Help ID this film please

Dan Quan · Feb 7, 2015

anfenglin said:
That's quite a bold claim, "guaranteed pictures that satisfy or a new roll free"! Also, if the pictures don't satisfy, why would you want a new roll of the stuff you were dissatisfied with in the first place? Marketing, huh?

Yeah, even so, I wish I had the carton just in case I screw it up.

jadphoto · Feb 7, 2015

If you think that there are some "important" images, family history etc., I'd suggest a clip test. Clip a short length of film off one end of the roll and process it in whatever you're most familiar with.

You'll sacrifice a frame or two, but you'll salvage most of the roll.

JD

Dan Quan · Feb 7, 2015

jadphoto said:
If you think that there are some "important" images, family history etc., I'd suggest a clip test. Clip a short length of film off one end of the roll and process it in whatever you're most familiar with.

You'll sacrifice a frame or two, but you'll salvage most of the roll.

JD

I was just kidding, I am confident this will go ok.

I really do not want to risk losing a great image with a clip test. I would rather gamble on getting all acceptably scannable images than losing the one really great image to a slice.

anfenglin · Feb 8, 2015

Dan Quan said:
Yeah, even so, I wish I had the carton just in case I screw it up.

That would be something, you walking in a drug store with the box of film and your pictures and demanding a new roll of this exact film. Tell me when you plan on doing so, I'll book a flight, I want to see this!

Regular Rod · Feb 8, 2015

If it was mine I'd use a compensating developer that needs no different time or temperature to suit different films. If you don't have 510-PYRO, or OBSIDIAN AQUA, or diXactol, to hand then you should use Caffenol as suggested.

RR

Dan Quan · Feb 8, 2015

anfenglin said:
That would be something, you walking in a drug store with the box of film and your pictures and demanding a new roll of this exact film. Tell me when you plan on doing so, I'll book a flight, I want to see this!

I'd make a vid of it, that would be hi-larious!

Regular Rod said:
If it was mine I'd use a compensating developer that needs no different time or temperature to suit different films. If you don't have 510-PYRO, or OBSIDIAN AQUA, or diXactol, to hand then you should use Caffenol as suggested.

RR

I'll consider that and research it a bit to understand the possible gains.

Denverdad · Feb 12, 2015

Dan Quan said:
I really do not want to risk losing a great image with a clip test. I would rather gamble on getting all acceptably scannable images than losing the one really great image to a slice.

I've had good luck performing a test based on the one described here (and also here) for determining development times with found film. With this method you really only need to cut a narrow strip (say, 1 cm wide or so) from the end of the roll, which makes it unlikely that you will intrude into an image frame. I have to say unlikely rather than certain because I have had a couple cases where an image ended up closer than it should have been to the end of the roll, probably due to the original owner not loading the film correctly. But otherwise it is pretty safe.

For a variety of reasons, my preference is to cut the strip from the leading (taped) end of the roll. If you do the same, note that the strip needs to extend beyond where the tape is (or was) since development comes out different on the film where the tape was located. Another tip for reducing the chances of interfering with an image is that if you develop with stainless reels and like to attach the end of the roll to the little clip, then you should probably choose the un-cut end of the roll to go in first. Alternatively, if you know the roll was only partially exposed to begin with, then definitely the tail end should go in first.

nwilkins · Feb 15, 2015

maybe other people have already mentioned this but the safest bet would be to go with a developer like Diafine, would it not? The development time is essentially the same for all films so it won't matter what the speed was.

removed account4 · Feb 15, 2015

Dan Quan said:
I'd make a vid of it, that would be hi-larious!

I'll consider that and research it a bit to understand the possible gains.

so dan

what did you end up doing, and how did it work ?

we ALL want to know

john

Dan Quan · Feb 16, 2015

jnanian said:
so dan

what did you end up doing, and how did it work ?

we ALL want to know

john

I have not processed it yet, it's been a busy week. I have been working to get my MF kit up and working and I need to order some ANR glass before I can scan any useable negs.

Sorry to keep y'all waiting, I shall endeavor to be more considerate.

removed account4 · Feb 16, 2015

Dan Quan said:
I have not processed it yet, it's been a busy week. I have been working to get my MF kit up and working and I need to order some ANR glass before I can scan any useable negs.

Sorry to keep y'all waiting, I shall endeavor to be more considerate.

not worried
i thought you had processed the film already and i missed it !

don't forget to have fun!

Denverdad · Feb 16, 2015

nwilkins said:
maybe other people have already mentioned this but the safest bet would be to go with a developer like Diafine, would it not? The development time is essentially the same for all films so it won't matter what the speed was.

Yep, Diafine has certainly been suggested too. The whole develop-to-completion aspect and the convenience of not having to worry much about the time, makes Diafine seem particularly attractive for this situation. However, the main question is fog. Quite a few (though not all) anecdotal reports suggest huge fog levels with old films souped in Diafine. From my own experience (based on fresh films only), I have come to think of Diafine as a tradeoff with convenience, safety factor, and perhaps higher film speed on the one hand, but lackluster tonal characteristics (too low contrast?) and maybe courser grain structure, on the other. Since old film seems to have such a tendency towards high fog, low contrast and excessive grain to begin with, I have been a little leery of risking Diafine on such films.

Of course you realize this is just hearsay on my part since I've never actually tried it on old film myself. So take that for what its worth!

Jeff

mike c · Feb 16, 2015

Looks like the film that we used in high school (1964-68) . It was ordered from Freestly, I think the manufacture was either Prunz, or an English film maybe Ilford, can not remember. It was a very inexpensive film, just right for young photogs. Definitely remember the wrapper and think ASA of about 100 or Din equivalent.

Mike

Help ID this film please

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency