How's this for 30 y.o. film?

Horatio

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
957
Location
South Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Never mind the light leak and banding (beginner's errors!) TMax 100 (exp. 1991, rated at 100), "taco" developed in Rodinal 1:100, 15 minutes. First LF "portrait" taken with Omega View 45, Fujinon 210mm lens, f8 @ 1/60th. "Scanned" with iPhone 11 and processed in Photoshop. No sharpening applied. I know it's crappy, but I'm excited nonetheless. I'll post the negative image later.

 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,271
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
It's a start! Many spring back cameras more or less require you to hold the film holder against the camera back as you extract the dark slide; that goes double if you have Graflex film holders on a Graphic back (or the other way around, I can never remember which has the rib on the holder and which on the camera back).
 
OP
OP

Horatio

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
957
Location
South Carolina
Format
Multi Format

Thanks Donald, I’ll keep that in mind. I made a second exposure (underexposed) that did not have the light leak. I have an idea of the cause, but can’t confirm it. The band on the right was from overlap of the second negative. The rubber bands I secured them with for taco processing fell off, and each negative stuck to the side of the tank! Think I’ll try trays next time.

The exposures were made in haste, as I tend to do things “spur of the moment.” There was a nice pattern of light from the room’s transom windows that was moving rather fast because of the sun angle, and I really wanted to capture it. I’ll try again this weekend when I can set up the shot more carefully and wait for the light. I’m just happy the film is usable, though I may rate it at ISO 50.
 
Last edited:

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,837
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
That thing, with its maniacal grin, slowly moves its head after midnight and looking to both sides then starts to walk. A pretty good shot all things considered and yet more evidence why we should all buy "old "film

pentaxuser
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,286
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
You got an image, not bad!
It does look rather underexposed. Did you account for the bellows factor? It's pretty significant (I estimate 1-2 stops) at this close distance.
 

Pioneer

Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
3,873
Location
Elko, Nevada
Format
Multi Format
I'm not sure TMAX100 ever really expires. I am regularly using TMX100 120 roll film that says it expired in 1995. I just use normal TMAX developing times for it and the negatives always come out just fine.

They may not always be worth printing but that is not the fault of the film.

Now I just found 25 sheets of Agfa Superpan Press 100 4x5 hiding in the back of a shelf that says it expired in 1952. I'll be trying a couple of sheets out in a few days so that should be fun.
 
OP
OP

Horatio

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
957
Location
South Carolina
Format
Multi Format
koraks said:
You got an image, not bad!
It does look rather underexposed. Did you account for the bellows factor? It's pretty significant (I estimate 1-2 stops) at this close distance.
Click to expand...

I did get an image, and really I just wanted to make sure the film was usable.

In my haste, I did not adjust for the bellows factor. I will next time, though! Upon reflection, I'm sure the light leak is due to poor technique when removing the dark slide. The second exposure had no leak, but it was really underexposed, as I turned the aperture dial the wrong way. Typical rookie stuff, I guess.

 
Last edited:
OP
OP

Horatio

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
957
Location
South Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Andrew O'Neill said:
Kodak films are pretty resilient. I'm still working my way through a box of 4x5 HIE that expired in 1967. I'm stunned at how there is very little base fog.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's good to know. I'll have less trepidation when shopping for my next box.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,673
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

grainyvision

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
695
Location
Denver, Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Attached is some 6x4.5 Kodak Plus-X (125 ASA) expired in 1962, shot at box speed and processed in my custom developer EXG1 (gives rodinal-like grain levels). There is a small amount of base fog, but honestly surprised how well it held up and that box speed processing actually gives good results. I suspect it was kept cold in a fridge, but not frozen since purchased. I got it from an estate sale with a ton of other film in similar condition. I have like 17 more rolls of this to shoot through.

Also good to know that Kodak HIE actually has a chance. I have one roll of that in 35mm with expiration 1967 from the same batch. I was going to assume it was long gone, but maybe I'll actually try shooting it a stop slower than box speed and hope for the best. I also have some really old E-4 process aerochrome but that I assume to actually be long gone, unlike the HIE
 

Attachments

  • _0000022small.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 69

glbeas

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,921
Location
Marietta, Ga. USA
Format
Multi Format
This 48 year old Efke R27 worked quite well at ei 32 and processed in Rodinal. Interesting to note the poor red sensitivity of the film, the flashlight was dark red and the bit holder bright red.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…