Dating a roll of film

Llamarama · Jan 18, 2014

Hello everyone, my local film supplier gave me a belated semi-christmas present this year, a mystery roll of Ilford FP4 (not plus). It's exposed and we're both curious if there is anything on it. I was going to use Microphen 1:1 and the standard times for FP4 Plus, would this be a wise decision? The backing paper at the exposed end of the roll is olive green with yellow ILFORD FP4 branding. Can anyone give an approximate date for this film? Any pointers to satisfy our curiosity would be greatly appreciated

BMbikerider · Jan 18, 2014

If it is just named as FP4 it is going to be quite old. Simple FP4 was superseded by FP4+ at least 10 years ago. If you want to try it, do a clip test of say the 1st 3-4 exposures to gauge the level of fog and contrast, and increase the development times by 10% and see what you get. Others may have different ideas but that is what I would do.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jan 18, 2014

BMbikerider said:
If it is just named as FP4 it is going to be quite old. Simple FP4 was superseded by FP4+ at least 10 years ago.

WAY older than 10 years:

FP4
Speed:125 ASA
Introduced:1968
Discontinued:1990
Replaced by: FP4plus

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford_FP

Regular Rod · Jan 18, 2014

It will be fine. Develop it as normal with whatever is your preferred developer.

RR

Xmas · Jan 18, 2014

^
^
^
Id go with Rod's suggestion, but 10% or 20% less time than normal, the fog level might be higher then normal. Adding a little restrainer is probably too risky, unless you are familiar with the dev with the restrainer,... Rodinal and Microphen probably have some already, but if you have any stock D76 or ID11 partially used that is ideal, it will have some bromide already, dont extend dev time, for partial used.

The biggest problem is the (emulsion of the) film can stick to the backing paper if it has not been stored dry dry, but good luck

Noel

robinal · Jan 19, 2014

My Rookie comment :
Do you know if the roll was exposed at nominal sensitivity ?
It would seem the safest method would be using the "development by inspection" method. It is a two-bath process, with a visual evaluation at mid-period.
It is described in the "Darkroom Cookbook", but I never experimented it.

Doremus Scudder · Jan 19, 2014

Develop normally.

You can print through the fog, but you don't want less-than-optimum (or more-than-optimum) contrast. Normal development seems best here.

Your real problem may be latent image degradation. The results of this are much like underexposure. Changing development is not going to help this much, however.

Doremus

Llamarama · Jan 19, 2014

I'll probably just use the times for standard FP4 Plus and just check it under a dark green safelight towards the end of development. Just have to find a source of dark green plastic to make a filter. Either way I think the hardest part will be getting the 120 film onto a spiral, I was never any good with the wider stuff which is why I usually stick to 16mm or 35mm

Regular Rod · Jan 19, 2014

Llamarama said:
I'll probably just use the times for standard FP4 Plus and just check it under a dark green safelight towards the end of development. Just have to find a source of dark green plastic to make a filter. Either way I think the hardest part will be getting the 120 film onto a spiral, I was never any good with the wider stuff which is why I usually stick to 16mm or 35mm

It's not worth the risk of using a "safe" light. Just develop it in a spiral tank as normal. Don't let any light near it until the film is fixed completely.

RR

Simon R Galley · Jan 20, 2014

What we normally advise is ID11 normal dev time + 10%

Its at least 15 years old, but we have processed films from the 1950's and had usable 'images'.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Doremus Scudder · Jan 20, 2014

Simon R Galley said:
What we normally advise is ID11 normal dev time + 10%

Its at least 15 years old, but we have processed films from the 1950's and had usable 'images'.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

If Ilford recommends a 10% increase, then go with that! they should know. It is a minimal increase anyway.

And Simon, thanks for chiming in. I'll keep this in mind next time I have older film to develop.

Best,

Doremus

StoneNYC · Jan 20, 2014

I'm curious if HC-110 would be more or less effective than ID-11, I've always been told (and used) HC-110 (B) for aged films, I've also used Ilfsol 3 with excellent results. No one ever mentions Ilfsol 3 but I've run almost 100 feet of film that expired in the 1960's with similar fog results of HC-110 and both were excellently low in fog.

randyB · Jan 20, 2014

Just do what Mr. Simon says. No need in making a big fuss over a "mystery" roll. I've processed a few "mystery" rolls myself and they usually come out either blank or with very mundane test images.

erikg · Jan 20, 2014

Dating a roll of film? It will never work, your families are just too different.

StoneNYC · Jan 20, 2014

erikg said:
Dating a roll of film? It will never work, your families are just too different.

She's to old for you!

Light Guru · Jan 20, 2014

erikg said:
Dating a roll of film? It will never work, your families are just too different.

StoneNYC said:
She's to old for you!

How did you get a date with here? I heard she was dead.

StoneNYC · Jan 20, 2014

Light Guru said:
How did you get a date with here? I heard she was dead.

She just got a facelift, hence the +...

Dating a roll of film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency