Well, there's a famous photographer (Gary Winogrand?) who had several thousand exposed but unprocessed rolls of film in his fridge when he died. To him it was enough to have taken the picture. Actually developing the film and printing the image was superfluous to him.
I think I once read the same thing. I also understand the reasoning. I don't often go more than 3-4 weeks without developing what I shot but, when I do wait to process, the distance from the reason for taking the photo helps me to be more honest (with myself) on whether the image works (or doesn't). When I process quickly, it's not unusual for me to try to force the image into what I had originally conceived. It's the same reason it's a good practice to revisit old negatives/contact sheets. I think we've all had that "how did I miss that the first time" moment.I remember hearing that he would purposefully wait to develop film so that the images were new and fresh for him -- with none of the baggage left over from actually shooting the camera. I probably heard this well over 20 years ago, so don't hold me to it!
They may have been asking for them weekly for years but the chap who promised to develop the films for them just didn't bother.<snip> And these are no just some landscape or catography shots, there are people, kids. How come no-one ever asked for those pictures?
Long story short: hunt for old emulsions got me by half-accident almost 300 rolls of colour negative film from mid-sixties. At once. All exposed, yet not developed. And what a film!
Recap from the flickr 'fossilised film' group http://www.flickr.com/groups/fossilised_film/discuss/72157632280252220/ :
-------
So there was an expired film lot on the 'bay. From the sixties. So, whynot to try out. On the pictures there were some exposed and not developed rolls visible. Whynot again, no problem to develop them.
The package arrived today, all good.
Then came the first shock: it appears that all the films are shot and not developed. So now I have 9kg worth of undeveloped 120 and 135 Agfacolor CN17 from the mid-sixties. Ca 250+ rolls, some not dated, some dated and with location remarks. Lovely.
View attachment 61547
Decided to give a quick 20C/20min C41 shot on some random 120 roll, without the date specified. The backing paper was quite stuck to the film base, not emulsion side. Whew, after some hassle got it onto reel.
The usual dev/blx/fix routine and opening the can after first washing water to check the result. Then the second shock arrived. The film looks like this (well, after removing the remains of the backing paper) :
View attachment 61548
-------
And the result scanned:
View attachment 61549
The set of selected images from first developed rolls on the flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/werra/sets/72157632297160348/
It appears that the films were kept in the basement or some other cold and a bit damp place. 135 metal cassettes are slightly corroded and 120 backing paper is a bit sticky, at times.
But what absolutely puzzles me, and this would be the philosophical reason for posting this in given forum, is how can such a thing happen at all? I do not know, relatively how expensive was colour negative film back then (there are prices like 3.50 on some boxes, in Deutsche Mark obviously) but someone shot years and years on it, without developing the films. Some rolls even have exact date and place written on the cassette or box. And these are no just some landscape or catography shots, there are people, kids. How come no-one ever asked for those pictures?
Holy crap!! I've been searching for this for almost a year!!
I have a few unexposed rolls of agfacolor CN-17 (Negative Ultra K) and I have thus far shot one of the rolls and plan to shoot the rest. I've been searching for the CN-17 soup recipe to make my own because I was told that C-41 wouldn't work/potentially destroy the film... So what made you choose 20°/20minutes?
Did you end up adjusting your final times from that?
Has there been any loss of image since?
Standard C41 at 38C will probably destroy the film, as the original process was run at 20C and almost twice higher temperature could harm the emulsion.
Agfacolor uses the same process as Orwo 5166 colour did, well the latter copied from the former of course. And as I have developed Orwo NC in 20C C41, I figured it could not go that wrong. 20min time is from various sources, notably PE comments on photo.net 10 years ago or so. Then again, some days ago I got carried away and forgot about the film running on Jobo and developed it for 37 minutes. Luckily without any ill effects, just a bit overdeveloped.
I use Tetenal 3-bath minilab chemistry with replenishing.
As long as you are scanning the film, crossprocessing looks fine to me. Trying to wet print could be tricky, have not tried it yet.
What kind of 'image loss' do you mean?
I mean latent image fading, like it looks good now then fades away for some incompatible chemistry reason.
While I'm at it, know if E-6 would work on fomachrome/ORWO chromes? Hehe
Well, latent image is not that latent at all after treatment in the chemistry. It probably will fade for sure, as all films do. But nothing has changed within couple of weeks yet
You will get a bit wicked negative from Orwo UT in the same 20/20 C41.
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?