New development times for Kodak Verichrome Pan

[BrianShaw]

Good luck convincing Kodak to invest in new additions to their 120 film finishing equipment lines - particularly if the relative usage of 620 vs. 120 cameras is considered!

I'm about to re-roll some 120 Gold200 to 620 because I know that you are right, they won't listen to me (anr anyone else, probably). i just need to step away from the keyboard.

 

[MattKing]

I have, but never in a "box camera", but a Rollei TLR. When I was young I seem to have thought Plus-X to be better because it was packaged in 5-roll 5ProPacks. Certainly that made it more professional! My photography mentor once laughed at me and pointed that out that logical fallicy as he recommended Verichrome but I was too arrogant to listen. And then that day happened when the camera shop had no Plus-X but had Verichrome. Dumb luck opened my eyes a bit more than they were previously opened.

I don't doubt that Verichrome Pan gave you good results. In particular, for photographs of people!

 

[MattKing]

I'm about to re-roll some 120 Gold200 to 620 because I know that you are right, they won't listen to me (anr anyone else, probably). i just need to step away from the keyboard.

If someone could figure out a less expensive and more flexible way to modernize the "finishing" part of film manufacture - something that would retain the low cost, efficiency and quality while producing relatively smaller volumes of cut, edge printed, spooled (wit backing paper where required) and packaged film - it would make a huge difference to the film world.

 

[reddesert]

In the mid-late 1970s when I got my first cameras as a kid, they were hand-me-down rollfilm cameras in 620 and 127 (a Kodak Duaflex and Brownie), and Verichrome Pan was the black-and-white film available in those formats. There was also color (I assume C-41) film in those formats. 620 and Verichrome Pan officially survived until I guess 1995, but by then the 620 was already quite hard to find.

The photos I took with those box cameras had a lot of problems (fumble-fingered kid, accidental double exposures, etc), but none due to the film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I was a convicted Plus-X user and once the shop was out of Plus-X so I reluctantly bought Verichrome. It was actually a better film for general photography.

35mm Plus-X (PX) and 120/220 Plus-X Professional (PXP) were (before the move to B-38 in the early 2000's) different films sharing the same name. 35mm Plus-X and 120 (and other amateur rollfilm formats) Verichrome Pan were apparently the same emulsions but with seemingly slightly different coating packages. Sheet/ long roll PXT was different again (and with further intentional differences between specific developers). The version of Plus-X that was made in B-38 (and probably could be made again relatively easily) seems to have been derived off the 135PX/ 120VP characteristics, hence why PXP and VP disappeared at that point along with PXT. PX and VP had 'general purpose' characteristic curves, as opposed to the more specialised aims of PXP/ PXT for different market segment demands - hence why people seem to have preferred Verichrome Pan (that it will probably have had one of the highest safety margins of most Kodak films for misuse while still delivering usable negatives is something that its proponents might want to spend a little time contemplating before calumnising other materials) over something like PXP.

 

[Romanko]

It is a bit difficult to compare Verichrome Pan and Plus-X" sharpness" experiences from my memories, because Verichrome Pan was never available in 135 or 120 sizes,

You probably mean Plus-X. In fact, Plus-X was available in size 120 but for a short period of time in the 50s.

I am still interested in finding the answer to when the emulsion/development times were changed. I assume that the label in the photo would only be used for a couple of years before photographers became aware of the change.

 

[MattKing]

You probably mean Plus-X. In fact, Plus-X was available in size 120 but for a short period of time in the 50s.

Nope - I used the current versions of Plus-X in 120 for many years, up to its discontinuance in 2011, and for as many years thereafter as my supply lasted.

 

[Romanko]

Nope - I used the current versions of Plus-X in 120 for many years

I was talking about earlier incarnations of Plus-X. First, it was available only in 35 mm then for a few years in roll-film formats, then there was Plus-X Professional and Plus-X again. Its history deserves a separate thread.

Meanwhile, I checked the development times for Verichrome Pan in Kodak Data Books of Applied Photography (1968 revision) and they are as on the sticker. The change was before 1968. If anyone has an earlier version of datasheet FM-49 (issues A and B) could you please check the development times in stock D76 and Microdol-X?

 

[Mr Bill]

Meanwhile, I checked the development times for Verichrome Pan in Kodak Data Books of Applied Photography (1968 revision) and they are as on the sticker. The change was before 1968. If anyone has an earlier version of datasheet FM-49 (issues A and B) could you please check the development times in stock D76 and Microdol-X?

Have a look on archive.org, link attached, for another data point. This is "SEVENTH EDITION, 1956" ... "First 1958 Printing." Page 37 gives the development times : D-76 = 8 minutes, Microdol = 10 minutes. (Note: that's Microdol, not Microdol-X.)

Kodak Films for Black and White Photography (7th Edition) : Eastman Kodak Company : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

A Kodak Data Book with data on each of the B&W films, including spectrometric & sensitometric data.Seventh Edition, First 1958 printing

archive.org

 

[Mr Bill]

I have, but never in a "box camera", but a Rollei TLR. When I was young I seem to have thought Plus-X to be better because it was packaged in 5-roll 5ProPacks. Certainly that made it more professional!

When I was quite a lot younger I figured that Verichrome Pan was not as good because... I could get it at the local drugstore - 620 roll film. I shot it in a used Voigtlander Brillant, a birthday present when I was about 12 years old, I think. My pop thought the fact that it had a Heliar lens was significant; to me, just another oldish camera. But... I did take a lot of pictures with it.

