Negative stays dark with fixer only process

[YJL]

Hello,

Today I tried to process old rolls of my 5222 but no luck.

I see the strips are overall very dark (sometimes I can see the image through light bulb) but somehow feeling thick. As I was quite confident developing process was fine(also it was my newly made d76), I tried to check my fixer.(rapid fixer)

To test if the fixer is fresh, I put another old negative fragment into the fixer(skipping develop/stop bath), I was expecting it will clear the film so I will see transparent base. But it stayed just "black". I tried to put another fresh parts of 35mm strip also without developing process, same chemical it made the negative complete transparent.

So, I was wondering...

I always thought "fogging" happens when old film stock reacts with developer. Thus even if my old film stock is somehow light-damaged or fogged, fixing only process will clear the negative that was my assumption. Am I wrong??? Is 'fogging' appears no matter what process I do, just stay negative black or grey?? Thus these old strip wouldn't be useful for testing fixer as well?

Could anybody explain about it?

 

[Donald Qualls]

"Fogging" is halide that you haven't intentionally exposed to light (in the form of an image, perhaps) that develops anyway. Radiation and heat can produce "latent image specks" in the halide grains that will make them develop, even if stored in a steel can.

There are various ways to work around this. The classic is to "overexpose" the film by one stop for each decade (i.e. lower the EI), so you produce enough actual image to fight through the fog. This may be combined with reducing development, to "starve" the fog, or with increased development, to yield higher contrast -- or with careful bleaching to reduce the developed fog, (hopefully) without erasing the images.

Another is restrainers in the developer. Adding benzotriazole can help a lot, because it raises the threshold of latent image that will develop -- in essence, it extends the toe of the curve. This will (usually) reduce the fog, at the cost of a little loss of film speed -- but then, you gave extra exposure anyway, in an attempt to get the image up out of the fog, right?

Another way, new to me this year, is to combine benzotriazole with cold development. The link shows results one person got with film that was "too fogged to use" -- until he developed at 50F with several drops of benzotriazole added to the tank quantity of developer. His results are so good that, to my eye, this now looks like the best way to use old, fogged film (like your 5222).

That author doesn't mention it, but you probably want to avoid developers with hydroquinone -- it's my understanding that this developing agent drops to near zero activity (resulting in gross underdevelopment, as superadditivity is lost) below about 60F. The developers he mentions in the article, D-78 (that's seventy-eight, not seventy-six) and D-23 contain no hydroquinone. If he'd happened to try that in D-76 or D-72 he might never have written the article.

Edit: If you have film that's dark after fixing only, it probably has "printed out," meaning the halide has "self-developed" -- like the Becquerel method of developing Daguerreotypes, or the printing out of salt prints or old Printing Out Paper used for studio proofs (because it would turn black with longer light exposure, leaving you with nothing unless you paid the photographer for actual prints). If it still shows any kind of image, you can probably recover something by bleaching, but it may be too far gone to save.

As an experiment, you might try (in the dark) soaking a clip in potassium ferricyanide solution with potassium bromide added, then clear with sodium sulfite solution, wash, and dry -- still in the dark. Not an easy way to go unless your name is Kodak or Ilford. But, doing this might rehalogenate the printed out silver without removing the sensitizers (panchromatizing dyes, speed enhancers, etc.) and result in usable film. It's not much use otherwise, if straight fixer won't clear it up.

One thing it is good for, however: when I was a kid, people would use fully exposed and developed B&W film as a filter to view solar eclipses. Now, authorities warn about the hazards of an emulsion pinhole etc., but as long as you don't use it with magnification, it should be lots better than no filter at all. Use a couple layers, at a minimum. Test by viewing a welding arc, if you can.

 

[pentaxuser]

No I cannot explain about it. All the fixer I have used will clear an exposed but undeveloped piece of film in a matter of a few minutes. If the film or negative has been processed already, that is to say developed, stopped and fixed then more fixer will do nothing. This applies to a negative that has an image on it or one that has simply been exposed to light

pentaxuser

 

[YJL]

No I cannot explain about it. All the fixer I have used will clear an exposed but undeveloped piece of film in a matter of a few minutes. If the film or negative has been processed already, that is to say developed, stopped and fixed then more fixer will do nothing. This applies to a negative that has an image on it or one that has simply been exposed to light

pentaxuser

Thanks to confirm it. Yes, it is just mysterious. I have still those undeveloped parts. To see if accidentally I am processing already developed film, I cut part of it and checked. It wasn't processed at all...I've ordered different brand of fixers to see if those react differently. (I don't think so though)

 

[YJL]

"Fogging" is halide that you haven't intentionally exposed to light (in the form of an image, perhaps) that develops anyway. Radiation and heat can produce "latent image specks" in the halide grains that will make them develop, even if stored in a steel can.

Edit: If you have film that's dark after fixing only, it probably has "printed out," meaning the halide has "self-developed" -- like the Becquerel method of developing Daguerreotypes, or the printing out of salt prints or old Printing Out Paper used for studio proofs (because it would turn black with longer light exposure, leaving you with nothing unless you paid the photographer for actual prints). If it still shows any kind of image, you can probably recover something by bleaching, but it may be too far gone to save.

As an experiment, you might try (in the dark) soaking a clip in potassium ferricyanide solution with potassium bromide added, then clear with sodium sulfite solution, wash, and dry -- still in the dark. Not an easy way to go unless your name is Kodak or Ilford. But, doing this might rehalogenate the printed out silver without removing the sensitizers (panchromatizing dyes, speed enhancers, etc.) and result in usable film. It's not much use otherwise, if straight fixer won't clear it up.

One thing it is good for, however: when I was a kid, people would use fully exposed and developed B&W film as a filter to view solar eclipses. Now, authorities warn about the hazards of an emulsion pinhole etc., but as long as you don't use it with magnification, it should be lots better than no filter at all. Use a couple layers, at a minimum. Test by viewing a welding arc, if you can.

Wow thank you Donald, I appreciate it such a deep knowledge. Yes that "self-developed" may explains which I couldn't expected (didn't think it is possible too). But, though it was old film stock is it common this happens with modern films? I would like to know what causes film 'self-developed'. And would you say this also one kind of "fogging"?
As self-taught photographer I am still on the stage using ready made stocks. I am still a bit afraid of those unknown(for me) chemical handling. But it is really good to know there is way to recover..

 

[Donald Qualls]

Printing out is quite uncommon in "modern" film (say, post-War) that's been kept dark and room temperature or below. Any halide emulsion can and will print out, however, if it's exposed enough, and that can happen either from radiation (say, if it was sitting on an older color TV, or was stored with pitchblende samples) or, much more commonly, from excessively warm storage. A few summers in a shed in my North Carolina climate will likely do it (why I insisted that all cameras and films be stored inside the house when I moved five years ago), with storage temperature exceeding 100F on warmer days (the shed is warmer than the outside -- dark roof and no insulation).

I've had 35mm leader clips that sat on a counter in room light for a couple years and didn't print out noticeably -- and I'd have noticed, as I was using them to test fixer clearing time -- and I've also seen enlarging paper print out in a matter of hours when exposed to direct sun. I'm not certain what makes the difference other than exposure intensity, but in my experience photo paper is much more prone to print out than film. Leave a sheet of MG IV on the counter with the lights on and it'll turn color, then solid black, over time. Film, in my experience, is much less prone to do that.