Found some old film

[Worker 11811]

I just came across some of my father's old negatives and some photography gear. There are several unused rolls of film; Tri-X, Plus-X, Panatomic-X. All of this stuff dates from about 1958 so I assume the film is all expired and good for display purpose only.

However, there are several 4x5 film holders plus some other various sizes and shapes. Since these have been unused for over 50 years, I assumed that there was nothing inside them but, lo and behold! There was film inside a few of them!

I pulled the slide off the first one and unexpectedly found a piece of film with three triangle notches in one corner. I assume that means the film is Tri-X Pan. Right?

Okay, so that film is beat. I figure it wouldn't be good anymore anyway. Right? I turned the lights down and carefully looked in the rest. I just slid the slide open by a fraction of an inch to determine whether there was film inside before proceeding. I found four more that had film in them.

Here's the weird part. Two of the films seemed to have an image on them.
I can't imagine that my dad would have developed the film then put it back into a film holder unless he was using it for practice or something. But, then, he was an experienced photographer. He would have no need for practice films.

Could this film have been exposed but never developed?
Is it possible for a latent image to spontaneously develop itself after 50 years of sitting idle? It doesn't sound possible to me but I don't know for sure.

So, what should I do with this film?

The 35mm rolls of Tri-X, Plus-X and Panatomic-X are pretty much useless except as display pieces. Right? They're still in their metal canisters. They'd make neat curios for my darkroom, I suppose.

The unexposed sheets of Tri-X (I assume it's Tri-X) are probably junk as well. Right? The film holders are pretty well used. Scratches and small dents, etc. I don't think they're salable. Again, more curios.

However, the two sheets of film with images on them have me puzzled. My dad has been gone for over 25 years. I'd like to preserve the images if it is possible.

Should I just bring them out and look at them or should I somehow process them? I have plenty of D-76 and Kodafix on hand.

I'm wonering if, just for safety, I should put them into some fixer then hypo-clear and was them. But, since the film is 50 years old, I'd like some advice before I proceed.

What do you think?

 

[Farkle-Mpls]

Randy,

Oddly enough, a few months ago I purchased a bulk loader with film in it. Not knowing much about it except guessing it was B&W, I loaded a roll and shot it. Long story short, it was film produced in 1963 and it was still good. Stored at room temp, as far as I could tell.

The full story: http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00VNmi

In other words, that old film from 1958 might still be good if it's slow (mine was ASA 32 and had NOT fogged). In fact, I shot a roll of it this weekend!

- Carl

 

[werra]

Here's the weird part. Two of the films seemed to have an image on them.

You exposed them to the light? If yes, there is probably no way to save them any more.
Unexposed sheets from the holders are wise to process one-by-one, to save at least something.

Unexposed film is probably usable, at the half of their original speed or so.
For example, Kodak Plus-X, exp March 61, shot couple of days ago at EI50 (fingermarks are not mine, it was a partial bulk roll I acquired):

 

[Worker 11811]

Yes they were exposed. I had no expectation to find film inside a box of 50 year old film gear. It was a complete surprise.

The first two, I opened had nothing inside. The third one had film in it. It was an opaque grayish color. Undeveloped but I don't know if it was exposed before I opened it. After that I turned the lights down and only opened the slides by about 1/8 of an inch then closed again. Two more had previously unexposed, undeveloped film. I could see the sliver of gray through the slit.

However, two more were not opaque. They were mostly clear as if they had been developed.

Can film spontaneously develop over 50 years? I've never heard of that.

The undeveloped ones I'm not to concerned with. I might develop them just to see what they are but no big loss if they are spoiled. They could have been spoiled long before I ever got to them, anyway.

It's those last two that seem to have something on them that have my interest.

Could I just fix them and wash them?
Would that simply prevent them from getting any worse?

 

[steven_e007]

Old film gets foggy - the faster the film, the worse the fog. So, the pan - X has the best chance it might still be useable, the plus -X maybe less so and the tri-x probably pretty useless. Of course, with poor storage and particularly damp conditions they might all be totally useless, but if you are lucky you might get something out of them. I have lots of old films and plates that are way out of date. If the packaging is interesting and in good condition and nice to look at, I figure they are more use kept as memorabilia and curios than opened. If not - no harm in trying them. After all, a mint 1950s film is a rarity, but a nice knew fresh one is only the cost of a coffee.

I've never heard of a latent image developing itself! Definately not... and besides, you would still have to fix and wash out all the undeveloped salts before you got a clear negative. If they are already clear I reckon they have already been fixed and washed...

A more likely suggestion might be that old negatives were reinserted as a backing or something. Are you sure they are films, not plates? I aquired plate holders for a speed graphic that were loaded with old glass plates, just to act as a backing so you could place a sheet of film on the top and use them as film holders.

 

[Worker 11811]

Thanks!

I didn't think film could spontaneously develop but I wanted to be sure.

I am sure that all the film has expired long before I ever got hold of it. I know little about where it's been or what's happened to it before it came to me.

I bet the 35mm rolls are expired too. Besides, the acetate stock has probably become brittle and taken a "set" in the shape it's been rolled up in for 50 years. Even if the emulsion could still form an image, the stock is probably so brittle that it would never survive a trip through my camera.

Besides, the rolls of film in their little painted metal canisters look neat just the way they are. They'll make good display pieces.

There are two 3-1/4" x 4-1/4" film holders for a SpeedGraphic and several Voigtlander film holders. There is also a 75mm Computar lens. They are all pretty well worn. I don't think I could find a buyer for them. Again, I think it's all going to be display pieces.

