Developing var-i-pan film from 1964

[Romanko]

I have two rolls of exposed var-i-pan film with the "develop before" date of January 1964. I am unable to find any information on this film. According to the box this is "World's Best A.S.A. 100" film. We also know that it is Fine Grain Panchromatic with extra wide latitude and "New thin emulsion". It was made in West Germany and distributed by Supreme Photo Supply Co. Inc. NY.

The plan is to develop in HC-110 dilution B at around 18 °C. I had some good results developing Kodak Verichrome of roughly the same vintage this way.

What development time would you recommend?

The film is 127 type and I don't feel comfortable doing strip tests or using complicated processes like compensating development with strong/diluted baths and the like. I don't know where the films come from so there is no sentimental value involved. I am doing this out of curiosity (I am not feline and should be safe).

 

[Romanko]

Sorry, I just realised I posted this thread in the Color Forum. Is there a way to move it to B&W?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Best way to move the thread is to use the "report this post" button in the lower left of the first entry, and in the free-form fill-in box, explain briefly. A moderator can then move the thread to the B&W film and developing section.

Meantime, HC-110 has been my preference for really old film (especially if it was exposed decades ago) for a long time. For 100 speed from 1964, I'd probably use 7 minutes in Dilution B.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, I just realised I posted this thread in the Color Forum. Is there a way to move it to B&W?

Best way to move the thread is to use the "report this post" button in the lower left of the first entry, and in the free-form fill-in box, explain briefly. A moderator can then move the thread to the B&W film and developing section.

Donald is correct about this.
But as I just saw your post, I'll attend to moving the thread.
No promises though that I'll always notice the request in the threads themselves!

 

[AgX]

I assume this film to have been made by Perutz.

 

[Romanko]

For 100 speed from 1964, I'd probably use 7 minutes in Dilution B.

7 minutes was my rough guess as well. I'll give it a go.

I'll attend to moving the thread.

Thank you Matt for moving the thread.

I assume this film to have been made by Perutz.

I heard of Perutz but don't know much about them. Time to do some research. Thank you for your suggestion.

 

[cmacd123]

I heard of Perutz but don't know much about them. Time to do some research.

they were an independant film brand in germany, and were eventually Bought out by Agfa.

 

[mohmad khatab]

Push-Processing Formulas

 

[Romanko]

I developed the first roll for 7 minutes in HC-110 (B) at around 18 °C. The negative came out very dense but I got pictures! Cars and trees and someone in uniform. The film is still drying. Interestingly, there are edge markings with frame numbers but no manufacturer/film type information.
How do I know if I overdeveloped or the film is just heavily fogged from age and poor storage?
The base is very dense (between frames and the edges). I developed several films of the same age before and this one is 2-3 stops denser in comparison (it is hard to tell while it is still wet).
I have a second roll of Ver-i-pan and a roll of Kodak Verichrome from the same batch. Both type 127. Maybe I should try 6 minutes or even less next time.

 

[AgX]

they were an independant film brand in germany, and were eventually Bought out by Agfa.

And Agfa soon thereafter cancelled their film production. Perutz made the first film designed for 35mm still cameras.

 

[Romanko]

Push-Processing Formulas

Hi Mohmad. Thanks for the Diafine formula. I looked at compensating developers some time ago (including different dilutions of HC-110 as a two-bath developer) but it seems that an active developer like HC-110 (B) is what most people use for developing very expired film. Stand development is another option though I never tried it myself. Diafine might be good for unknown film like this Ver-i-pan but I could not find it in Australia. Mixing Diafine from raw chemicals is not economical considering I just want to develop two rolls of "mystery" film.

 

[tezzasmall]

Push-Processing Formulas

Thanks for this formula - presumably from The Darkroom Cookbook?

I'll file it at the back of my brain as I'm sure it will come in useful sometime.

Terry S

 

[Donald Qualls]

I use and recommend HC-110 for old film mainly because of its strong anti-fog capacity -- though I admit I haven't tried the new "thin as water" concentrate; I've still got a bunch of the old "syrup", having bought a fresh bottle just before I closed my old darkroom in 2007 and not used any since getting my new setup in 2020.

How do I know if I overdeveloped or the film is just heavily fogged from age and poor storage?

