion picture film with those perforations?

I'm certain they have offered 100R in 35 mm cine as well as 16 mm and 8 mm with various perforations, and they now have an ISO 100 negative film and an ortho 400 in 8 and 16 mm formats -- but I don't see any offerings of 35 mm in the cine negative films at present. I'm sure they did once offer 35 mm negative film in cine perf, 400 and 1000 foot rolls, because that was the standard stock in Foma's heyday long ago.

Anyone recognise this film?

Cerebum

Attachments

koraks

Moderator

Cerebum

loccdor

Cerebum

Donald Qualls

loccdor

Cerebum

Cerebum

Donald Qualls

Cerebum

Wolfram Malukker

Kodachromeguy

Cerebum

Attachments

Cerebum

Cerebum

Agulliver

Cerebum

Cerebum

Donald Qualls

Cerebum

Donald Qualls

Agulliver

Donald Qualls

Donald Qualls

Anyone recognise this film?

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency