This sounds really strange to me. I'm not using or have not used this film, but what you described just doesn't sound "like a film gone bad" type of thing to me. It sounds like the problem ls something besides the film itself. I'm really curious as to what is going on here???? Is it the film? Is it the process? Is it the chemicals? If you were closer to Andy you could send him a sheet or two to play with and see what results he got. Keep us posted anyway?I bought an 8x10 100 sheet box of this two and a half years ago. I experimented with it, and decided it was a go for using it for 4x5 photography enlarging no more than 3x. I perfected my film handling method for cutting, developing, and using this that same summer. However, I did not have a light weight camera to go with it, so started to build a camera to my specs to use with it. This is a double sided green sensitive xray film that works at an ei of around 50-100. I found that with careful use, which includes using a yellow filter and exposing at my smallest apertures to reduce the halation blur, I could get prints almost as sharp as a 2 1/4 negative enlarged to the same size. Slightly sharper than 35mm. This is at the cost of a not so linear film curve and the somewhat dreamy look it gives, due to halation.
I knew I should keep it in the freezer to make it last longer, but between reading reports about how it will work so many years after expiration, and noting the unremarkable results it gives, I wasn't worried since it's so cheap. The only place in our freezer my wife would let me use was where the old icemaker lived. The box was just too big to fit in there without modifying the freezer a bit and I didn't have any ziplock freezer bags big enough anyway.
A few days ago, I decided to test developing this xray film with my new MC-glycerol developer I've developed. I had test exposed a half dozen sheets outdoors the day before. I put them in quart sized freezer bags for processing, and mixed a 1:100 batch of developer, put that in the bag with the film and...meh...I saw some darkening near the border, but on clearing the fixer, I saw only a fain image against a dark background with clear edges. Oh no, my new developer has failed, I thought. So I tried another with a longer developer time, but pretty similar result. After messing around for a while, I decided to mix up a batch of D23 and try that. Same result. So I tried exposing some using my enlarger, but also got just a bit more than nothing.
Lesson is, this film really did expire two years after I bought it, when it was new. I tried using it last summer, and got thin results that I blamed on my developer. It really does need to be stored in the freezer after all. Will I get some more? Thinking about it. Using it for 4x5 does not excite me very much. All the additional work for hardly any improvement over 35mm. Also difficult to make quallity enlarged negatives from it at that size. My new plan is to think about building a simple 8x10 camera that would use it, and to do some alt printing directly from the negatives, which makes more sense. I have a Goertz Gold Dot dagor 9.5 inch lens that would work in hyperfocal box camera of some sort. That would be light weight enough to carry at times on my 4-5 mile hikes that I take for my woodland photography. I think I can tape sheets together using black electrical tape on the back side, and make spools to hold the film so it can be advanced through knobs sticking out on the bottom. Not planning on stupid film holders which are too heavy and expensive.
Even simpler would be a 3 shot pinhole camera in the shape of an equilateral triangle, with a sheet on each side, and a pinhole in every corner. This would be very easy to build and extremely light weight. I can use my other camera while waiting for those hour long exposures.
I'm not saying or I should say "hinting" it's the Metol, but I sure would be looking in that direction for sure. In the case of Alan's newly made D23 I'm sure the only other ingredient, Sodium Sulfite, would be good, but Metol does and will go bad. I have Metol that is as old as the hills and it's still working fine, but it was all made by Kodak. The chemicals we get from China, India or who knows where now might be contaminated or who knows what.Unlikely that the film has gone bad. Could be your Metol as others have suspected. Metol purity can be tested using the procedure described here:
Oxidized metol?
I have bought some metol, and it is not a white powder, like I have seen, but a dark gray, with some clumping. Is the metol oxidized and unusable for use in makig film developer?www.photrio.com
Andy,I also have some lab grade Metol from 1995, that a chemist gave me. It's light grey coloured, but still works. Perhaps its purity is the issue...But what do I know? I failed grade 11 chem.
Yup. The Copper Sulphate I got from Amazon, sucks. Too many contaminates in it. Ordered lab grade, and all is well again.Andy,
I passed my high school chemistry, but by just a hair. I just think that some of these chemicals we get off eBay and other places might not be as pure as what we think. Some might contain higher levels of copper, iron, zinc or whatever, than what we used to get from our Kodak supplier or other reliable sources. I don't know where or what purity Alan's chemicals have so won't comment any further until we hear back from him.
Case closed Andy! It's a crap shoot for sure. Sad part is it might just be a crap shoot on the best negative or print you have ever made in your life. Whoops, toooooo late! Like I said, we don't know Alan's story, but bad film sounds strange to me. Time to go clean the drive and brush the truck off. Later gators!Yup. The Copper Sulphate I got from Amazon, sucks. Too many contaminates in it. Ordered lab grade, and all is well again.
Thanks for the replies, but the film is clearly bad. I didn't give all the details, but dmax testing that I did with both developers showed it around 1.8, not the well over 3.0 expected. My metol is Kodak brand, bought about 40 years ago. D23 is the most reliable developer in the world. Yesterday, I developed another roll of 35mm film using MC-glycerol and it came out perfectly.Case closed Andy! It's a crap shoot for sure. Sad part is it might just be a crap shoot on the best negative or print you have ever made in your life. Whoops, toooooo late! Like I said, we don't know Alan's story, but bad film sounds strange to me. Time to go clean the drive and brush the truck off. Later gators!
...But what do I know? I failed grade 11 chem.
Uh, leading up to you making things up to suit your narrative? Two people agree? Yes, opinions matter in most things, but in science, it's the facts that count.Kino and I are on the same page with this one. You made a new batch of D23 and you had the same problem with that.Your new special developer MC-glycol. Sounds like both developers depend on Metol for their main and only developing agent. What am I leading up to here???
Equating me with AI is an incredible insult. AI is almost always wrong on everything, in case you haven't noticed. I always use it sarcastically, unlike many others. I always appreciate input. In this case, I have many facts that I have not shared that lead me to my conclusions. Do you think AI has no input? Why are people paying their high power bills to help fund AI to sort through all the information and misinformation on the internet, including sources like Photrio?Hey, Alan. Just trying to offer possible alternative reasons you might not have success.
I will remember in the future that you only post to talk outward, and that you and AI need no input.
Thanks!
it may be Alan's box of film.
Or some dumdum might open the box…If I could, I'd love to try a sheet of Alan's film, just to see for myself...But it would probably get CT scanned at the border rendering it useless.
I have some 35mm tmx, 30 years old that gives low contrast now with no fog. It's still usable with more development. My Xray also failed in this way. Now a waste of time in any developer.Film doesn't deteriorate by giving low dmax..
MyFog rises,that's about it. As a result, effective speed appears to drop because the image wise exposure struggles to rise above the fog.
It is in the case of my xray film.A thin image with no fog is not a sign of expired film.
My same developer develops Kentmere 100, ortho litho film, and enlarging paper just fine, although weak with print papers. So my developer is selctive with films? I doubt that.It's a sign of underdevelopment and/or underexposure.
I have stated the fact that my specific xray film has failed and explained how.Also, x-ray film doesn't expire particularly rapidly.
I agree.Sorry, I doubt the AI output.
Not in this case.This is an area where LLM's just don't perform well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?