Developing Kodak Microfilm 5460

[Drifter]

Hi All, I've just scored a bulk roll of Kodak Recordak AHU Microfilm 5460 for a coin donation. It has been refrigerated for 30-odd years. A search on the Internet turned up very little information on it at all - let alone film speed, developer and development times. Can anyone suggest some starting points? I am hoping to use it for continuous tone, but high contrast would be OK.

 

[piu58]

The easiest way is to try highly diluted Rodinal, with less agitation. As a starting point: 1+200, agitate the firts 30 seconds, then agitate once every 5 minutes for 1 hour.
Perhaps the best resultrs you get with SPUR modular UR developer. The harder the film intrinsically is the less chemicals you need. I recommend to start with dilution and times of SPUR Orthopan UR = ADOX CMS 20.

 

[Drifter]

Thank You for the suggestions.
I regularly use Rodinal, so I'll give the stand development a try. The SPUR modular UR developer is unfortunately not available here in Australia.
It will be fun to experiment! Cheers.

 

[mgb74]

11grams of Sodium Sulfite
2.5ml of HC-110 (concentrate, not stock solution) (this is for the US version of HC-110, not the European version)

Develop for 6 min at 68 degrees F, agitate every 30 seconds.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

11grams of Sodium Sulfite
2.5ml of HC-110

To how much water: 8oz/250ml (enough for one 35mm reel) or 32oz/1l?

Another developer to consider is POTA:

1.5g Phenidone
30g S. Sulfite
1l water

 

[mgb74]

To how much water: 8oz/250ml (enough for one 35mm reel) or 32oz/1l?

I must have accidentally deleted the first few lines of my initial reply.

Here's the full reply:

This is what I've used for developing Agfa Copex at ISO 50. Into 200ml of water add (mix the sodium sulfite into water first to dissolve, then add HC-110):

11 grams of Sodium Sulfite
2.5ml of HC-110 (concentrate, not stock solution) (this is for the US version of HC-110, not the European version)

Develop for 6 min at 68 degrees F, agitate every 30 seconds.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I have never had any success with conventional developers even in high dilutions. Microfilm is very high contrast and even dilute developers still produce too much contrast. There are several suitable formulas on the web. Google for H & W Control developer, Perfection XR-1, TDLC-3 developer, or similar very low contrast developers. Usually these are low pH, phenidone based formulas with a similar amount of metol, or other developing agent, to regenerate the phenidone.

 

[Oxleyroad]

Hi All, I've just scored a bulk roll of Kodak Recordak AHU Microfilm 5460 for a coin donation. It has been refrigerated for 30-odd years. A search on the Internet turned up very little information on it at all - let alone film speed, developer and development times. Can anyone suggest some starting points? I am hoping to use it for continuous tone, but high contrast would be OK.

I used to use this and the 16mm equivalent 7460 in the 80's when I was employed at a microfilming lab as cheap student labour. Be aware that there is no perforations on the film.

I also recall trying to process my regular B&W negs in the same microfilm developer and processor as was used at the lab, and had a very expensive clean up as a result. The processor gummed up with the emulsion off my film which turned to a black sticky mess. What I found was diluting the microfilm developer 1:9 and dropping the temp down from 100°F to 70°F would give me usable negatives.

Does any of this help?

 

[Drifter]

Thank You all for the further suggestions and advice. I do have access to raw chemicals, so I might be able to mix up some of the suggested developers. If nothing gives a suitable continuous tone, then high contrast may be the way to go.

Anyway - it should provide more than a coin's worth of fun (or frustration!).

Hi Andy, sounds like a horror story! The roll is perforated (well, at least it says so on the unopened pack), perhaps they had both.

Cheers everyone.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Another source containing 2 formulas is US patent 4,083,722.

 

[Drifter]

Thanks for the US Patents suggestion - it opened up a whole new world to me!

 

[olehjalmar]

TDLC-3 is actually a pretty conventional developer. If you look at the formula, you see that it is Beutler's developer, but twice the amount of sodium bicarbonate is substituted for the sodium carbonate, so the pH is less.

In my experience, you get more contrast from TDLC-3 than simply diluting Beutler's developer further until it has 0.1-0.2 grams of metol per liter.

I have never had any success with conventional developers even in high dilutions. Microfilm is very high contrast and even dilute developers still produce too much contrast. There are several suitable formulas on the web. Google for H & W Control developer, Perfection XR-1, TDLC-3 developer, or similar very low contrast developers. Usually these are low pH, phenidone based formulas with a similar amount of metol, or other developing agent, to regenerate the phenidone.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

TDLC-3 is actually a pretty conventional developer. If you look at the formula, you see that it is Beutler's developer, but twice the amount of sodium bicarbonate is substituted for the sodium carbonate, so the pH is less.

In my experience, you get more contrast from TDLC-3 than simply diluting Beutler's developer further until it has 0.1-0.2 grams of metol per liter.

This developer has a very low pH which limits the contrast that it produces. As such it is suitable for developing microfilm. However to insure a low pH the developer must be made up just before use with fresh sodium bicarbonate. Sodium bicarbonate solutions are unstable and their pH will increase with time.

 

[olehjalmar]

Have you actually tried this developer? I have, and even with a fresh solution I get more contrast than with a highly diluted Beutler developer. Note that I did not say that it could not be used for microfilm, only that I get better results with a more highly diluted conventional developer.

This developer has a very low pH which limits the contrast that it produces. As such it is suitable for developing microfilm. However to insure a low pH the developer must be made up just before use with fresh sodium bicarbonate. Sodium bicarbonate solutions are unstable and their pH will increase with time.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Have you actually tried this developer? I have, and even with a fresh solution I get more contrast than with a highly diluted Beutler developer. Note that I did not say that it could not be used for microfilm, only that I get better results with a more highly diluted conventional developer.

Yes I did try this developer. In fact I have never been completely satisfied with using microfilm. Some people seem to get usable results but the inherent contrast always seems to win out no matter what developer is used. My best results were with the two formulas in the US patent.

 

[bdilgard]

I have used caffenol LC+C with both Copex Rapid and Fuji HRII with decent results. I mixed somthing like 1/8 teaspoon of vitamin C crystals with a quart of water, used 10 oz. of that water with 2 teaspoons of instant coffee crystals and 2 teaspoons of washing soda. This produced lower contrast and a speed boost. I have also played with microfilm and various dilutions of FX-1 with interesting but less useful results.

 

[rwreich]

Microfilm rating and use

Hello APUG,

I have been gifted 400' of this film, "Kodak Imagecapture AHU Microfilm 5460." This film is long expired (1986), but has been stored well. Can anyone tell me if it might be useable for regular pictorial shooting, what a general ISO range might be, and which chemicals would be best for processing?

Thanks for your help!

- rwreich

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

The 5 in the 4 digit code indicates that it is 35mm. It probably isn't perforated like most microfilms so you may need a camera that can handle it. I would test it and treat it as copy/ ortho litho film and shoot it at a very slow speed.

 

[Truzi]

I have some copy microfilm that is only about 5 years old. I find using it with an EI ("ISO") of 3 to 6 seems to work. Someone may give you a better EI range, and you may find a spec sheet online with some information.

You probably won't get good continuous tones, as the film was not made for pictorial use. That said, it can be fun, and you can get some interesting pictures. I have a friend at work that just loves the results.
Your film is much older, but was probably very low ISO as well, so it has probably aged gracefully.

My Sears KS-2 (Ricoh XR-7) can handle it without the perfs. Flatness is not an issue (the pressure plate helps with that), but the frame spacing can be a bit inconsistent without perforations. However, the frames don't overlap. Since it was given to you, and you have 400 feet, just try some. Sacrifice a bit to test in your camera with the back open so you can see if it advances well. If your camera can handle it, load up a cassette and try it. Bracket your photos, perhaps from EI of 3, 6, 12 and 24 to start. Develop, and go from there.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A brief search on this film indicated that it is not perforated. This is usually the case with microfilm. It could be slit for Minolta 16 cameras or for Minox cameras. Other than that I see no real use for it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Threads merged, title updated to make it easier to find.

 

[rwreich]

Thanks for the helpful responses!

 

[Robert Breslawski]

Technical support

Hi,
I've attached the datasheet for the successors to the 5460 film that you have. Since you are calling it Kodak and not Recordak it must mean that the film was from the 80s. This is an extremely fine film that has medium contrast, not high contrast like a lithe product but now low like a proffessional black and white film. The ASA speed is down at about 1. It should work fine in low contrast developers like Rodinal or HC110. It should make some very good pictures if treated right. If it has been frozen all this time I would expect it to be still good.

By the way, this film is still produced for the archives and preservation folks as Imagelink 114NXHU and is available from Eastman Park Micrographics or their distributors who took over this business from Kodak in 2011.