Found an old bulk loader at an antique store that has a roll of Tri-X inside. Best way to shoot & develop?

[BobbyMuscles]

The bulk loader is quite old so I have no idea how old the film is. I shot a test roll at 200 ISO and did a semi-stand development in Rodinal 1:100. The bulk loader definitely had some gaps that let in some light, and it looks like there might be a little fungus, but aside from that, I thought my negatives turned out pretty well. However, I made a post on Reddit about it and got quite a few comments telling me not to stand develop expired film as my results could be fogged. But my negatives look pretty okay to my eye for being who knows how old.

Thoughts?

Here are my negatives and a couple scans:

 

[AnselMortensen]

Wow, those are great results from film that old...1950's-early 1960's.
Continue to use the same process for the rest of the roll...it's the results that count.

 

[BobbyMuscles]

Wow, those are great results from film that old...1950's-early 1960's.
Continue to use the same process for the rest of the roll...it's the results that count.

You think it’s that old? And thank you! I thought so too. Glad I’m not crazy

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to Photrio. I am looking forward to seeing more of your work and posts.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The bulk loader is quite old so I have no idea how old the film is. I shot a test roll at 200 ISO and did a semi-stand development in Rodinal 1:100. The bulk loader definitely had some gaps that let in some light, and it looks like there might be a little fungus, but aside from that, I thought my negatives turned out pretty well. However, I made a post on Reddit about it and got quite a few comments telling me not to stand develop expired film as my results could be fogged. But my negatives look pretty okay to my eye for being who knows how old.

Thoughts?

Here are my negatives and a couple scans:

Most people who say not to use stand development, have either never used it, or are not experienced with it enough. Besides you used semi-stand, which is the better option of the two. You got an acceptable level of fog. No big deal. Welcome to the forum, from a lower mainlander... I miss living on the Island!

 

[MattKing]

Wow, those are great results from film that old...1950's-early 1960's.
Continue to use the same process for the rest of the roll...it's the results that count.

Welcome to Photrio from across the Straight.
Kodak Tri-X Pan was replaced by Kodak Professional Tri-X in 2003, so it could certainly be a lot more recent than the 1950s.
I'll leave it to others to comment about the style and appearance of the edge printing, and what clues they may give about the age of the film.
FWIW, I wouldn't have used semi-stand and dilute Rodinal for the investigative test, because reduced agitation regimes tend to make it harder to pin down the answer to any questions about how much speed may have been lost and how much fog might have accrued.
But outside of that, the results are at the very least interesting, and probably quite good!.
As a totally irrelevant aside - I wonder how many people take test photos of cats

 

[BobbyMuscles]

Welcome to Photrio from across the Straight.
Kodak Tri-X Pan was replaced by Kodak Professional Tri-X in 2003, so it could certainly be a lot more recent than the 1950s.
I'll leave it to others to comment about the style and appearance of the edge printing, and what clues they may give about the age of the film.
FWIW, I wouldn't have used semi-stand and dilute Rodinal for the investigative test, because reduced agitation regimes tend to make it harder to pin down the answer to any questions about how much speed may have been lost and how much fog might have accrued.
But outside of that, the results are at the very least interesting, and probably quite good!.
As a totally irrelevant aside - I wonder how many people take test photos of cats

Thanks for the info! What would you recommend? I only have Rodinal and Microphen at the moment.

 

[MattKing]

Rodinal is fine. I don't know whether a slightly speed enhancing developer like Microphen is the best idea - I'll leave it to the Microphen users to comment on that.
What I would suggest for the purpose of a trial/test is a procedure that employs more standard dilutions and agitation schemes, plus a bit of exposure bracketing.
FWIW, the Kodak suggested times (using D-76 1+1 as a reference) vary only a little bit between 1980 vintage Tri-X Pan and current vintage Professional Tri-X, so absent someone posting here with different experience, you can probably follow suggestions for the current version of Tri-X and something like Rodinal 1+50 or 1 +25, plus something like Kodak inversion agitation - 5 seconds every 30 seconds.

 

[BAC1967]

I have bulk loader with an old roll of Tri-X. I did a bracket test and found it worked best at ISO 32 and developed normally. This shot was developed in HC-110 dilution B for 4:30.

Tree on Mesa by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[BAC1967]

This is the label on my bulk loader, not sure if the use of the name Tri-X Pan film or the Kodak logo helps narrow down the date.

 

[benderscameracorner]

I've been slowly getting through a big bag of bulk rolled Tri X I was given a year ago. It's likely only ~10 years old rather than 20-30, but despite supposedly being kept refrigerated it has shown plenty of aging. I've tried both semi-stand dev in Paranol S and regular dev with Microphen, rating the film at 200, 320 and 400 ISO and the results have been broadly the same... contrasty, grainy and pretty crunchy. It's not terrible but every time I shoot B&W with something else - expired or newly purchased - I'm usually happier with the results ;-)

I also despise how badly Tri-X negs curl when dried. Makes scanning a complete PITA...

