Extremely expired film: testing phase.

[Stephanie Brim]

I bought some really expired film in bulk rolls, Plus-X and Tri-X, and I'm just now getting around to testing them for use. The Plus-X expired 12/82 and the Tri-X expired 06/83. Both were said to be frozen stock found when the people selling bought out a camera store.

Lo and behold, I'm sitting and looking at the negatives right now. It seems to me that the Plus-X is no worse for the wear. This gives me hope for the Tri-X. I mean, I am just looking at negatives, but seems to me that the tones and development are on. Whether the gain is pleasant or not is another matter.

I'll post some images once the negatives dry.

 

[Ole]

Great news, Stephanie!

I may get around to trying some HP3 glass plates this week - expired in 1963...

 

[Stephanie Brim]

On scanning, it looks as good as I've hoped. I may have lost 1/3 to 2/3 stop...I think that shooting at ISO 80 and developing at the ISO 125 time will give me the best negatives. I'll let you guys help me decide, though. I'll have them all scanned shortly.

This makes me look forward to having these printed...I may actually do so. I think that it will benefit me to see how it will look printed instead of just scanned so that I can make a better decision.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Okay, images.

Dead Link Removed

Not going to put them here for obvious reasons (as in there are 15 of them), but clicking on that link will bring you to my blog where you can view them on the same page instead of one at a time. 56k people, you may want to try this link here which will take you to the actual directory of the photos...you can then view them one at a time. Disregard the horrible wash job, please.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Er, I should probably at least post the one I think is the best.

This one was shot at ISO 100 and developed in Rodinal for the ISO 125 time of 13 minutes in 1+50. On my MONITOR it looks the best, but we'll see once I get them printed.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Stephanie, I would be inclined to enlarge the frame with the bed in it.

That would be a better test of what tonal range you have retained in an old film.

High contrast shots look better and have a tendency to hide deficiencies, unless you look quite close.

The big expanse of the underside of the quilt along with the colourful top of the quilt are two good examples of where old film has problems.

Assuming the open book on the bed has white or whiteish paper, then you should be able to see near white highlight holding ability. If you compare the paper white with the small piece of light clothing on the chair in the background you will also get a fair idea of the films ability to hold highlight detail.

The background piece of furniture (?) on the RHS is also quite dark, but it has detail, if you can hold some or all of that detail in your print as well as slight detail in your whites, and the middle tones don't get lost, then you are looking very good.

By the way, from what little I know about scanning film, you will not have as much shadow detail in a print as you are seeing here. As you are (from what I understand) relatively newish to enlarging, go easy on yourself, every neg is a challenge, some are just less challenging to enlarge well.

That bedroom, believe it or not, is a brilliant test for film!!!

Mick.

 

[rtuttle]

Hey Steph:
I don't think you can tell which one of those negatives is best from scanning. You might be able to tell which one is best to scan though. You really need to try and print some of them and see which one prints the best for your conditions on a normal contrasted paper. Just pick the one that best exhibits your vision of what the photo should convey.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm going to print them as soon as I possibly can...I'm thinking of taking the roll with me to Des Moines today when I go to see if I can possibly get a contact sheet made. I'll know more then. Proofs would also be good, but I don't really want to run myself out of funds.

 

[Ryuji]

Stephanie, what lens did you use for the above shot? It's on the slightly hard side, but the bokeh is beautiful (and to my taste).

Also, I'll be mean; I see some water drying marks on the scanned image

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Yes, I didn't wash enough because I was in a hurry.

This is the Nikkor AI 50mm f/1.4. Also, it's shot at f/2. Yes, an SLR lens. I won't have a rangefinder again until next year. This lens impressed me as well. Also, it's capable of more...it has a slightly scratched UV filter on it.

Anyway, I have one roll of fresh Plus-X left and I may buy a fresh roll as well to try out. $30 from UltrafineOnline is too good of a price to pass up.