Look at the film rebate. If that's dark, it's (mainly) a fog problem. If that's light, you might want/need to cut 30-45 seconds off your time for the second roll. You might anyway; the other thing to check is the difference between the rebates and the darkest highlight areas. If that's huge, then cut down your development by 10% or more for the second roll. The deal here is that fog is everywhere (that is, it adds density equally to both shadow areas that should be nearly transparent, and to highlights where it's almost invisible), so itincrease printing time and reduces contrast (similar to what you'd get from slightly overdone preflash, if you've tried or read about that technique). Development time/temp controls contrast, and that determines (in a wet darkroom) what paper grade or multigrade filtration you need to get a good print from the negative.

if you had ten more rolls of this film, I'd suggest processing one with 10% less development, and another with 10% more, to see which (if either) improves the results. Given you've got only one, you might try mixing up some Farmer's Reducer (cutting formula) and very carefully bleaching part of the roll you've already processed. If a little bleaching with this version of Farmer's (which reduce highlights and shadows equally, so tends to raise contrast) helps, it's mainly a fog problem; if it makes the images less clear, you're overdeveloped and might find the other version of Farmer's Reducer more helpful. Of course, if you're scanning and able to get acceptable images, there's no reason to try bleaching back, or to adjust development.

 

[mohmad khatab]

Thanks for this formula - presumably from The Darkroom Cookbook?

I'll file it at the back of my brain as I'm sure it will come in useful sometime.

Terry S

Yes, it is a very useful recipe and I tried it with the movie (Svema) produced in the early eighties, I shot this movie on ISO 6 - and then I used that format and got that picture.

 

[mohmad khatab]

Hi Mohmad. Thanks for the Diafine formula. I looked at compensating developers some time ago (including different dilutions of HC-110 as a two-bath developer) but it seems that an active developer like HC-110 (B) is what most people use for developing very expired film. Stand development is another option though I never tried it myself. Diafine might be good for unknown film like this Ver-i-pan but I could not find it in Australia. Mixing Diafine from raw chemicals is not economical considering I just want to develop two rolls of "mystery" film.

You must photograph this roll at ISO 6
And then you can do three bushes.
According to my humble and worthless experience, the value of 1 bush = 15% increase in time
Don't ask me how I knew about 15%.... I will tell you, an angel came to me in a dream and told me about it.

 

[Romanko]

I developed the second roll of Var-i-pan, this time for 6 minutes . The result is almost the same (very dense). So it must be natural fogging of the film with age and poor storage. I also developed the "control" roll of Kodak Verichrome Pan using the same combination of developer and temperature. The development time was also 6 minutes. The negative turned out normal and consistent with other Verichrome Pan rolls I processed recently.

Given you've got only one, you might try mixing up some Farmer's Reducer (cutting formula) and very carefully bleaching part of the roll you've already processed

Thanks Donald. There's hardly anything worth printing on these "mystery" rolls so I'll just do a quick-and-dirty scan of the negatives in low resolution for the web. I want to give Farmer's Reducer a try. I never used it before and I'd rather experiment on somebody else's junk negatives than risking ruining my own worthless pictures.

 

[Romanko]

And here are the scans from the first roll.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I wonder if that 1962-63 Impala in the second frame is the same car as in the third? Oh, probably not; front plate is light on dark, while the rear is dark on light. Still, it's always fun (unless it's horrifying) to get a glimpse into some stranger's lift from 50+ years ago.

 

[Paul Howell]

Looks like the roll was shot in America, wonder how the undeveloped roll landed in Australia.

 

[Romanko]

wonder how the undeveloped roll landed in Australia

No mystery here. I bought a bunch of undeveloped film from the US on an online auction. I needed 616/116 type backing paper for re-spooling new film and the rest came with it. The backing paper and the 616 film were badly damaged when the roll was incorrectly loaded in the camera some 60-70 years ago. It is unusable. So there's another batch of undeveloped film coming from the UK this time. And yes, I could have bought a very nice 120-type folder and a bag of film for the amount I am spending just on the backing paper. Money can't buy you love. Peace!

 

[mohmad khatab]

No mystery here. I bought a bunch of undeveloped film from the US on an online auction. I needed 616/116 type backing paper for re-spooling new film and the rest came with it. The backing paper and the 616 film were badly damaged when the roll was incorrectly loaded in the camera some 60-70 years ago. It is unusable. So there's another batch of undeveloped film coming from the UK this time. And yes, I could have bought a very nice 120-type folder and a bag of film for the amount I am spending just on the backing paper. Money can't buy you love. Peace!