 

[braxus]

Matt,

This was VP film in 120 I bought in around the early 2000s fresh stock from Vistek Ontario. I got all the last remaining rolls they had of it then. So yes VP was available in 120.

 

[Romanko]

I think I found the answer:

"Verichrome Pan also first appeared in the UK in 1956. Initially at 80ASA, it went up to 125ASA when the speed 'Safety Factor' was removed in 1960."

Kodak Black & White Papers

Kodak

www.photomemorabilia.co.uk

 

[Mr Bill]

Page 37 gives the development times : D-76 = 8 minutes, Microdol = 10 minutes.

Oh wait... higher up on page 37 it gives times of 12 minutes, for "Roll Film and Film Pack." For both developers.

The part I first looked at was "for 828 Film." So if that page helps at all better read it more carefully than I did.

 

[Romanko]

Oh wait... higher up on page 37 it gives times of 12 minutes, for "Roll Film and Film Pack." For both developers.

Yes, I also noticed a big difference in the development times for 828 and all other formats.

In any case, these are "old" development times. By 1968 they were fully replaced with "new" times. There is no mention in issue C of datasheet FM-49 of "old" development time so I assume these times were standard for quite a while by then.

So, the roll in question appears to be shot sometime in the early 1960s which makes it 60 years old.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good luck convincing Kodak to invest in new additions to their 120 film finishing equipment lines - particularly if the relative usage of 620 vs. 120 cameras is considered!

Verichrome Pan was discontinued because it contained Cadmium. To come up with a replacement would require R&D. Why would Kodak spend R&D money for a film with virtually no demand?

 

[MattKing]

Verichrome Pan was discontinued because it contained Cadmium. To come up with a replacement would require R&D. Why would Kodak spend R&D money for a film with virtually no demand?

I'm not sure Cadmium was used much in films. Papers - yes.
In any event, the discontinuance in 2002 coincided with the collapse of the photographic film marketplace, in particular the amateur film marketplace, so I doubt Cadmium would have made much difference.

 

[BrianShaw]

I think I found the answer:

"Verichrome Pan also first appeared in the UK in 1956. Initially at 80ASA, it went up to 125ASA when the speed 'Safety Factor' was removed in 1960."

Kodak Black & White Papers

Kodak

www.photomemorabilia.co.uk

That’s a very interesting document. I can’t tell, however if the man on the cover is a husband who rolled is studio camera onto the patio to photograph his beautiful wife, or an itinerant photographer who somehow travels with a gigantic studio camera.

 

[reddesert]

You probably mean Plus-X. In fact, Plus-X was available in size 120 but for a short period of time in the 50s.

I am still interested in finding the answer to when the emulsion/development times were changed. I assume that the label in the photo would only be used for a couple of years before photographers became aware of the change.

I can now somewhat locate this change, which basically agrees with the early-1960s deduction that you and Mr Bill arrived at. I have a small stack of Kodak Darkroom Dataguides at different dates (some people collect Leicas, I collect Darkroom Dataguides). The books's dates on the first page are: 1958, 1966 (with minor revs 1969), 1970, 1974, 1979.

Looking at the development numbers for Verichome Pan rollfilm and comparing to other films (eg Tri-X in both rollfilm and 35mm), the 1958 guide has significantly longer development times for Tri-X and Verichrome Pan in both D-76 and Microdol, which are decreased in the 1966-rev-1969 guide. However, Plus-X 135 changes very little. For ex, the VP120 in D-76 time changes from 13 to 6.75 minutes, TX 135 and 120 in D-76 changes from 11 to 7.5 minutes, PX 135 changes from 6.25 to 5.75 minutes.

After the 1966 guide, the numbers change by small amounts for some films (Verichrome Pan decreases again a little from 1970 to 1974), but by significantly less than the 1958-to-1966 change. Also in 1974, Kodak introduced adjustments for different degrees of lens flare and condenser vs diffusion enlargers, recommending a fairly large decrease in time if you were using a condenser enlarger.

At first I was skeptical that the change between 1958 and 1966 is related to the 1961elimination of the ASA safety factor, since that changed film speed numbers. But my understanding is that there were also different definitions of speed (eg ISO based on shadow density vs. ASA on midtone contrast slope), so perhaps reconciling these triggered revisions in the recommended development times.

 

[Romanko]

At first I was skeptical that the change between 1958 and 1966 is related to the 1961elimination of the ASA safety factor, since that changed film speed numbers.

Thank you for narrowing down the time frame for this change. I also suspect that the change was due to new standards. If the emulsions were changed Kodak would have probably introduced new brands of film.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is interesting that VP/V has such good latent image retention - certainly confirmed with folks who process film found in old box cameras.

Many folks shot VP in their Rolleis, having discovered that, for them, it was the best film around.

Yes although the stuff I once developed had only lain in the camera with exposures taken for about 40- 45 years plus some 2-3 that I had taken after being given the camera. All came out virtually perfectly with whatever I used for the development time in about 2006/7. Maybe I had asked and was given the time on APUG. I had been given the camera, an Agfa Isolette I, by a friend who had found the camera when clearing out his late brother's house

The scenes on the negatives from the cars and people on the negatives who were known to my friend were clearly from the late 50s or early 60s

pentaxuser

 

[Romanko]

Here is an image from this roll. According to our findings the latent image must be about 60 years old. It was developed in HC-110 dilution B for 7 minutes at 16 °C.

 

[MattKing]

On the subject of the interplay of changes in the ASA specifications and changes to recommended development times, it seems likely that the unusual nature of the emulsions used in the old Verichrome Pan may very well have resulted in a fairly radical re-thinking of the target densities for developed negatives.