I received a query from a subscriber concerning how to process age-fogged films. One need not have to deal with printing through this morass of density, Instead, David Lyga (in his never-ending 'experimentation voyage') has truly saved the day. My methods are decidedly unorthodox, but they do work. You are going to have to learn differently if you want to follow this, as my methods avoid wastage, and my sense of political correctness as to what 'must' be done, is decidedly radical. Read, heed, and you will no further need. - David Lyga
OK, try this, as my method is confusing (even to me) and does change when it seems to get better by changing. For some damn reason the combination of both sodium bicarbonate (henceforth, SB) and Benzotriazole (henceforth, BZ) is synergistic. It really works. To this I now add some serious hydroquinone (Henceforth, HQ) because the one thing that you want with age-fogged materials is contrast.
First, make two solutions and keep them separate. ONLY the HQ solution needs to be kept airtight. Do this (and when I state milliliters (mL) use that, and when I state grams (g) use that. To mix solutions, I use a PET plastic capped bottle and shake vigorously, even for developers. Always.
First, the restrainer solution (henceforth, RS). Take 3.5 g BZ and 30 mL of SB (baking soda). Mix those thoroughly in almost 1000 mL of water, until it becomes a full liter of solution. That is your RS and it does not have to be kept airtight.
Second, make a HQ solution: take 40 mL sodium sulfite, anhy plus 20 mL HQ plus 20 mL sodium carbonate, mono (washing soda) and mix thoroughly in almost 1000 mL of water to make a full liter of solution. This is your HQ solution which MUST be kept completely AIRTIGHT.
Now, what I do is use diluted Dektol as my primary film developer, diluted 1 + 4 (henceforth, 'dev'). So, if you wish to experiment, use clip tests (because you are a damn fool if you use full rolls). Expose about a foot (eight frames) of 35mm film at, say, EI 100 for 1990 Tri-X (of course I do not know how it was stored). Now, I use plastic film cans to process only about one single frame in 10 mL of working solution, so follow me: ALL in mL here: (NOTE: Please understand that even if the film cans are black, the newer ones are not fully light-tight, so I recommend that you do not 'add to the fog' by using them in room light. Process in total darkness. Have the stop and fix ready to reach in the dark. Waste not. All below add up to 10 mL for processing about one frame. Prorate for larger quantities.
This is for moderately fogged film. Here is the formula: 2 dev plus 1 HQ plus 0.5 RS plus 6.5 water
For HEAVILY fogged film, use this: 3 dev plus 3 HQ plus 2 RS plus 2 water. (The extra HQ and RS work to add contrast.)
Other combinations are as follows: (dev / HQ / RS / Water): no fog Tri-X = 3 + 0 + 0 + 7 // light fog: 2.5 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 6.75 // 'impossible fog', especially very bad TMAX 400: 3 + 4 + 3 + 0. This will cure anything but requires about EI 25 or thereabouts.
I work with 80 Fahr temp and the timing is from 6 to 8 minutes. Since 10 mL fills the canister only about halfway, I seal the canister and roll it continuously on its side, back and forth under water, for the full development time in a tempered water bath. (Make sure to press the film against the inner side of the canister so it will be well drenched.) I find the 80 Fahr about ambient, so you probably will not have to do anything to raise or lower the temp, but beware, your hands will tend to increase the temp. A degree or two either way is no disaster.
This is how I work, without wastage, to determine exposure and timing for fogged films. - David Lyga
Does this formulary of yours worked with film shot long ago and not developed too?
Probably not, since the decay effects are different. If you deal with unused materials, you fight with desensitization, reduction of contrast and some base exposure through old age. The latter is what people report as "age fog".
If that material was also exposed a long time ago, you have the same decay effects, but do no longer have the option of "just overexpose by a few stops". You fight with a weakened latent image on the same film as an age exposed emulsion. People have reported some success with that, but don't expect great quality, even if you go hybrid.
I thought because of latent image loss, the more I need to have the fog reduced by benzo + sodium bicarbonate. Or I could have under develop it since the fog lurks in the shadow. This Hydroquinone intrigues me as it enhance its contrast. What a marvellous idea. Also David uses Dektol rather than HC110 that has natural fog suppressing ability.
My experience with old films, found in cameras and partially exposed is as follows:
- Desensitization does not matter. For example, if I have half a film exposed 40 years ago, and I finish the film, measuring at the nominal speed of the film, I will probably get an image from the first half, but there may be nothing from the second. Usually the latent image is preserved to a large extent and the sensitization has already done its job. To support my statements, look at post #8 of this topic - in the photo with the example before and after applying aggressive suppression, we see clear corner markings. They are the age of the film itself, being exposed at nominal speed, not 5-7 stops overexposure.
- Age fog. Some films age well, others not so much. If possible, it is good to do a test - it does not need to be cleaned completely, just enough to be able to see through the fog and get a clear image. Often no action is needed - simply choosing a developer with a low fog value.
You will not save this with a magic developer. You will develop whatever you can get out of it, and then see, whether you can print the negs in a dark room, or whether you need hybrid magic to at least salvage some of the image matter.
Re HQ and contrast boost: yes, it does sound tempting to use a speed losing (=fog restricting) but contrast enhancing developer, but do not overestimate the latent image left after decades of storage. Such a high contrast developer may still not be able to develop the remaining latent image. At the same time HQ speed loss is difficult to quantify, and an MQ/PQ combo with carefully dosed restrainer may be more controllable. Once you have fog under control, you can aim for gamma max development, i.e. develop whatever is still left developable. For this Dektol may indeed be better suited than HC-110.
Be prepared for surprises, and if you can do some tests with short clips before committing the full roll, likelihood of at least partial success will be much higher.
I don't know. I am not a trail blazer and can't do any high magic. Just threading the path of those that has gone before. Gleaning on their experiments and results is best I can do. I will do test clips when i have the necessary chemicals and time are afforded to me at the same time.
This Hydroquinone intrigues me as it enhance its contrast.
If you don't want to blaze trails, then how about restricting yourself to fewer restrainers and try to get a handle on them. Skip the AF-2000 and its lookalikes, since I have never seen them in B&W works. The dinitrate is even considered an explosive - good luck obtaining it, and probably not even worth the effort. If bromide, iodide, Benzotriazole and PMT don't cut it, then it is almost a given, that neither of these other restrainers will return your aged treasures to their previous glory.
Try to learn as much as possible from David Lyga's postings, he is a very prolific, talented and curious experimenter on a very tight budget.
It doesn't really enhance contrast. It makes the developer a bit more excitable - along with the other ingredients he put in with it. The benzo slows down the developer overall. At the rate he advises, it would almost stop it. Adding hydroquinione with all that benzo is a bit like (but not the same as) turning the dektol into a diluted lith developer. It would not exhibit the infectious development lith developer does but would emphasize the development of the densest parts of the negative/print far in advance of where the fog would appear.
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?