Yes, I know some amateurs who buy old cameras from scrap shops, provided that they contain a film that has been filmed
Of course, you can get very great pictures and it will be a pleasant surprise to you when you get unexpected pictures from the good old days.
- If you plan to take this adventure frequently, I advise you to buy chemical raw materials from the net and prepare that developer that you previously advised, as he is the only developer dedicated to dealing with those very old films, he can restore one stop from the lost speed.
- It won't cost you anything compared to the great results you will get, and I really like your statement (Money can't buy you love.), and I totally agree with you,,
- Therefore, I advise you to buy chemical raw materials from the net, and you will find that their cost is actually quite cheap, but it seems that it is difficult on the surface. But the practical reality is very simple and never expensive. If you make calculations with paper and pen accurately, you will find that it is really worth it.
Greetings to you .

 

[Romanko]

I advise you to buy chemical raw materials

Finally, I found a local supplier who sells raw chemistry at reasonable prices. Now I can make both Diafine and Farmer's reducer. What I would like to try is to shoot the same scene on the whole roll of expired 35 mm film, cut it in 4-5 frame strips and use different developers like HC-110, Rodinal (normal and stand), Diafine, and maybe monobath to see what results they give. Ideally, I'd like to find a 30 ft roll of very expired but not completely dead film for the experiment. Otherwise, Svema 64 might do the job.

By the way, the results you achieved with Svema are impressive. The box speed for the film would be 64 GOST/ISO (unless you got Svema-32). So you are shooting it 3 stops below the box speed. The film would be around 30 years old by now if not older.

And it's not me it's the Beatles. The guys marching on the Christmas parade in the last photo would come home to the Beatles playing from their vacuum-tube radios.

 

[mohmad khatab]

Finally, I found a local supplier who sells raw chemistry at reasonable prices. Now I can make both Diafine and Farmer's reducer. What I would like to try is to shoot the same scene on the whole roll of expired 35 mm film, cut it in 4-5 frame strips and use different developers like HC-110, Rodinal (normal and stand), Diafine, and maybe monobath to see what results they give. Ideally, I'd like to find a 30 ft roll of very expired but not completely dead film for the experiment. Otherwise, Svema 64 might do the job.

By the way, the results you achieved with Svema are impressive. The box speed for the film would be 64 GOST/ISO (unless you got Svema-32). So you are shooting it 3 stops below the box speed. The film would be around 30 years old by now if not older.

And it's not me it's the Beatles. The guys marching on the Christmas parade in the last photo would come home to the Beatles playing from their vacuum-tube radios.

This is great, I'm really happy for you, I wish you success.
I totally agree with you, you should do many experiments, you will have fun.
I agree with you on everything you said except for the developer (Monopath), in fact I was never convinced by it. In my humble opinion, I think this developer is not worth testing.
And I wish you all the best and success.
- But I would like to give you one piece of advice, comparing the types of developers is like comparing the types of fruits.
- I never think that it makes sense to compare bananas, mangoes, and watermelon, since the taste of each category is completely different and very distinct. There is no similarity (even a little) between the taste of mango and the taste of banana, so the comparison here would be an illogical comparison. .
- You can eat all kinds of fruits according to the need and according to the circumstances you are going through, you can never dispense with mana in favor of bananas or dispense with both in favor of watermelon.
- Based on this previous example, I would like to tell you that no developer is 100% perfect and fit for all purposes and at all times,,
- Yes, there is a developer called (general) and it is suitable for “most” categories of films, but inevitably every developer has different advantages from the other, and for example, the best developer that gives you the greatest accuracy of details in the shadows is an anonymous developer that no one knows and It is called Agfa 12 - but it is somewhat lacking in contrast.
- And thus, you will find that there is a developer who is distinguished in one thing and not distinguished in the other.
There is no perfection in the universe at all, no matter how hard we try to reach the maximum perfection, we will inevitably fail.

- This developer that you recommended for the old rolls will definitely not be suitable for use with new, unexpired emulsions. On the contrary, it will inevitably bring disastrous and adverse results with non-expired films, as it was designed to perform a specific target only.

 

[Murray Kelly]

You may find these of interest. The second is from David Lyga and he basically uses a contrasty HQ developer followed by a controlled bleach under light.

https://www.diyphotography.net/how-...ZomiAFlY70gJ8g2swqeYu-ClJ_NbjGo1xvII7Tw2WOuQc

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ts-of-age-fog-in-b-w-films-and-papers.161268/

 

[Romanko]

You may find these of interest.

Yes, this is very helpful. You got to be Daniel Keating (see the first link) to process very expired Svema in X-ray developer! Just make sure you shoot with a sharp lens like Jupiter-8.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/132303390@N02/24605731981/
I like Daniel.
And David Lyga is a legend. Thanks a lot.