Back to photography after 7 year hiatus. What hope for my film and paper.

[Simonh82]

I've just dug out my cameras after about 7 years neglect in a dusty corner. Prior to that I was shooting quite a bit and doing a fair amount of traditional and lith printing.

I've had a box of film stored in the freezer all this time, some of it will have been fresh when it went in there. Some of it was probably already a few years old. There's a mix of black and white mostly HP5, Tmax 400, FP4, colour is Ektar 100, Portra 400 and some cheapo Kodak/Agfa 200 that you used to be able to get at the pound shop. I've also got some Elite chrome E6, some Rollie IR400 and Aerochrome E6 slide film. All this has been freezer stored since purchase.

Paper wise, most of what I've got is vintage FB papers for lith printing but I've probably got some Ilford multigrade RC and FB and maybe some Ilford warmtone. The paper has all been stored at room temperature for 7 years+.

So the basic question is what will still be usable? I can probably work with a bit of light fogging but wouldn't want to waste too much time with film or paper that's going to be beyond use.

Will any of the B&W chemistry that I've got be worth investigating? I've got some Rodinal which I guess might have lasted. Would powdered developers be worth a shot? What about liquid fixers. I seem to remember having some big 5L bottles of that.

Any thoughts appreciated.

 

[pentaxuser]

No-one can say for certain how much of this stuff will be perfect, OK, etc all the way down to useless but my guess, based on what you have told us is that all of it is worth trying. I see no reason why the powdered developers and the Rodinal should not be perfect as well as the then fresh film. The paper at 7 years old might need some benzo but might not but should be usable at least

pentaxuser

 

[ic-racer]

The paper might still work fine for lith. Unmixed A and B last a long time too.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Paper and film from major manufacturers will be fine. Powdered chemicals will be fine. Liquid developers, with the exception of HC110 and Rodinal, should be tested first. Mixed working/stock solutions should be chucked. Enjoy - you should be able to get back into photography without spending a red cent, er, farthing.

 

[Trail Images]

Welcome back to the bright side of the moon.....so to speak...
As stated already hard to say what is good & bad. At the cost of everything these days nothing is easy anymore.
I'd taken a pandemic forced break for almost 2 years and started back a few months ago now on weekly outings. Sadly, I'm in a bad spot with my film knowing reliability issue as a result of LOUSY power. Although all has been in the fridge the entire time the number of power outages as a result of our provider is not close to being normal at all. So, what use to be no issue at all is now a real crap shoot......
I'll wish you the best of luck on usage and I will say to date I've not had any issues as all the film was only outdated at worst by 3 or 4 years......

 

[gone]

There's no way to know. Starting into film after 7 years is going to be plenty of work for you as it is, I wouldn't make it not-that-way by using chemicals and papers you don't know are OK.

Me, I'd sell the stuff w/ accurate descriptions of what you typed here, and reinvest the money into new materials. It can be very aggravating and time consuming trying to figure out what may be good, and what isn't.

That will not contribute to a good relearning experience, you'll spend most of your time tracking down what may have gone wrong. We're literally in the dark w/ this stuff, make it easy on yourself.

 

[pentaxuser]

Enjoy - you should be able to get back into photography without spending a red cent, er, farthing.

As we say in the U.K. " Gor blimey, gov, I ain't see a farthing since the early days of our present Queen and you lot "liked Ike" or not as the case may be

pentaxuser
.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Seven years in a freezer? It will be fine. Have at it!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Seven years in a freezer? It will be fine. Have at it!

I agree. I have frozen film and paper for years without any problems.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I'd agree that the film from the freezer should be fine. The paper though, especially the RC will probably have a little base fog if you print normallly with it. For lith though it should be fine. Easiest way to check the paper is to cut a small piece and place half straight in the fixer and develop the other half normally. If the developed film shows any sign of fogging you will be able to see it compared to the fixed half.

The Rodinal should be fine if it is real Rodinal, not some of the copies. Powdered chems should be fine. The fixers have probably sulfered out after 7 years. If you see any yellow precipitate then it is toast.

 

[Simonh82]

Glad that all is not lost. I sounds like it should be usable at least, so I'll just have to start shooting and developing again.

Today wasn't a great start. I grabbed my OM-2 which looked like I'd left half a roll unshot in it. I went to rewind it but felt no tension so opened the back and found a roll of bulk loaded FP4 where the film had come unstuck from the spool. I can't remember what I shot on it and I guess I'll never know now.

When I went to load the new film I started winding it onto the take up spool and on the first shot whilst winding the mirror got stuck in the open position. Yep, I'd totally forgotten to check the battery and as soon as the shutter went it ran out and got stuck.

You live and learn and I'll be better prepared next time.

 

[Down Under]

I can only repeat what several others have told you - test it all and see.

The film in the freezer should be fine. Best to (maybe) not use it for Highly Important images, but even then, most of that film may well be as good as new.

I'm now using up the last of my stocks of 35mm Kodak Panatomic-X, from the last batch they produced so 1987 or 1988. I bought up big in 1993 when a big photo retail shop in Melbourne closed . Five or six rolls yet to go. Not kept refrigerated. I've noticed a bit of age-related fogging in the last lot I processed two months ago, but it still scans well (I've not yet printed any of the negatives in my darkroom, so I can't say for sure how the finished results will look.)

Paper, well. Well!! My Multigrade RC III has been refrigerated since the 1990s, but prints so-so. One sheet may be pristine, the next one slightly fogged, another mid grey. You should expect to have to reprint a few images 2-3-even more times to get what you want. It's the name of the game, just think of it as fun and using up old stocks rather than buying new.

Interesting (in my experience, anyway) that Ilford Multigrade RC IV seems to age better than its predecessor.

All my FB paper is till 90% as good as new. Some refrigerated, some not. Large size Ilford Galerie paper I bought (already expired) in 2001 has been at the back of a cupboard in our guest bedroom for many years, and got moved 2-3 times when we relocated to other Australian states, but it prints wonderfully well. Good stuff, that Galerie.

I now mix film and print developers entirely from raw chemistry, but I recently finished a bottle of Agfa Universal fixer I bought in 2008, and I've just opened a bottle of Kodak Rapid Fixer from 2009. Stop bath and selenium toner last indefinitely, the latter I will be giving away to friends with darkroom as I now no longer use it. One bottle was opened in 1990 and is still going good, or at least was when last mixed and used in 2016-2017.

How quickly the time has passed, and how long some photo supplies seem to last...

 

[MattKing]

Interesting (in my experience, anyway) that Ilford Multigrade RC IV seems to age better than its predecessor.

That might have something to do with the fact that III was only around for 4 years - 1990 - 1994 while IV was around for 25 years - 1994 - 2019.

 

[Don_ih]

Multigrade RC III has been refrigerated since the 1990s, but prints so-so.

My experience is all MG3 paper is fogged. MG2 lasted better. I've bought lots of old paper (older than 20-30 years) quite a few times and the MG3 is always unusable. Most Kodak Polycontrast has turned to mud. Agfa rc paper, unless it was frozen, probably has noticeable fog.
Old high grade fb papers are almost always good. Old lower grade fb papers generally are not.

Paper stored at room temperature for 7 years will be the same as it was when you put it in the room.

 

[Down Under]

My experience is all MG3 paper is fogged. MG2 lasted better. I've bought lots of old paper (older than 20-30 years) quite a few times and the MG3 is always unusable. Most Kodak Polycontrast has turned to mud. Agfa rc paper, unless it was frozen, probably has noticeable fog.
Old high grade fb papers are almost always good. Old lower grade fb papers generally are not.

Paper stored at room temperature for 7 years will be the same as it was when you put it in the room.

Agree. What MGIII I have left has to be used for printing on a sheet by sheet basis - I open a box of paper, cut to size and print. One sheet will be good, the next sheet fogged, the sheet after that almost black, the following sheet good again. So it goes. It drives me batty and my red wine intake goes up. The wastebasket fills. I sometime wonder why I persevere. But only a few more boxes to go.

As you said, the MGIV for the most part, is pretty good. None of the usual to'ing-fro'ing I have to suffer thru with the III.

I used Polycontrast and Polycontrast Rapid in th 1960s when I first discovered contrast filtration. The few prints I have left from that era have almost all faded. I still have the negatives, but it's annoying. Especially so as the prints from the Kodabromide I used before changing over to Polycontrast, have all survived well. Surprisingly so.

There was also a paper called Polymer as I recall. which apparently lasted into the 1980s. I used some of it a long, long time ago, pre 1980 I think, going by the prints I made then and still have. Nice mid tones and a warm look. No fading at all. does anybody recall this paper?

All my FB papers have aged well. I have Guilbrom from France, from the 1990s, still okay. Ditto MGIII FB which apparently didn't suffer from the 'deficiencies' of the RC. Ilford Galerie, probably 1990s, I bought in 2001, still okay. Toned beautifully in the days when I could be bothered to tone, mostly selenium.

Oh, the memories. With luck and careful planning (but mostly luck) I hope to outlast what remains of my paper stocks. Maybe ten more years. Who knows what the darkroom workers of 2032 will be printing on then. Plastic?? I will be almost 90 by then and too old to care, if I am still here. For now my main goal is to use up the last of that beaut Ilford Galerie.

