Identify Film?

Not sure it can be done but any suggestions may help.

I have found a few rolls of film in a box that were loaded from a bulk roll sometime in the past. They were not identified in any way. The color of the emulsion is a light grey, similar in color to Tri-X, Arista EDU Ultra or Fomapan.

Thinking I could identify the film by markings on the film edge I shot a roll at EI200. Not knowing what film it was I stand developed using Rodinal 1+100 for 1 hour. The film did turn out with some very nice negatives but the film rebates are clear and no markings are evident anywhere that would identify the film.

The film dried extremely flat with no lengthwise curl at all and only a very, very little inward curl across the film.

The negatives seem to indicate that EI200 is a reasonable exposure index but I have no densitometer to measure the negatives. Scanning indicates the exposure may have been a little too much as some negatives did exhibit some pretty high contrast, but I have seen this higher contrast with Rodinal stand development before so am not sure whether it is a result of the exposure time or of the development.

I shoot a lot of different film types and many have been purchased in bulk rolls in the past. This would include TriX, TMax 100 and 400, Eastman Kodak 5222 Double XX, Arista EDU Ultra 100 and 400, Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ and Delta 400. I also have some Kentmere 100 and 400 but have not yet shot any of this in bulk rolls. I believe I have also tried Ultrafine Extreme 400 in bulk rolls as well. However, I buy and use a LOT of different film so there is a chance that it could be something else.

Being unable to identify the film is not the end of the world. I only have about 8 rolls and since it seems to respond well to stand development I can certainly use it. However, it would be nice to know what it is.

If it helps I have attached two examples, one from indoors and one shot outdoors. I hope this does not offend but I did scan the negatives. They were scanned pretty much as is with no manipulation other than to reduce the sizes to make them easier to post.

Thanks for any ideas that you may have. Additionally, if there are other tests I can try I am willing to give them a shot.

 

I wasn't sure the scans would help at all but figured it was worth a try.

I don't think I can rotate my Beseler enlarger to focus on the wall and it is certainly too large for me to manhandle it onto its side. But I will explore that possibility further since it may be possible to remove the table top and enlarge to the floor. Can't remember how the table was assembled but I will look at it.

I did try comparing film color against some other films I have handy. It is darker than Fomapan 400 and lighter than both Ilford HP5+ and Ultrafine Extreme 400. Very close in tone to Kodak Tri-X but I have never, never had a roll of Tri-X that wasn't identified in the film rebate, plus this film dries much flatter than TriX ever does.

I have run into a black and white film in the past that had no markings in the rebate but I can't remember what it was. I'll page through some of my negative files and see if I can find those negatives since that may be my best option.

 

Believe it or not, after having gone through a binder full of old negatives, the only negatives that have no rebate markings are identified as Arista EDU Ultra 400.

Part of what baffles me is how flat these negatives dried. I have used quite a bit of Fomapan 400 and Arista EDU Ultra 400 and do not remember those negatives drying that straight and flat. I wouldn't think that stand development would influence how the negatives dry but perhaps it does.

I will have to go back a little further and try and find some negatives from some Arista EDU Ultra 100 to see if they are missing rebate markings as well. I haven't used AEU 100 in quite a while so that may be what this is.

 

Well, Arista EDU Ultra films are certainly low budget, although prices have certainly increased a bit lately. Though I do enjoy the films it certainly would have been helpful in this case if even occasional edge markings had been made available. Of course if I had simply used some tape and a marker to identify the film it wouldn't have been a mystery.

I wonder whether bulk 100' rolls of Fomapan have any edge markings? I don't have any handy to test right at this moment.

On a similar thought, I have noted in the past that my sheets of 4x5 Arista EDU Ultra films have no identification either once the film is exposed. They only have a single notch to help determine orientation of the sheet but no series of notches, or even edge markings, to identify the film after exposure and/or development. Nothing is safe from cost cutting in the interests of economy.

 

Thanks for that information Pentode. I suspect that this film is probably AEU 100 then as I have a lot of recent experience shooting AEU 400 and it doesn't dry this flat for me. Of course I am likely working with older stock from three or four years ago and the newer film may be different in that regards. The color of the unexposed film is also a bit darker then my current stock of 400, although that may not really mean anything.

Matt, I agree that Arista EDU Ultra film is a pretty good film even if it is a house brand. If eliminating the rebate markings saves money then I can certainly live with that. I just need to be more careful to identify it once it has been loaded into individual film canisters.

 

Thanks for the compliment John. The film was shot at exposure index 200, not 1200, sorry for the confusion. Regardless I was happy with the exposures on most of the roll.

This was another that came from that same roll and was part of the reason I was interested in trying to identify the film. Of course I suspect that old Zeiss Opton Sonnar lens can work magic with just about any film.

The Cat

 

It was a Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 on my Contax IIIa and the aperture was wide open. He was 4 feet away from me give or take an inch or two.

My eyes are bad enough now that I rarely even try to focus at f/1.5 unless I am on a tripod, especially at that distance. I just looked at him, set the lens at 4 feet and took the picture. I would like to say it was skill but I was actually pretty lucky with that one.

 

I feel a bit silly but I couldn't resist. It is the ultimate stereotype but I just came out of the darkroom with a pretty decent 8x10 print of the old cat. I think its a keeper.