Odd Discovery in storage

I was rooting around in some storage boxes downstairs, and I found my old Watson Bulk Loader, wrapped up in a black cloth, in a shoebox.

I'm pretty careful about labelling, and it has film in it. It's definitely Kodak Recording 2475, it feels like the loader is almost full, and the sticky label I put on it says "Kodak Recording Film loaded January 1986"

This has been stored at basement temperature for over 25 years. I really don't know what to expect. I know there are people here who can tell me. Should I give it a whirl, or just pitch it? If I develop a roll (or more likely partial) are there additives I can add to rescue the stuff?

I'm way out of my expertise area here. Thanks.

What have you got to lose (apart from a few ml of developer) if you do give it a whirl?

Give it a whirl!

High speed stuff like that is probably all fogged, and won't be useable even with ample overexposure. But like what pdeeh said, try it, who knows until you do! I would recommend you just toss a few feet from the beginning, and bracket a range of exposures.

Maybe you can cut off a test strip and develop it unexposed to see if it is fogged? Could this work?

Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

Might as well give it a whirl.

Yeah give it a shot. Nothing to lose really.


That does seem to be the pat answer for that question 'round here.

The real problem for you will be if it turns out to be very usable, and you really like the results.

Okay . . . I'll load up a partial roll and shoot it. Then I'll go into the darkroom and see what develops! ;-) I'll let you know.

The film that is farther towards the center of the roll may be in better shape.

mopar_guy said:

The film that is farther towards the center of the roll may be in better shape.

Click to expand...

Or film that is closer to the center may be in better shape, because the outer layers would have shielded it from radiation etc (except any coming directly at the edge of the roll)?

Okay, I've "done the deed". I shot two 12 exposure loads of the 30 year old Recording film, 68 degrees, Rodinal 1:9 with 10 seconds of agitation every 30 seconds. I developed them for 8 minutes.

There is an image on the rolls, but it looks very underexposed, with a lot of base fog as was suggested above
- I exposed it at ASA 650 - The image might be printable. The films are drying right now, I'll check them out in the morning under better lighting conditions.

Think I might retry another roll, expose at 400, and try 14 minutes, same time and soup. I'll let you know what happens. The remainder might be useful for a special purpose, he said hopefully.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/kodak2475/

I would try shooting a 36 exposure roll at EI 6 and move up to whatever you can shooting the same subject. It helps to put a label in the shot so you know what EI it was shot at.

Rodinal isnt known, from my research, to be a good fogged film developer, and most people seem to post on the web that cold water, higher developer concentrations and short developing times give better results.

I have ~400 feet of 1959 Eastman Tri-x 320 5233 film that I am experimenting with. So far HC110 dil. A with a tiny bit of benzoatriazole (sp) for 2 and 1/2 minutes is doing OK, but I am shooting at EI 12 and still getting loads of grain! I like it for special purposes, but thats a lot of film and its not getting better. I think I will try some from the center of the roll, but can cosmic radiation actually slow down in acetate?

As a guesstimate, figure one stop of speed loss per decade. So the sweet spot may be around 3 stops overexposure. Maybe start at 5 stops over and bracket up from there.

trythis, I think you're right about Rodinal not being good for fogged film - I looked back at my records, and dismissed this developer with even fresh 2475. Apparently 30 years ago, I used either Dektol at 4 minutes, or HC110 dilution B. So when I go and reshoot, I'll use HC110 and expose at ASA 200. That's about 3 stops slower than my rated 1000, which follows newcan's suggestion.

I'll do this today and tell you what the negs look like tomorrow.

Although you have a clue what the film is, and what it was rated at, you may want to try what I did with a roll I had no clue how to shoot or develop.

The full thread is here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

But the specifics of how I decided how to shoot and develop it are here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I'm now on my 5th roll of my film, and it's been going quite well. I've been shooting it at 64ASA, and developing it as I did the test roll. As a mattr of fact, as soon as I finish typing this, I'll be developing another roll of it.

Kirks, I'm going to store your link, because I have discovered other film in boxes that's in storage at room temperature for ages. But now, I'm going to say:


Yayyyyyyyyyy!!!! Because I have achieved success!

Just shot another 12 exposure roll, developed it at 68 degrees in D76 1:1 for 16 minutes, and I can use it!!!!! I exposed at ASA 200

I now have perhaps 5-7 rolls of 2475 I didn't have before that can produce usable images. The negatives need a bit more development (I'm going to guess 20) but I've certainly printed worse.

Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to "go for it!" If you hadn't, I'd have pitched it!

One thing further - I also rediscovered a roll of 2475 in the FREEZER!!!

I would try some developer combination to keep development times as short as possible. The effects of fog are sometimes worse with long development times. Higher temperature may be worth a try. If you were a lot closer to five minutes development, it would probably be better.

I will try that with the next roll. Maybe 4 minutes or so in Dektol, or 5 minutes in HC110 at 75 degrees!

Loaded the rest of what was in the loader into cassettes. Got 6-20 exposure rolls of Kodak 2475 Recording film in freezer bags, now!

Well, if you get bored with it, dont toss it, send it to me, or someone else. I have nearly 800 feet of film that I am experimenting with. Some E-6, some C-41, some B&W. Its fun!

Post Images!

For future experiments try 20, 24 or 36 exposure rolls at a long string of EI settings on an automatic camera instead of running several 12 exposure rolls. Especially useful if its a mystery length in a bulk loader. If its good stuff, you waste nearly 6 shots total in the leader and trailer of each short roll. I learned this wasting a good bit of E100VS! A short clip test will indicate B&W vs E6 or C41 and dev times (if it turnes out to be B&W) using a staggered dip test and then a single longer roll gives you the EI to shoot the rest of it with.

If you tailor the developer to the film you can hold back all the fog. You need a higher contrast developer with more restrainer in it.

Athiril said:

If you tailor the developer to the film you can hold back all the fog. You need a higher contrast developer with more restrainer in it.

Click to expand...

Details about this would be very helpful. How does one tailor a developer? Which developer is high contrast? Just a resource link would be good, but if you have some simple recipes as starters! :munch:

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

Example of what I did before, though I intended on losing speed.


B&W film is way simpler than E-6 to do.

You will need an additional ingredient at minimum, potassium or sodium bromide.


Adding this to a developer will normally lose film speed, as it slows development, more in the least exposed areas, and some in the heavier exposed areas.


With fogged film if you add enough so only as much density is prevented from developing as there is fog, or leave a touch of fog you shouldn't lose much if any speed,

but you probably will have to increase developing time to reach box speed to compensate for the addition as it's also slowing development of heavier exposed areas too a bit.



If I were to guess for badly fogged film, I would start with 5 grams per litre (so 2.5g for 500mL etc) of working developer, and increase normal developing time by 33%.

Process a test strip of different exposes, a few stops under and over exposed.


If the fog is still too high, increase the amount of bromide added.

If the highlight density is too low, but the fog level is low/good, increase developing time.

If the fog level is low/good, and the highlight density is too high for the speed you want, reduce developing time.

Judge which exposure looks best to tell you what adjustment is needed.







Coincidentally, I is Rodinal 1:9 at 8 minutes a known good dilution and time for that film? 1:9 is a bit extreme for most films, and may account for some over development.

I have benzotriazole as an antifog agent, the film I am useing is just plain foggy and grainy. I will order some sodium bromide or the other if you think one is better.

I have 300+ feet to experiment with, it would be nice to get better results, but I dont see a magic bullet coming out of this.

trythis said:

I have benzotriazole as an antifog agent, the film I am useing is just plain foggy and grainy. I will order some sodium bromide or the other if you think one is better.

I have 300+ feet to experiment with, it would be nice to get better results, but I dont see a magic bullet coming out of this.

Click to expand...

I've got benzotriazole, I know it works differently to bromide, but I cant remember if it restrains lower exposed areas more than higher or is even in action across exposure, if it's even it wont be as useful. I should test it at some point.

According to this (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Looks like benzotriazole should be good to go, but I can't be sure without trying it myself, but you need to use less of than potassium bromide. If I remember its about 1/10th.