Long expired found in camera film development

[Trower]

Found some exposed Kodak Tri-x, that I think is from the 60s in an Ansco Viking. Have had good results developing modern Tri-x in caffenol, but have no clue on how long to develop this long expired film. I thought I might try stand developing it for an hour or so, but happened on this site and thought I'd ask for some advice first!

Thanks for any help,
Nick

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[Brian Schmidt]

Seems that people typically lengthen the development as a function of how many decades expired it is. You would have to do some searching (seems like we recently discussed this?) but I know it is around here somewhere. Maybe look at the thread in the plate camera section where they talk about using century-old glass plates.

Brian

 

[jvo]

welcome to apug....

i'm not a caffenol user, but found this thread on apug that may be of use
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

or here
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

jvo

 

[keenmaster486]

Alternatively you can send it somewhere like Film Rescue International, but they're stupid expensive.

I've sent film like this to Dwane's, or even just my local pro lab in Boise. The results have been exceptional every time, though that can mostly be attributed to luck I think.

 

[peoplemerge]

I'm not a lab but have gotten more usable results with mystery/old/underexposed film souped in Rodinal 1+100, semi-stand develop at room temperature (about 72 degrees in California) for 1hr.

With old film, I have no hard data. Underexposed film, I ran a test on Delta 100 4x5 (may have been HP5 - don't have my notes handy) - 4 stops underexposed and found 1 stop more density with Rodinal stand vs. HC-110 (not really printable but still . Mystery 16mm film possibly intended for C41? Yep, saw enough of a test strip to not bother with the rest.

Unless a lab has that specialty and you want to pay, I'd reckon you can do better stand developing.

 

[darkosaric]

Sometimes I find some old films as well. What I do is short developing in strong solution - to minimize the base fog. For example HC110 in dilution B for 5-7 minutes with strong agitation.

 

[Martin Rickards]

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/31-rolls-of-film-from-a-wwii_soldier.html He had some older film

 

[LAG]

... but have no clue on how long to develop this long expired film.
I thought I might try stand developing it for an hour or so,
but happened on this site and thought I'd ask for some advice first!

Why?
Why?
Why?

 

[Trower]

Well thanks for the greetings and help my friends!

Just gave it a go tonight with rather lackluster results. It was heavily fogged, I just stand developed it for 50 minutes in caffenol, won't do that again with very old film!

I think next time I will try hc100 dilution B darkosaric mentioned.

Might still have a couple frames I can scan and make out what the previous owner had deemed worthy of a picture.

Really enjoying the process, really thankful for your warm welcome and help here at Apug!

-Nick

 

[removed account4]

Why?
Why?
Why?

caffenol is a great developer, would have worked great for this if it wasn't
stand developed and the op put 15-20cc of dektol or print developer
to cut the fog and boost the contrast. probs a 9 min development. 35mins stand in the same brew--
with 1 min agitation starting out and 30s-1min finishing off ..
why caffenol?
its cheap, fun, works like a charm and is probably as good as or better than
a lot of other film developers ...

for long expired film like this,
i'd have used dektol or ansco 130 print developer 1:6 for about 6 mins or 1:5 for 5 mins
fast+strong.

 

[anfenglin]

My thoughts exactly. I use Caffenol for almost anything these days, to be precise Caffenol-C-H (rs).

The good thing is I have KBr which is used to keep fog down, I also use that mixture to develop all kinds of old fils, even 400s.
Works well.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gee the film was 60 years old and never stored properly. Then too stand development encourages development of fog centers. One of the things that stand development does is preferentially develop those areas in the toe of the standard curve. The developer in these areas is relatively fresh. Of course what is in the toe is overall age fog as it is aacross the entire negative. It would be unreasonable to expect good results.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Gee the film was 60 years old and never stored properly. Then too stand development encourages development of fog centers. One of the things that stand development does is preferentially develop those areas in the toe of the standard curve. Of course what is in the toe is overall age fog. It would be unreasonable to expect good results.

Yeah, maybe developing missile tracking film in rat piss using stand development is not the best way. Maybe 'sit' development will work better. Adding thalidomide as a restrainer might help.

 

[trendland]

Well thanks for the greetings and help my friends!

Just gave it a go tonight with rather lackluster results. It was heavily fogged, I just stand developed it for 50 minutes in caffenol, won't do that again with very old film!

I think next time I will try hc100 dilution B darkosaric mentioned.

Might still have a couple frames I can scan and make out what the previous owner had deemed worthy of a picture.

Really enjoying the process, really thankful for your warm welcome and help here at Apug!

-Nick

In next time it would be allways a good idea to cut the film in 2 or better 3 parts
but why not cutting it in 4 parts ?
Because you would have a 2. chance
with your developement. And after this
the 3. chance (with the rest of the whole
film)

Think clever Trover - you can also use a half frame or 1/3 frame to first development because first developemment isn't more often the best.


with regards

 

[LAG]

caffenol is a great developer ...

Excuse me John, although my three "why" were not for you, thanks anyway jnanian for your post. Let me explain the "wondering-why's" better now.

I was wondering why the OP had no idea on how long to develop a long expired film. I was wondering why the OP thought to try a stand development for an hour, or so. And I was wondering why the OP thought to ask here in APUG first (...) And with those questions: I was hoping that somehow Trower could explain the underlying causes for a different (long) treatment, for a different (stand) method, and the most likely causes of asking on the Internet first.

