Fun with old film

[phil0]

I've managed to score some Plus X and Technical Pan. Both 35 and 120.
I used Plus X almost exclusively in the old days and had some fun with Tech Pan. I'm about through my first roll of Tech Pan and I'll report back.

 

[darkosaric]

Just be careful with Tech Pan and contrast - it goes high if you are not using special developers, or special methods.

 

[David Lyga]

You CAN use normal developers with Tech Pan but, as darkosaric says, you have to be careful. As a rule of thumb, I have found the development times of about two thirds the time used for Pan F+, or about one third the time used for Tri-X will give you a printable contrast with Tech Pan (rated about the same as Pan F+, EI 25)

Instead of truncating development time, you might, instead, opt to dilute developer further. Make tests with an inch of exposed film to determine this. - David Lyga

 

[JW PHOTO]

I just reworked a 9x12 Zeiss Ikon Maximar 207/7 and had no film on hand to try it out, but remembered two 12exp film packs of Tri-X that had been in the extremely hot and extremely cold garage loft for more than 10 yrs. The the boxes say to develop before 1958. I thought to myself, what the heck do I have to lose except a little film developer and I had a whole gallon of DK-50 just sitting there. I actually got printable images off the first pack. It does look like I almost have to rate it at ISO 25-50 and there's a bit of fog. Can't wait to get the good film,but might just run the other pack through the came too. I'm going away for the week, but if I have time I'll scan a couple of negs just to show here. John W

 

[David Lyga]

I believe that, JW, as I bought a couple of 100 ft rolls of Tri-X at a camera show about a dozen years ago and the expiration date is also 1958. I do not know how it was stored, but I assure you it could not have been ideal storage for decades upon decades. I still have it. To this day, the speed is about '25' and the fog level is surprisingly moderate. Yes, decent images CAN be made with this film.

This forces me to continue with the promise that if Tri-X can withstand such 'abuse', then I assure you, and others, that slower films will do even better. Long live film. - David Lyga

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I've managed to score some Plus X and Technical Pan. Both 35 and 120.
I used Plus X almost exclusively in the old days and had some fun with Tech Pan. I'm about through my first roll of Tech Pan and I'll report back.

How old is it?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The best fun with old film is seeing how many rolls hit the waste basket on the first try.

 

[David Lyga]

The best fun with old film is seeing how many rolls hit the waste basket on the first try.

,

Delightfully, Gerard, my wastebasket does not see many.

I do not simply 'try a roll' to see what happens. Instead, I cut off an unexposed inch or two, put that bit into the camera, then, based upon what I think should be the speed, expose. I then develop it according to what I think should be the development time. (Again, these factors are based upon much previous, tiresome experience that is now finally paying off.)

This first result is carefully modified to coalesce with factors such as age-fog (add restrainer next try), exposure accuracy and development time. My 'subject' is a bookcase that conveniently has highlights, shadows, and mid-tones. My light source is consistent: two ceiling tungsten lights. This construct achieves accurate and meaningful parameters, allowing intelligent judgments to manifest. And, you end up with (usually) 90% of the roll remaining and 'now known', as far as exposure and development time.

It is easy to say 'throw the old rolls away' and let that be that. However, not all of us consider $5 a roll to be so very expendable. I am not singling you out, Gerald, but, rather, making a point here that sometimes frugality really does justice to the realities that we must face in life. Let's make that life a bit more manageable. - David Lyga

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It is easy to say 'throw the old rolls away' and let that be that. However, not all of us consider $5 a roll to be so very expendable. I am not singling you out, Gerald, but, rather, making a point here that sometimes frugality really does justice to the realities that we must face in life. Let's make that life a bit more manageable. - David Lyga

There is old and there is OLD film. I took the OP as meaning the latter. But my post was half in jest. I appreciate frugality but some film is just not worth the effort.