The two developed negatives will be carefully cleaned up, scanned and stored with all the other negatives my father left.

My wife is in charge of the local historical museum. If I can't find a use for the stuff I might donate them to the museum. In 100 years, school kids will look at it and say, "Film? What's that?"

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I'd love to try and shoot/develop the Pan-X.

 

[cmacd123]

Thanks!
Besides, the acetate stock has probably become brittle and taken a "set" in the shape it's been rolled up in for 50 years. Even if the emulsion could still form an image, the stock is probably so brittle that it would never survive a trip through my camera.

I have old 16mm movies that were printed during or before WWII, and the acetate film is still flexible enough to whip through a projector at 24FPS.

You may find some of it will have the dreaded Vinegar Syndrome, where it smells of Vinegar - that will shrink and become very brittle.

 

[Worker 11811]

You're right. It may still be possible to use. I don't think the film has vinegared but I am not sure it is strong, either.

Whereas, movie film is wrapped around a reel with a 3-inch core, 35mm photo film is wrapped into a tight little package, little more than an inch in diameter. I bet you a dollar it's taken a hard set. Unrolling it and putting it through a camera will very likely damage it. Vinegar or not, I know it is starting to get brittle because I see some of the sprocket holes broken out on the leaders sticking out of the cartridges. I don't smell that familiar "film smell" when I open the metal canisters.

On the other hand, what have I got to lose? I could sacrifice one roll of film and just shoot around the house with it and see what comes out. If it does turn out to be spoiled, I can easily assume all the rest is too. Right.

 

[fwank]

i have some txp 320 from 1984 stored in unknown conditions. i called kodak for suggestions and they said expect some base fog, and to possibly add some anti-fog to my developer. i'm guessing that would be bzt(?)? i don't have any and i figured i'd just deal with the base fog.

regardless of whether you add anti-fog or not, expect a loss of iso.

ps. the txp does give images, i'm not a great one at evaluating base fog, but it works well enough to shoot it. i'm thinking maybe EI around 200 next time i try it.

enjoy

 

[JHoldenCasting]

NOW CASTING! Photo enthusiasts who have found a camera with old film in it belonging to someone else.


Are you a filmfinder? Have you developed someone else's old photos? We want to hear your story!


There will be very nice compensation.
For more information or to submit:
http://goo.gl/forms/OQS1jUWG7E

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

NOW CASTING! Photo enthusiasts who have found a camera with old film in it belonging to someone else.


Are you a filmfinder? Have you developed someone else's old photos? We want to hear your story!

Do you currently have a producer for this show, or are you looking for candidates for the purpose of pitching a show to a producer?

I looked at your website and social media sites and didn't find a section for credits. Do you have credits as a casting agent?

 

[pentaxuser]

I think JHoldenCasting needs credit for doing something. Not sure it is the kind of credit that we on APUG wish to extend to it

pentaxuser

 

[DWThomas]

I can say that last summer (Argust 14th) I got quite respectable results on some 35mm Panatomic-X off a bulk roll with an expiration date of Dec 1988. Of course that's 30 years newer than 1958, but it appears to hold up surprisingly well. As far as I know (about 5mm ) the roll I have was stored at room temperature.

That said, I wouldn't photograph your daughter's wedding with it or any such thing!

 

[nosmok]

Panatomic X is forever! I shot my nephew's Bar Mitzvah on it (well, not for money, but while everybody else was clicking away with their phones I had a roll of FX in my Oly XA). Those shots are beyond great, and that was 1989 expired stuff. I've shot some FX-828 from 1958 and it was good to go rated at 20ASA. Speed rule of thumb for Panatomic X aging would seem to be 1/2 stop for every 3 decades or so.

More recently I took some old cameras and old film to the Grand Canyon. The resolution rule of thumb was PanX in 35mm equals Verichrome in 6x9, for given age of film (both expired in the mid 70s). Mind you, the Verichrome stuff was no slouch-- looked marvelous on the scans and negs. But PanX is just amazing-- best consumer product ever? What else can compete?

 

[pentaxuser]

I note that JHoldenCasting has now placed a post of the same kind on a similar thread started several years ago by cliveh.

Are we going to get the same opportunistic post on any thread that mentions old film and isn't it time APUG did something about it?

pentaxuser

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I note that JHoldenCasting has now placed a post of the same kind on a similar thread started several years ago by cliveh.

Are we going to get the same opportunistic post on any thread that mentions old film and isn't it time APUG did something about it?

pentaxuser

We'll allow this one for now, just to see if the poster responds with more information. The others have been deleted.

We don't rule out all business-related posts, if they might do something good for analogue photography, aren't too obtrusive, and aren't so frequent that the poster should really just purchase ad space.

If someone is legitimately casting a reality-TV show about analogue photography, it wouldn't be the worst sort of reality-TV show.

 

[pentaxuser]

If someone is legitimately casting a reality-TV show about analogue photography, it wouldn't be the worst sort of reality-TV show.

Well I had hoped that the JHoldencasting poster might at least introduce himself/company and say exactly why they want APUgers help instead of machine-gunning us with the same post that I suspect a machine has been programmed to introduce onto any thread on APUG that mentions old film.

Transparency other than that representing commercial opportunism seems to be lacking here. At least Lowell Huff( anyone remember his APUG bombardment several years ago?) had the decency to come clean as to what his motivation was.

We seem to have grown insensitive to today's "reality" TV show masquerading as being a socially responsible force for our collective good

pentaxuser