Developing 10-year-old black and white film

[Alex Benjamin]

Hello all

Need a bit of advice. I have a bunch of 10 to 15-year old black and white films (35mm and 120) that I never got to develop. There's a bit of everything - TriX, Agfa, FP5, Neopan 100 Acros -, mostly kept at room temperature for all these years. There's probably not much interesting in them - I have usually developed the more precious stuff, so we're not talking Mexican suitcase -, but since I have time these days, I figure I might as well go through them, in case there is the rare treasure.

So, basically, I'd appreciate a bit of advice. Essentially: should I stick to the normal develop times or prolong them, and, if so, how much? Any developer works better than others in such circumstances (I have Rodinal, HC-110, and Ilfotec DDX)? Would stand development be more or less effective?

Any other thing you can think of that could be helpful, feel free to add.

Sorry if this has been asked in another, older thread. If so, thanks for posting the link.

Alex

 

[pentaxuser]

I think with 10 year old films that have been stored at room temperature and presumably not subject to high temperatures and sunlight you are very safe using the developer maker's times for that particular film at whatever speed you used.

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

I would add 10% to developing times. Not because it needs it but because you probably don't develop long enough already. Film speed and most published developing times are determined according to the adage "The least, if it is enough, is usually the best". Your older film deserves a little more to overcome a possible slightly degraded latent image.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I disagree with Bill -- give those films the same processing you'd give if they were fresh dated and you shot them yesterday or last week.

Over the past six months, I've been processing films I exposed as far back as 2005, both B&W and color, with very standard process, and getting great results. I've had a problem attributable to age with only a single roll -- and that one was from a Fuji disposable and might have sat in a car, in the sun, for heaven only knows how long (and was several years expired when it was exposed in 2014).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well if there's nothing interesting in them, give them your normal development. Ten to fifteen years is nothing, really. I develop a sheet of TMY exposed in 2000 that came out quite well. Image was boring, though...

 

[pentaxuser]

Well if there's nothing interesting in them, give them your normal development. Ten to fifteen years is nothing, really. I develop a sheet of TMY exposed in 2000 that came out quite well. Image was boring, though...

Andrew, 2000 was, if I recall, a boring year and it may be my imagination but all the films I have even see from that year all tend to have a "look". A kind of "ennui", if you will, about them.

Frankly only developer used at midnight during a full moon seems to help dispel that "2000 look" It is almost as if I can transfer my state of agitation on those nights to the film. If I had the money I'd try the "Leica glow". It's a much simpler but expensive solution and would have the added advantage of not requiring the wife to lock me in to the darkroom until the safety of the morning light arrives.

I have even wondered about "hybrid" as a last resort

PS in the above post I am only joking about hybrid

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, 2000 was, if I recall, a boring year and it may be my imagination but all the films I have even see from that year all tend to have a "look". A kind of "ennui", if you will, about them.

Frankly only developer used at midnight during a full moon seems to help dispel that "2000 look" It is almost as if I can transfer my state of agitation on those nights to the film. If I had the money I'd try the "Leica glow". It's a much simpler but expensive solution and would have the added advantage of not requiring the wife to lock me in to the darkroom until the safety of the morning light arrives.

I have even wondered about "hybrid" as a last resort

PS in the above post I am only joking about hybrid

pentaxuser

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Andrew, 2000 was, if I recall, a boring year and it may be my imagination but all the films I have even see from that year all tend to have a "look". A kind of "ennui", if you will, about them.

Frankly only developer used at midnight during a full moon seems to help dispel that "2000 look" It is almost as if I can transfer my state of agitation on those nights to the film. If I had the money I'd try the "Leica glow". It's a much simpler but expensive solution and would have the added advantage of not requiring the wife to lock me in to the darkroom until the safety of the morning light arrives.

I have even wondered about "hybrid" as a last resort

PS in the above post I am only joking about hybrid

pentaxuser

This made my day.

Thanks all. Normal dev it will be.

 

[Bill Burk]

I disagree with Bill -- give those films the same processing you'd give if they were fresh dated and you shot them yesterday or last week.

Let me clarify. Donald Qualls is giving good advice. There is no technical reason to treat the film any different than when it was new.

I did some mystic calculation of what kind of pictures might be on the film and what the “usual” development would give.

I made some assumptions; that the film might have some underexposed shots on it, that the shots are irreplaceable, and that the normal development time aims for 0.5 contrast index (a good aim for highest definition and least grain while still producing excellent prints from properly exposed film).

I suggest aiming for 0.62 contrast index, to have better chance of pulling detail out of a possibly underexposed shot.

A higher contrast aim can create slightly worse image quality. But there is a bit of insurance against underdeveloping an underexposed shot.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Let me clarify. Donald Qualls is giving good advice. There is no technical reason to treat the film any different than when it was new.

I did some mystic calculation of what kind of pictures might be on the film and what the “usual” development would give.

I made some assumptions; that the film might have some underexposed shots on it, that the shots are irreplaceable, and that the normal development time aims for 0.5 contrast index (a good aim for highest definition and least grain while still producing excellent prints from properly exposed film).

I suggest aiming for 0.62 contrast index, to have better chance of pulling detail out of a possibly underexposed shot.

A higher contrast aim can create slightly worse image quality. But there is a bit of insurance against underdeveloping an underexposed shot.

Thanks for the clarification, Bill.

 

[pentaxuser]

This made my day.

Thanks all. Normal dev it will be.

Thanks, Alex and Andrew. There must be a link between Scottish-British humour and Canadian It doesn't always work but goodness there are occasions on Photrio when we need it

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

There must be a link between Scottish-British humour and Canadian

It is the extra "u" in humour!
And in certain areas of Canada, Presbyterians.

 

[removed account4]

Alex
do you have any dektol ?
1:6 6 minutes agitate like you would film developer.
John