Can you develop 70mm film?

[Priscilla Glasow]

I have a canister marked Kodak Vericolor III, 70mm x 100 ft., VPS 474. I'm looking for someone who can develop it for me and I am happy to pay for that service. I'm not a photographer - I joined Photrio in the hopes that someone in the community can help me. Thank you in advance!

P. Glasow
pglasowpag@gmail.com

 

[MattKing]

Hi Priscilla - welcome to Photrio.
Do I assume correctly that the film has already been exposed? If so, is it in what form - one single 100 ft roll, one or more 70mm cassettes, spooled into individual rolls, ....?

 

[Priscilla Glasow]

Matt -

I assume the film was exposed. I found it among my late father's effects. I'm assuming also that it is a single 100 foot roll as that is what the canister label says. I wish I had more information, but it will be a surprise to me what might be on it.

I tried to attach an image of the canister, but it's too large for this site.

Priscilla

 

[Mr Bill]

Not me. But I used to work at a place that used to run a couple miles per day of that sort of thing. The normal method was to use what's known as a cine processor - a special sort of continuous machine. I think it's very unlikely that you'll come across one today that is configured for 70mm film.

Apparently this film has some significance to you, as you say you are willing to pay for processing. I would personally wonder if it has even been exposed. That particular style of film would have almost surely been for a long-roll portrait camera, used commercially, and Vericolor III film hasn't been made for something like 15 or 20 years. I can't hardly imagine that someone would have shot the roll and failed to process it - it would have something like 400 to 800 images on it, depending on the camera configuration. (The portrait subjects would have been clamoring, "where are my pictures?!") I think it's more than likely that the film was unused, or perhaps it was used as a dummy roll for training photographers.

This website being what it is, there will probably be a number of people trying to be helpful and offering advice. But most of them won't have any actual experience with this sort of film, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. They're gonna be asking you things like, is it perforated, etc.? For your info the "474" designation means that it is unperforated, and it comes on a #10 spool. From memory, I think that spool will have a square opening on one side; round on the other (someone would need to look up the spool spec to be sure). Now, portrait camera film magazines were set up such that the spool could only be loaded one way - with the square end down. The result was that after a roll had been shot (it rolls up onto another such spool) it would not be possible to accidentally load and reshoot it again (which would have double-exposed the entire roll, ruining it). Now, I personally spent several years with one of those cameras, going through 2 or 3 such rolls per week, but it was 1970ish, so I don't recall the loading orientation. But if you can find an old operating manual (the main cameras would have been Beattie-Coleman Portronic or Photo Control Camerz) you would be able to tell if the film had been through a camera or not (you check which way the film unwinds from the roll with the round hole on top; do this IN THE DARK, by feel).

If you really have your heart set on having it processed, look for a professional grade photofinisher that has a minilab-style processor that can handle that width (70 mm) film. Or possibly what they call a dip-n-dunk machine (they'll have to cut the roll into a series of shorter strips). Vericolor III was made for the Kodak C-41 process, which is still the standard color negative process in use today. But... today's C-41 no longer uses a final "stabilizer" bath, which I think that Vericolor film needs (not sure, though). But this only affects the long-term stability of the film.

One additional note: couple of years ago someone on this site was selling some similar film on this site; possibly some of the buyers may have described how they would get it processed... see this link. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/70mm-film-value.156824/

Ps, if you have any photographer friends who develop their own black&white film, they could clip off a foot or so and develop it in b&w developer just to see if there are any images on it. Note that this is not the "proper" way to develop color film, but if there ARE any images on it they WOULD show up with a b&w developer.

Pps, are you SURE the film is not already processed? I ask because the standard way of storing such film is back in the original can. Except that normally the photographer would stick a label back on the can to identify what's in it.

Best of luck with it.

[Update:] sorry to hear about your father. I have a question: was he a pro photographer with the equipment to shoot this film? The cameras I mentioned would normally come in a trunk, roughly 15x20 inches, and maybe a foot tall. And it might weigh near 20 lb, very rough, with a couple of film magazines. If he did NOT have such a camera (along with a heavy duty tripod), it is extremely unlikely that there are exposures on the film. I'd guess, rather, that he bought the film as surplus and intended to use it for experimentation, as a hobbyist.

I'll be glad to answer any further questions about these systems, as far as my memory goes.