 

[BobbyMuscles]

I've been slowly getting through a big bag of bulk rolled Tri X I was given a year ago. It's likely only ~10 years old rather than 20-30, but despite supposedly being kept refrigerated it has shown plenty of aging. I've tried both semi-stand dev in Paranol S and regular dev with Microphen, rating the film at 200, 320 and 400 ISO and the results have been broadly the same... contrasty, grainy and pretty crunchy. It's not terrible but every time I shoot B&W with something else - expired or newly purchased - I'm usually happier with the results ;-)

I also despise how badly Tri-X negs curl when dried. Makes scanning a complete PITA...

Really? That’s surprising. My negs came out almost completely flat after drying. I just finished shooting and developing another test roll rating the film between 100 & 200 in Rodinal 1:35 for 10 minutes and just by looking at the negatives, it looks like 100 is the way to go. Hope the scans look good too.

 

[BobbyMuscles]

Here’s the second test roll developed in Rodinal 1:35 for 10 minutes. The first shot of each set is at 100 ISO and second is 200. The last two are both shot at 200. I don’t think it really looks any better or worse than my first test roll. Base fog looks about the same. But the good news is that there are no more light leaks and all the shots are clear of fungus. Taping up the loader and loading the cassette in the dark seemed to have worked.

I think the 100 looks marginally better than 200. For the next roll, I think I’ll set it at 80 or 64 and use the same development time and dilution.

 

[MattKing]

Here’s the second test roll developed in Rodinal 1:35 for 10 minutes. The first shot of each set is at 100 ISO and second is 200. The last two are both shot at 200. I don’t think it really looks any better or worse than my first test roll. Base fog looks about the same. But the good news is that there are no more light leaks and all the shots are clear of fungus. Taping up the loader and loading the cassette in the dark seemed to have worked.

I think the 100 looks marginally better than 200. For the next roll, I think I’ll set it at 80 or 64 and use the same development time and dilution.

When it comes to an examination of speed and fog, we can tell much more from a photo of the negatives plus a few scans than we can from just scans.

 

[BobbyMuscles]

When it comes to an examination of speed and fog, we can tell much more from a photo of the negatives plus a few scans than we can from just scans.

Right. Here are some photos.

Sorry they’re not great. I don’t have a proper light table at the moment so I’m just using my laptop screen.

 

[MattKing]

Laptop screens are less convenient, but otherwise fine.
I see some evident, likely age-related fog in the rebate and between frames, but it appears manageable. I think it has impaired contrast a bit though.
I also see decent shadow detail in the individual frames, so I don't think there has been appreciable loss in speed.
You may wish to increase exposure, to see if you can lift the shadow and mid-range detail a bit higher above the fog. Of course, if you do that, the highlight rendition might suffer a bit, and the grain may increase. You could compensate a bit by reducing development time slightly, but that would be at the cost of reducing even further the fog impacted contrast.
A developer like X-Tol, which provides a bit more speed and less apparent grain than Rodinal, might be a good choice.

 

[benderscameracorner]

Really? That’s surprising. My negs came out almost completely flat after drying. I just finished shooting and developing another test roll rating the film between 100 & 200 in Rodinal 1:35 for 10 minutes and just by looking at the negatives, it looks like 100 is the way to go. Hope the scans look good too.

Glad yours are coming out flat(ter). Not sure if it is just this particular batch, given that it was loaded into plastic reusable cassettes and left in a bag for some years. I have read that Tri X is a bit notorious for curling laterally (eg. arching between the sprockets). I've seen it in both Tri X and TMax for 120, again both some years out of date.

I just hang my developed films off bull dog clips in the shower (second one at the bottom to weight it) to dry off... the Kodak B&Ws always curl... the Ilfords, Rolleis etc are dead flat.

I'll take some pics when I'm home latter to show the difference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Glad yours are coming out flat(ter). Not sure if it is just this particular batch, given that it was loaded into plastic reusable cassettes and left in a bag for some years. I have read that Tri X is a bit notorious for curling laterally (eg. arching between the sprockets). I've seen it in both Tri X and TMax for 120, again both some years out of date.

I just hang my developed films off bull dog clips in the shower (second one at the bottom to weight it) to dry off... the Kodak B&Ws always curl... the Ilfords, Rolleis etc are dead flat.

I'll take some pics when I'm home latter to show the difference.

The air is too dry. Before hanging the film, run the shower, steaming up the room to decrease the film curling.