Since the OP didn't reply anything and perhaps at this point that film should be done, I'd be glad to talk about those reasons with you.

why caffenol?
its cheap, fun, works like a charm and is probably as good as or better than
a lot of other film developers ...

for long expired film like this,
i'd have used dektol or ansco 130 print developer 1:6 for about 6 mins or 1:5 for 5 mins
fast+strong.

As for you caffenol option and your numbers, I have no doubt that it could be one option (not for me), but if the reasons for caffenol are fun & cheap, let's say no more!

All the best!

p.s. edited to delete a line above

 

[removed account4]

hi LAG
with caffenol, like most developers developer times are variable. the times posted, even by the companies
that manufacturer the developers and websites that have large charts,
are starting points. its obvious cameras' shutters are not all the same or even accurate, its accurate not
everyone measures chemicals the same and it is obvious they don't agitate the same either.
developing long expired film can be tricky, and it seems a lot of people ask the same or similar questions
( i can't even count how many times i have read questions about developers
times and temperatures for expired film ).
i imagine the OP figured he ( or she ? ) would use stand development because a lot of people think
( wrongly or rightly ) it is a cure-all for all. a lot of people believe
it is the best, the most funnest, and easiest way to process film. usually they ( these people )
ask questions about stand development and get a lot of of cheerleading posts
saying it is a fantastic way of developing film, and then and equal amount of people suggesting
it is good for some situations, usually not many.

regarding caffenol ... i am kind of an outlier with the caffenol developer squad. while i know
i would get great negatives without using a little straight print developer
as an "addition" they usually would have a weird almost pyroesque fog/shimmer to them,
i spent years battling weak/uncontrasty xtol film, and i spent 7 previous years ( maybe more )
experimenting
with ansco 130 processing film every imaginable way, and since at one time i had 6 gallons of
ansco 130 i started experimenting with adding it to my caffenol and it worked both as a preservative
and it fixed my weak-vit c negative fears caffenol c re-animated ... BUT caffenol tends to make foggy
stainy film, something probably not the best for old expired maybe poorly stored
film that is already foggy both dektol and ansco 130 have potassium bromide in them which are
great for fog reduction. they can both be used for film processing
using the 1:dilution for dilution minutes ( like 1: 5 for 5 minutes for example ).
i pretty much only expose and process expired film which i use these developers for ..
not 40 - 60 years expired but still

like with everything YMMV

have fun!

 

[LAG]

... developing long expired film can be tricky, and it seems a lot of people ask the same or similar questions
( i can't even count how many times i have read questions about developers
times and temperatures for expired film ).
i imagine the OP figured he ( or she ? ) would use stand development because a lot of people think
( wrongly or rightly ) it is a cure-all for all. a lot of people believe
it is the best, the most funnest, and easiest way to process film. usually they ( these people )
ask questions about stand development and get a lot of of cheerleading posts
saying it is a fantastic way of developing film, and then and equal amount of people suggesting
it is good for some situations, usually not many.

Thank you for your time with this John, appreciated!

Much of what you say - about dealing with expired material and about stand development - has to do with the desire to play, with the intent to have fun or with no other option but to save money (fun & money both curiously mentioned above), and that as a general rule ... (it is hard to define this situation trying not to offend anyone, sorry) ... as a general rule leads to a corridor (with entrance and exit) in which we not only will not know how and why we have entered there but we also will have all the possibilities to find most of the doors closed in the middle and without the key, which means not having a certain restlessness to know what it means when a sensitive material has an expiration date or what's the method about ... to begin with.

Having said that, regarding caffenol (good to know your thoughts) and expired material, it seems that you have opened enough doors for you to know how to handle both situations your own way.

All the best!

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

HC110b at 64 degrees. An active enough developer at this temperature, and the cooler soup will reduce fog. Not sure why as I'm not a chemist, but have seen comparisons that show less fog at cooler temp. I have done this a few times and had good results.

 

[paul ron]

didnt apug have a FOUND FILM forum section?

 

[removed account4]

Much of what you say - about dealing with expired material and about stand development - has to do with the desire to play, with the intent to have fun or with no other option but to save money (fun & money both curiously mentioned above), and that as a general

maybe for some people found film and stand development has to do with playing around
but i have read plenty of posts and stand development seems like it is life or death, not play , not being thrifty &c
with me .... i bought a bunch of film at one point for a job that was to take a year, and 9/11 happened, and i was film rich
and job poor .. so i taught myself how to use what i had the bst way i could. i also have never had much $$ to spend on fresh materials
so i taught myself. for me at least it had NOTHING to do with playing, having fun, and saving money, it was more about necessity.

 

[LAG]

maybe for some people found film and stand development has to do with playing around
but i have read plenty of posts and stand development seems like it is life or death, not play , not being thrifty &c

John, I do not have so much experience with the Internet (fortunately for me) but from the ones I've had I can assure you that the percentage of people who do not know the true value / origin of the "stand" method is certainly high. You just have to keep reading or going back to read again. As a general rule, the purpose is to use high dilutions (there you have the saving money), because the developer (generally speaking Rodinal is the religion) has to last a lifetime, (and that's cool) and because that way you can "stand everything cooking" while watching TV or twiddling with Twitter (there you have the playing around) ... that's fine with me, to each his own, of course.

... it was more about necessity.

That's it! The History of Photography has clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of resources (...) have arisen as a result of necessity and not of a whim.

All the best!

 

[nworth]

I looked up Tri-X roll film in a 1971 Kodak publication. They recommended 8 minutes in D-76 undiluted or 11 minutes in D-76 (1:1). If you have it, you might add a milliliter of 1 percent bezotriazole solution to the developer and increase development by 10 percent.