 

[MattKing]

There was also a paper called Polymer as I recall. which apparently lasted into the 1980s

You are probably referring to PolyMax - the Kodak variable contrast paper that was produced by them until they cancelled black and white paper manufacture.
It replaced Polycontrast, and was quite good.
I have a set of PolyMax filters which are more extensive than the earlier Polycontrast filters, and work reasonably well with Ilford Multigrade IV as well.

 

[jtk]

This all has to do with how you value your time. Years ago your time might have been a lot more valuable than it is today.

If you're more interested in results than cost in time, you might consider new technology.

Of course there's also the question of the reliability of your long forgotten camera.

 

[lantau]

That might have something to do with the fact that III was only around for 4 years - 1990 - 1994 while IV was around for 25 years - 1994 - 2019.

Interesting. I have boxes of old, donated MG IV RC. It was made by Ilford Ltd and has the old, four digit German Postcode (Zip Code) on the packaging. These were replaced by five digit codes on 1.7.1993 (7/1/93).

The paper, probably stored in a basement without refrigeration, works ok, btw. I bought a box of Multigrade RC deluxe (aka MG V) and it is better, of course. But in an analogy I'd say not a whole stop better, perhaps a half stop.

Bonus: I looked up when the post code changeover was. They printed 40 million books with the new codes and distributed them to every household. Phonebook size. Guess what was printed on the spine. An ad: Agfa Film.

 

[gone]

Powdered developers should still be just fine, and you may expire before the Rodinal does, but I don't trust the new plastic containers. I'd put it in something glass.

The papers are another matter. I'd do some test prints w/ a few sheets, see where you're at.

 

[bdial]

To test your paper cut a sheet in half, develop and fix one half, the same way you would for a print, and only fix the other half. Wash and dry both. Ideally they will match.

 

[braxus]

The 400 speed films may have some fog on them at this stage, but nothing that isn't fixable with printing later.

 

[Down Under]

You are probably referring to PolyMax - the Kodak variable contrast paper that was produced by them until they cancelled black and white paper manufacture.
It replaced Polycontrast, and was quite good.
I have a set of PolyMax filters which are more extensive than the earlier Polycontrast filters, and work reasonably well with Ilford Multigrade IV as well.

Yes, Matt, I meant PolyMax. Many thanks for the correction. A (usual for me) case of laptop before coffee - in future I will reverse the process, and hope for the best.

PolyMax as I recall has a lovely, slightly warmish tone. The two Polycontrasts (regular and Rapid) were more neutral in tone, and made all the more so by developing in Dektol. I switched to the Ilford bottled developers early, almost as soon as they became available in Canada (which would make it about 1970 as I left to live in New Mexico in 1971 or 1972 and other than processing films in my various kitchens, I had to shut down my darkroom for several years).

I later switched to Ilford Multigrade developer when I got seriously into Multigrade III printing, but then eventually returned to Ilford PQ Universal which I still use now and then, whenever I get to Melbourne and stock up at Vanbar's (if they have it on the shelves, which at times they don't). Mostly in an odd but usual wheel-comes-full-circle turn of events for me, I nowadays I mix my own film and print developers at home - and have gone back to an earlier version of Dektol, Kodak D72.

This (latter) developer gives cold to neutral results on most papers, but it responds well to chemical tinkering - Dektol tends to produce greenish results if I add too much potassium bromide to it, but not so D72. Sodium carbonate works well (to deepen the blacks) in either, but a little more so in D72. Ditto bendotriazole which gives super good results in both developers, but the trick here is to not use too much of a diluted solution - otherwise one ends up hovering over a developing tray for 4-6 minutes while the prints decides what it wants to do, and at my age life is too short for this...

I have enough pot-from for the rest of my life, but some of my other chemistry is running short. Of late Vanbar and other photo retailers have cut back on their basic chemicals, which is a worry. If anyone in Melbourne can advise where to go for replacements (metal etc), I will be most grateful.

Oh, another thing. I have a big supply of Phenidone but I've not used a lot of it in recent years. I've looked for a good formula to use it for processing prints, but haven't found anything. Can someone out there suggest one??

As always, many thanks from me for all the useful information I've had in the past (and I hope, long into the future) from other members of this enjoyable and certainly excellent web site.

 

[Don_ih]

I have a big supply of Phenidone but I've not used a lot of it in recent years. I've looked for a good formula to use it for processing prints, but haven't found anything. Can someone out there suggest one?

Ilford ID-62. It has bromide and benzo - but you can raise one and lower the other to warm/cool tones.
If you have a big supply of Phenidone, it will take a long time to get rid of it at 1/2 a gram per litre of developer.