 

[pentaxuser]

Mr Bill is there any easy way for Priscilla or anyone else for that matter to establish whether it has been processed that does not ruin it if it hasn't been processed short of the cutting a foot off in the total darkness and processing it in b&w developer? I take it that if it has been processed then further processing in b&w will do nothing to harm the colour images that might be there so that risking one foot and b&w processing will only risk a foot out of 100?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

In case it had been exposed as long roll, and in case one cannot find a lab that can process it in the apt process as long roll (which is very likely), a smaller commercial lab still might cut it in pieces and process it in the apt process in a hanger processor.

 

[Priscilla Glasow]

Thank you all for your expert advice! My father was not a professional photographer, but loved taking photos all his life. I'm currently scanning those he took in the Pacific during WWII.

I don't know if the film was processed, but my husband just admitted that he opened the canister when he found it last week, so I needn't have bothered any of you. But thank you, I truly do appreciate all of your responses and ideas!
Priscilla

 

[Mr Bill]

Mr Bill is there any easy way for Priscilla or anyone else for that matter to establish whether it has been processed that does not ruin it if it hasn't been processed short of the cutting a foot off in the total darkness and processing it in b&w developer? I take it that if it has been processed then further processing in b&w will do nothing to harm the colour images that might be there so that risking one foot and b&w processing will only risk a foot out of 100?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Hi, well there are various things that can be done, but more complicated to explain precisely, etc. For example, if one has an infrared scope (FJW find-r-scope used to be the big name in labs), then inspect the film in the dark - processed color film should appear blank to the scope. Whereas unprocessed film will be opaque (to the ir scope in the dark.

I suggested pulling off a foot or so of film, but in reality you only need a narrow sliver to see if it is already processed - processed VPS will have the strongly orange-colored base common to most color neg films. But I don't want to try to describe this to a novice who perhaps has never seen color neg film. At any rate, the sort of film magazines used in these cameras will always take a minimum of 6 or 8 inches of leader to thread the magazine, so no images should be lost by cutting off a few inches.

If, instead of these methods, one simply processed in b&w chems, I don't think that any real damage would be done. If an acidic sort of fixer is used, at pH in the 4 point something range, I think it's likely that VPS III might develop some "leuco" dye, meaning that some color would be lost - it used to be that cyan dyes were real susceptible to this. But I think they'd be restored after a dip in the correct-pH C-41 fixer (in worst case a dip in C-41 bleach, etc., would certainly correct it).

Personally I would probably open the film can in the dark and feel the end of the film for a clue. If it has a kink in the end then it has almost certainly been through a camera. The original film will have a perfectly flat end. The normal method with a #10 spool is to insert the tip of the film into a slot in the spool, then wind a bit of film over it, hold the bent end tightly in the slot. So any film that has been loaded into a magazine will most likely have a slight kink on the end. On the other hand, the user MAY have "cut film" before a roll was finished. This means that they would have used a scissors mid-roll, then removed that partial roll (into a film can). If this is the case then there won't be a kink, but the end of the roll will almost certainly NOT be a perfectly "square" cut. In either case whoever unloaded the film should have taped the end down, so the presence or absence of tape is not a useful clue.

My best guess, assuming that Priscilla's father did not leave either a Portronic or Camerz Classic camera in the closet (they are too big to overlook), that the film was never used. But the only way to really be sure is to actually process some (unless it is already processed). The amount to process is up in the air.

 

[Mr Bill]

I don't know if the film was processed, but my husband just admitted that he opened the canister when he found it last week, so I needn't have bothered any of you.

Well, actually the #10 spool is a "daylight loading spool." It has flanges on both sides so that even though the can was opened in the light only a couple feet are probably fogged. People normally load the film in the dark to get the maximum use, but...

So you're still in the same situation, not being sure if it was used or not; it's just that a couple feet or so are now fogged. But since it has already been in the light it won't hurt much to take another peek to see if it has already been processed. If so, it would look like any other processed color negative, strong orange cast, but mostly clear on the edges and between frames. Preferably you keep it in "subdued light" while doing this.

My guess, though, is that he never used the film. He perhaps got a good deal on it, and hoped to use it for some camera that is no longer supported with new film; perhaps he was gonna trim it down to size and tape it to some used backing paper that he had saved.