Anyone recognise this film?

[Cerebum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.