Has anybody here ever successfully exposed and developed 60+ year old Tri-X pack film?

[grainyvision]

No idea on Tri-X, but I've developed Plus-X in 120 that's expired in the 60s with good results at box speed or just slightly over exposed. Film came out with some fog, but not too bad. However, I believe this film was either kept frozen or at least cold since purchase, so likely not the case for your stuff. Processed in D-76 stock for iirc something like 8m: https://i.imgur.com/6t4vJRg.jpg

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Fresh sheet film is hard enough to come by in 3x4 -- there's probably only Fomapan 100, no other choices .

You have the annual Ilford programme (it just has been) and Fotoimpex/Adox might also be able to supply you with their CHS100 II in 3x4"

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I tried some ancient high-speed pack film—maybe it was Super Panchro-Press type B—and as I recall, I rated it at half the speed and developed normally in something relatively standard. It was heavily fogged, but there were images on the film

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here’s the ancient thread where I posted about my ancient pack film experiments—

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...eriments-in-film-archaeology.1086/#post-14923

 

[Zathras]

You have the annual Ilford programme (it just has been) and Fotoimpex/Adox might also be able to supply you with their CHS100 II in 3x4"

I just ordered some 3x4” from Fotoimpex. It should arrive soon, provided the US Postal Service doesn’t lose it. I ordered some 3x4 Shanghai GP3 and the Post Office lost that. Fortunately, the seller is sending me a replacement, so I’ll have two films to try out.

I wanted to order Ilford FP4+ and HP5+, but the 3x4” film is twice as expensive as the same film in 4x5. I probably will order HP5+ in the 100 sheet box in the future and cut some of it down to size, if I need to use HP5+ in the 3x4” Graflex.

 

[Vaughn]

I can't comment on 60-year-old Tri-X, but 50-year-old GAF (Ansco) Versapan film packs proved to be amazingly viable:

I exposed some expired GAF pack film, but I have forgotten how expired it was since this was about 40 years ago -- it might have been 10 years out-of-date, give or take another 5. I got one of my favorite early redwood images using it, but I treated it the same as whatever else I was using at the time (Royal Pan, Plus-X, Super XX).

 

[Bill Burk]

I have a paper cutter that would work for film...,

NextDoor app says the mountain lion was on my street last night. I don’t think EI 2 is going to be good for pictures of that cat.

 

[nosmok]

I've had good luck with Tri-X pack film from 1960 on. I use Caffenol CH or CH-RS and it works pretty well. Handling and scanning of the stuff is a pain though, compared to full thickness 4x5. But you make it up by not having to load it first.

 

[summicron1]

I did once -- pain in the butt--all that paper and crap in the pack along with the film, which was thin and hard to handle. Film had been frozen but still had a pretty hefty base fog -- I had others but got rid of them (to a museum) because they were more trouble than the results were worth.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I did once -- pain in the butt--all that paper and crap in the pack along with the film, which was thin and hard to handle.

This was my feeling as well. At least it wasn’t wet like the discard from Polaroid peel-apart film. I wonder if before the anti-litter campaigns of the 1970s, people just tossed all that stuff on the ground, or maybe they just let it accumulate in the ample pockets of their trench coats.

 

[removed account4]

Hello everybody,

I just received an extremely clean 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 RB Series D Graflex. Included with the camera was a film pack adapter and ten 3x4 Kodak film packs. Seven Tri-X packs, two Plus-X packs and one Super-XX pack all expired in 1956 or 1957. I'm planning to play with the film to see what happens, but I'm curious if anybody ever did this and got usable negs. I was thinking of developing the film in DK-50, since it's a recommended developer in the data sheet that came with the film. I figured I'd go with with DK-50 since it already contains a restrainer and can produce a good contrast range that I thought might be helpful with old film. I'll start with the recommended and time and film speed and bracket like hell. I don't know if I'll get anything or not, but I thought it would be fun to try. I'm not expecting any miracles here but I thought I'd see if anyone has gone down this road before, and if so, what were your experiences like?

hi zathras
the legendary rule of thumb for well expired film is add 1 stop of light for every 10 years it is expired, Im not sure if that is helpful or not .. and regarding development... my go-to developers for expired film ( I shoot things that are 20-30years old even older at times. .. is ambinent/room temperature dektol or ansco 130. 1:5 for 5 minutes. you could always to a few test exposures by making the equivalent of a test strip with a dark slide over part of the lens (don't forget to dark slide your film pack when you wind the camera to assure you don't exposure your film when re-working the shutter ) and then develop the test strip... I typically say dektol or ansco 130 because they have a lot of umph and I've never really had issue with fog with them. they say newspaper 'togs used to "stand develop" sheets of film full strength dektol for 3 mins so that is an option too if all else fails
have fun with your new toy, I have a series d (4x5 rb ) and its a magical box, im sure yours is magic too.

 

[Bill Burk]

For Super-XX expired 1952 I used Dektol 1:1 at 68 and developed by inspection. I snatched “a little late” maybe it was two minutes. The fog is high 0.90. The contrast is still low but my images, exposed at EI 3, appear above the fog. The densest step is 1.20, I will try to print on grade 4 but think I am in for a low contrast print.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It depends how it was stored. I have 4x5 Kodak HIE expired in '67 that was kept frozen. I develop it as I normally did when this stuff was fresh (pyrocat-hd), although at an EI of 12 (with #25 filter). Back in the day, I shot it at EI 100 with same filter. Measured B+F equates to about a third stop more density added. The stuff prints beautifully. I hope to see your results here!

 

[summicron1]

This was my feeling as well. At least it wasn’t wet like the discard from Polaroid peel-apart film. I wonder if before the anti-litter campaigns of the 1970s, people just tossed all that stuff on the ground, or maybe they just let it accumulate in the ample pockets of their trench coats.

the paper tabs that you pull when you take a shot and change film weren't a problem -- I just put those in my pocket.

But inside the damn thing while I was taking the film out in the dark? Paper interleaves between each frame, the paper that was attached to the film so it would pull, the metal frames I had to pull apart ... ended up with a sea of paper on the darkroom floor. Now I stick to grafmatic backs and regular film holders.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

the paper tabs that you pull when you take a shot and change film weren't a problem -- I just put those in my pocket.

But inside the damn thing while I was taking the film out in the dark? Paper interleaves between each frame, the paper that was attached to the film so it would pull, the metal frames I had to pull apart ... ended up with a sea of paper on the darkroom floor. Now I stick to grafmatic backs and regular film holders.

Yes, the whole thing was a mess. I didn’t care for it either. 120 has a paper backing, but at least it stays in one roll. I also have Grafmatics, Kinematics, and traditional filmholders.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Reminds me, I need to get a couple Grafmatics. Maybe Christmas present to myself, if Congress will ever cough up that second Economic Impact payment...

 

[138S]

I figured I'd go with with DK-50 since it already contains a restrainer

Usually HC-110 is recommended for that kind of job because it's a low fog developer. D-19 also may be quite suitable.

You may find interesting next tutorial: https://foundfilm.livejournal.com/16982.html

 

[Zathras]

Usually HC-110 is recommended for that kind of job because it's a low fog developer. D-19 also may be quite suitable.

You may find interesting next tutorial: https://foundfilm.livejournal.com/16982.html

Thanks, it looks like lower processing temps are a good idea too. I'm starting to come around to the idea using HC-110 as the developer.
I'm considering the D-19 too. I'll make sure that I have the benzotriazole on hand as well. I do have quite a few of these packs to play with,
so maybe I'll get lucky. If I get any results that I like, I'll post them in this thread.

 

[138S]

Thanks, it looks like lower processing temps are a good idea too.

A low temperature may be suitable when emulsion separates from base, but it may require very long development times, a gentle agitation and handling when emulsion is wet can be necessary.

Benzotriazole lowers fog, but it also may eliminate shadow detail, so it may be important to find the right dose. Of course Benzotriazole can be a nice tool for this job, but some prefer just using a low fog developer like HC-110.

Of course all depends on the particular film and on how it was stored that long time, lower temperature and (if not seled) humidity could make a great difference.

One also may make a calibration, by making a contact copy with an Stouffer T2115 wedge like explained in Beyond The Zone System book, this enlights a lot the film behaviour.

 

[Zathras]

A low temperature may be suitable when emulsion separates from base, but it may require very long development times, a gentle agitation and handling when emulsion is wet can be necessary.

Benzotriazole lowers fog, but it also may eliminate shadow detail, so it may be important to find the right dose. Of course Benzotriazole can be a nice tool for this job, but some prefer just using a low fog developer like HC-110.

Of course all depends on the particular film and on how it was stored that long time, lower temperature and (if not seled) humidity could make a great difference.

One also may make a calibration, by making a contact copy with an Stouffer T2115 wedge like explained in Beyond The Zone System book, this enlights a lot the film behaviour.

@138S Thanks for the information. Since I can do my own BTZS testing, I'll give that a try after I see how badly this film is fogged..
Fortunately, all the film packs are still sealed. I opened one box and its sealed envelope to load into the film pack adapter and
noticed that the sealed pouch that Kodak used is a lot more substantial than what is used today., so humidity is most likely not
a problem. I don't know how the film was stored, but I don't think it was abused. I do have a lot to play with, so hopefully I'll get
some usable results. I told the woman who sold the camera to me that I'd send her a print if the film worked. She was originally
going to use the camera herself, but she had to sell it due to unforeseen circumstances.

 

[138S]

Thanks for the information @138S. Since I can do my own BTZS testing,

Please let me tell a trick... I don't know if you use arbitrary exposure units... we may make the necessary calculations to have real H Lux·second units to get the ISO rating...

We may measure our Lux·second exposure easily by measuring light power with a cheap ($10) lux meter, then we make the exposure with the (digital) exposure timer in the enlarger to nail a second... later we can compare with the TMX datasheet graph that has ISO 100, by overlapping the curves you have a good estimation of the real ISO.



0.0H is 1 lux·second (10), the bar over the number says that is a negative number, 2.0 with the bar over it means 10-2.0, this is near 0.01 Lux·second...

 

[Bill Burk]

Yes I am including step wedge in my tests. I think the reason for cold temperature is to keep development time measurable. I might get away with normal temperatures because I can develop by inspection with my infrared viewer.

 

[138S]

I think the reason for cold temperature is to keep development time measurable.

Bill, for sure lower temp can be used if developer is very strong and too fast... but for sure extra low temperature (beyond what would be suitable to have a right development time) is also strongly recommended when emulsion falls from film or plate.

 

[Donald Qualls]

One other effect lowering temperature may have is to alter the relative effects of different developing agents. For instance, hydroquinone becomes virtually inactive below about 60F, effectively converting a two-agent developer like D-76 into a single-agent developer (in this case, similar to D-23). This may have a disproportionate effect on fog, because different developing agents produce more or less fog. Metol and more so phenidone are generally low fog, but they aren't usually used alone because they're too slow and low contrast -- but hydroquinone, often used with one or the other, is a high fog developing agent as well as producing higher contrast.

Now, whether ascorbate (generally a replacement for hydroquinone) has the same properties in terms of losing activity abruptly at a particular temperature, having high general fog, or being a higher contrast developing agent) is the question if you're using Xtol or other ascorbate developer. Contrast I think is a given -- else why would ascorbate replace hydroquinone in developers? Fog and activity curve with temperature, I don't know for certain -- but this is worth looking into before trying cold development with an Xtol-like developer.

 

[removed account4]

I forgot to add in my previous post, that I have developed 5o year old royal pan ( iso 1250? ) as I described,
I also after half a box started split processing it 1/2 the time in ansco130 ( or maybe it was dektol ) 1:8 for 5 mins and 1/2 the time in caffenol c with a shot of the same stock developer I used in the first part for the 2nd half for 5 mins, film came out great ... the dektol ( or a130 ) gives the contrast and the coffee gives the mid tones )
developing by inspection would be a good idea .. you will need a very dark green filter
http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/devinsp.html