Every once in a while I manage to snag some expired film / paper, or chemicals, at an estate sale. Recently, I got some boxes of paper that were quite old, the newest being from the 80s, the oldest being a box of 250 sheets of Kodabromide 8.5 X 11 inches, SWFB (remember THAT?), with an expiration date of March 1969. The price that had been written on the box back in the 60s was $14.
I started doing darkroom work when I was 14, in 1964, and religiously used only ONE paper, Kodabromide, F surface, single weight, fiber. That was the standard back then. This recently acquired box of Kodabromide matched this standard precisely. The fog level of this acqired paper is surprisingly low when considered in a relative sense. When fully developed, the ‘coin test’ indicates a low to medium fog level, one that can be readily mitigated, indeed, even removed entirely, with restrainer in the developer and, maybe, a post fix dip in dilute Farmer’s Reducer. Thus doing, it acquires perfection.
But, processing Kodabromide brought back memories that had clearly faded in the intervening half century. As compared with today’s RC papers: 1) Kodabromide requires more development time to achieve full black; 2) while Harman dares to state (and be CORRECT, also) that a 45 second fix time is wholly adequate for their Multigrade Deluxe RC, a full minute for Kodabromide followed by a brief rinse was visually inadequate, because under strong light, the prints would slowly gain some density (NOT ‘dry down’) with long exposure to such bright light. Again, a (this time) room light ‘coin test’ proved this subtle occurence. In fact, I distinctly remember reading Kodak’s admonition to fix such paper for 5 to ten minutes. And, to augment this, the standard fixer used back then, Kodak Fixer Powder with Hardener, was NOT to be diluted for paper. It was to be used at the same strength for both film and paper!; 3) finally, Kodabromide was always optimistic in its grading: a ‘2’ was always closer to a real 1.5 as I remember. Yes, even then, Kodabromide was a bit lower in contrast than was a similar Ilford grade. Agfa had its own verbal grading system, along with the numbers, but Agfa’s grade 3 was indicated by the translated word ‘normal’.
I was brought up to obey, not deviate from the norm, and that inculcated pre-requisite did not stop with my parents’ commands. I ‘obeyed’ the mandate that grade 2 was to be always used unless the negative was really fouled up with either exposure or development. But I kept noticing that my usual prints, although quite good, often were lacking in ‘punch’. So routine was my youthful reticence to deflect from status quo that, although secretly wanting to try, say, Medalist, or grade 3, I ended up scoffing that desire because I was more afraid of getting addicted to something ‘unusual’! I was too tethered to redundancy and reactionary thinking to dare to deviate (or even ‘to think outside of the box’!) Thus, I married Kodabromde, grade 2, glossy, and did not deviate from that 'requirement' until my mid-twenties allowed a bolder and more personalized mindset (and, boy, did it ever, in other life matters as well).
But, the technical data I gave above for Kodabromide was data well remembered with this revisit. I would like to hear if others, older ones, have witnessed such subtle changes in paper over the decades. – David Lyga
I started doing darkroom work when I was 14, in 1964, and religiously used only ONE paper, Kodabromide, F surface, single weight, fiber. That was the standard back then. This recently acquired box of Kodabromide matched this standard precisely. The fog level of this acqired paper is surprisingly low when considered in a relative sense. When fully developed, the ‘coin test’ indicates a low to medium fog level, one that can be readily mitigated, indeed, even removed entirely, with restrainer in the developer and, maybe, a post fix dip in dilute Farmer’s Reducer. Thus doing, it acquires perfection.
But, processing Kodabromide brought back memories that had clearly faded in the intervening half century. As compared with today’s RC papers: 1) Kodabromide requires more development time to achieve full black; 2) while Harman dares to state (and be CORRECT, also) that a 45 second fix time is wholly adequate for their Multigrade Deluxe RC, a full minute for Kodabromide followed by a brief rinse was visually inadequate, because under strong light, the prints would slowly gain some density (NOT ‘dry down’) with long exposure to such bright light. Again, a (this time) room light ‘coin test’ proved this subtle occurence. In fact, I distinctly remember reading Kodak’s admonition to fix such paper for 5 to ten minutes. And, to augment this, the standard fixer used back then, Kodak Fixer Powder with Hardener, was NOT to be diluted for paper. It was to be used at the same strength for both film and paper!; 3) finally, Kodabromide was always optimistic in its grading: a ‘2’ was always closer to a real 1.5 as I remember. Yes, even then, Kodabromide was a bit lower in contrast than was a similar Ilford grade. Agfa had its own verbal grading system, along with the numbers, but Agfa’s grade 3 was indicated by the translated word ‘normal’.
I was brought up to obey, not deviate from the norm, and that inculcated pre-requisite did not stop with my parents’ commands. I ‘obeyed’ the mandate that grade 2 was to be always used unless the negative was really fouled up with either exposure or development. But I kept noticing that my usual prints, although quite good, often were lacking in ‘punch’. So routine was my youthful reticence to deflect from status quo that, although secretly wanting to try, say, Medalist, or grade 3, I ended up scoffing that desire because I was more afraid of getting addicted to something ‘unusual’! I was too tethered to redundancy and reactionary thinking to dare to deviate (or even ‘to think outside of the box’!) Thus, I married Kodabromde, grade 2, glossy, and did not deviate from that 'requirement' until my mid-twenties allowed a bolder and more personalized mindset (and, boy, did it ever, in other life matters as well).
But, the technical data I gave above for Kodabromide was data well remembered with this revisit. I would like to hear if others, older ones, have witnessed such subtle changes in paper over the decades. – David Lyga
Last edited by a moderator:
