Kodak Safety film 5063: an unexpected gift ;-)

Gimenosaiz · Sep 29, 2016

Hello!

I purchased a Lloyd bulk film loader in USA. It came with a roll inside. I didn't know wich film it was but I had a clue ... there was a fact-sheet of Tri-X Pan inside the box.
So I shot ten photos at ISO 400 and developed the roll with rodinal 1+100

It is Kodak Safety film 5063 aka KODAK TRI-X Pan Film.
I've found this table in the web:
http://www.taphilo.com/Photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml

And this one in the web "archive":
https://web.archive.org/web/20150919064145/http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq0034.shtml

It seems that there are more than 30 meters left ... it weights more or less the same than the loader I have with 30meter of HP5+
I shot some pics and developed the roll with rodinal 1+100:

1.

2.

3.

What do you think?
Should I give it a second chance with a more agressive soup?
Best regards
Antonio

Wallendo · Sep 29, 2016

Try shooting it at ISO 50 or 100.
I found a similar roll on a used bulk loader and had fun figuring it out. I optimized my process right as the roll ran out.

LAG · Sep 29, 2016

Gimenosaiz said:
Hello!

What do you think?
Should I give it a second chance with a more agressive soup?

Excuse me Gimenosaiz

You should give the film not only a second chance, but additional chances as well ... enjoy every single mm of that gift! If I were you, I would treat it differently, right, but not necessarily with an agressive developer.

Michael Guzzi · Sep 29, 2016

I have bought an alden 74 with the same stuff inside. Mine has to be at EI 25 for good shadow detail. I use HC-110, it gives me surprisingly low fog, though the grain is huge.

darkroommike · Sep 29, 2016

5063 is old emulsion Tri-X, your negatives are flat but not really underexposed, try developing a test for 25% more time, and bracket exposures to find an EI you can live with.

MartinP · Sep 29, 2016

Judging by the difference between the perforations and the film-base it seems to be under-developed and probably under exposed (there are highlights, but that could come from electronic post-processing and a contrast 'balance'). If you have a picture of the negs, without reversal or further processing, then it would be handy.

Craig75 · Sep 29, 2016

I wouldnt be looking at what to do differently at the moment but how to make prints of your really nice shots. You should be able to make some cool prints with those negatives if you play around with them - it would be a crime to your lovely model not too.

After that you can decide what effects you can get from the film with the next load.

Gimenosaiz · Sep 30, 2016

Wallendo said:
Try shooting it at ISO 50 or 100.
I found a similar roll on a used bulk loader and had fun figuring it out. I optimized my process right as the roll ran out.

Hi,
Right, this is something I'l try !!
Thanks!

LAG said:
Excuse me Gimenosaiz

You should give the film not only a second chance, but additional chances as well ... enjoy every single mm of that gift! If I were you, I would treat it differently, right, but not necessarily with an agressive developer.

Hello, LAG!
Of course I'll give it all the chances ! Any suggestion?
Best regards!

Michael Guzzi said:
I have bought an alden 74 with the same stuff inside. Mine has to be at EI 25 for good shadow detail. I use HC-110, it gives me surprisingly low fog, though the grain is huge.

Hi,
I'll try HC-110: 1+31 for 7'30" ...
Thanks!
Cheers!

darkroommike said:
5063 is old emulsion Tri-X, your negatives are flat but not really underexposed, try developing a test for 25% more time, and bracket exposures to find an EI you can live with.

Hi!
I really belive they are flat and underexposed. I think I'll shoot at 100 and develope at 400 with HC-110, what do you think?
Thanks!
Cheers

MartinP said:
Judging by the difference between the perforations and the film-base it seems to be under-developed and probably under exposed (there are highlights, but that could come from electronic post-processing and a contrast 'balance'). If you have a picture of the negs, without reversal or further processing, then it would be handy.

Hi,
I think it is underdeveloped and underexposed, right. I'll try to do some pics of the negs !!
Thanks!
Regards!

Craig75 said:
I wouldnt be looking at what to do differently at the moment but how to make prints of your really nice shots. You should be able to make some cool prints with those negatives if you play around with them - it would be a crime to your lovely model not too.

After that you can decide what effects you can get from the film with the next load.

Hi!
You are right! I'll do it!
Thanks
Cheers

LAG · Sep 30, 2016

Gimenosaiz said:
Hello, LAG!
Of course I'll give it all the chances ! Any suggestion?
Best regards!

Hello Gimenosaiz

Glad to hear that!

I would load +|- 9/12 exps . EI Box Speed (same scene | Bracket) . Cut clips . Pre-wash . Dev: (Clip) | Fine grain developer) . Fix: (Clip = X) | X = (x/2 + x/2) . Double final wash

Best of luck!

Fixcinater · Oct 1, 2016

I too had similar experience recently. I ended up using semi-stand HC110 1:100.

Still a lot of fog so I shoot it at 50 or 100, but it's definitely worth shooting.

Kodak Safety film 5063: an unexpected gift ;-)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency