Old film processing

[StoneNYC]

C22 dev as a starting point 20 minutes at 20C, bleach 10min, fix 10min. Bleach and fix times are a bit overkilled, with fresh chem they will go to completion faster (5-6 min).

For C41 film dev time is a bit longer, 22-23min, for those Agfacolor CN17 films I use slightly less, 18 min.

All those times are with replenished Tetenal ergoline minilab C-41 chemistry, separate dev/bleach/fix. Between steps I rinse 2x15 inversions with water. After final wash ca 1min in C-41 stabilisator. That's basically it.
My usual room temperature is ca 22C, so the actual times are accordingly a bit shorter.

Thanks! PS you have a warm house...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Lyga]

When you process color film THAT old you must remember that much, much speed is lost through the decades, probably four, or even five, stops. Thus, the film has been grossly underexposed and that underexposure also attends to the manufacturer's markings on the borders (which were also exposed back in the seventies before you bought the film). Thus, in your immediate case the ONLY thing you could have done was to give GROSS overdevelopment in hopes of getting something. I would have developed for about three times normal in your dire case.

And, wblynch is correct with the advice to blix longer. Old film is a pain but can be at least partially ressurrected. Blix is, indeed, 'to completion', as wblynch says. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

keystroke error.

 

[StoneNYC]

When you process color film THAT old you must remember that much, much speed is lost through the decades, probably four, or even five, stops. Thus, the film has been grossly underexposed and that underexposure also attends to the manufacturer's markings on the borders (which were also exposed back in the seventies before you bought the film). Thus, in your immediate case the ONLY thing you could have done was to give GROSS overdevelopment in hopes of getting something. I would have developed for about three times normal in your dire case.

And, wblynch is correct with the advice to blix longer. Old film is a pain but can be at least partially ressurrected. Blix is, indeed, 'to completion', as wblynch says. - David Lyga

David, you know stuff so not saying you're wrong, BUT

The speed loss is often in the exposure level, so if the film was already previously exposed he wouldn't be losing any more speed, these rolls as I remember had already been shot? They are just being developed now, so speed loss isn't an issue, just developing. Unless I'm totally thinking of another thread. Lol


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wblynch]

Like a magnetic tape recording that fades over time, they lose their latent image over the years. It ends up like they were underexposed. That plus base fog has also built up so you need to develop your image above the base fog.

But part of what you're saying is true.

I once found a half-used 12 year old film in a camera and shot the rest of the roll before sending it out. The original shots were diminished from new but still pretty good. The new shots were all messed up.

 

[smiggsy]

Wow! Excellent and interesting advice. I'm humbled!

This weekend I'm developing another roll and increasing development and blix times.

I'll keep you posted on the results.

Many thanks guys.


Regards, Barry

 

[StoneNYC]

Wow! Excellent and interesting advice. I'm humbled!

This weekend I'm developing another roll and increasing development and blix times.

I'll keep you posted on the results.

Many thanks guys.


Regards, Barry

But decreasing temperature right?? Lol


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Lyga]

STONE!!! YOU SAID (and you err): "The speed loss is often in the exposure level, so if the film was already previously exposed he wouldn't be losing any more speed"


WRONG! Let me remind all, including Stone, that, true, the exposure was proper AT THE TIME. But with decades passed, THAT exposure is NOW GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT. The film has steadily been losing speed through the decades, INCLUDING THAT WHICH RECEIVED SUCH ANCIENT EXPOSURE. The ONLY way to ATTEMPT to resurrect it is to give a LOT of development in order to get WHAT REMAINS out of the waning, feeble, age-agonized, incapable-of-self-sustainment, halides! - David Lyga

 

[StoneNYC]

STONE!!! YOU SAID (and you err): "The speed loss is often in the exposure level, so if the film was already previously exposed he wouldn't be losing any more speed"


WRONG! Let me remind all, including Stone, that, true, the exposure was proper AT THE TIME. But with decades passed, THAT exposure is NOW GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT. The film has steadily been losing speed through the decades, INCLUDING THAT WHICH RECEIVED SUCH ANCIENT EXPOSURE. The ONLY way to ATTEMPT to resurrect it is to give a LOT of development in order to get WHAT REMAINS out of the waning, feeble, age-agonized, incapable-of-self-sustainment, halides! - David Lyga

Ok, I did say in some form that I could be wrong. But, I've also shot film that was half exposed 25 years ago and half exposed now, and this was on local pharmacy film not pro film, and the exposure and color on the 25 year old images was perfect, and the new shots were all shot at canister speed and all dark and the shadows went green and the highlights went a sort of orange. And this film had been sitting in an in-air conditioned attic for at lest 10 of those years in the northeast the roof attic temps reach 120 degrees F and so from practical personal experience I have to disagree with you.

I know different film has different latent image failure rates, like PanF+ with its horrible 3 month after shot self life, but in general most other film seems to be recoverable without any adjustment if already exposed.

Again I'm going off of actual experience here. This was a C-41 film emulsion to be clear not B&W or C-22 or CN17. But I would assume they have similar latent image failure characteristics.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Lyga]

Stone, interesting how you claim that the 25 year old shots were fine. I wonder if they were overexposed from the onset. It really does not make sense but I am glad that you brought that monkey wrench into the equation. I have no direct answer for that but I continue to hold that very old latent images are prone to fading before they are developed. We'll see what others have to say.

I really see no validity to your admonition about Pan F's 'latent image death after three months'. Do others agree with this? -David Lyga

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, interesting how you claim that the 25 year old shots were fine. I wonder if they were overexposed from the onset. It really does not make sense but I am glad that you brought that monkey wrench into the equation. I have no direct answer for that but I continue to hold that very old latent images are prone to fading before they are developed. We'll see what others have to say.

I really see no validity to your admonition about Pan F's 'latent image death after three months'. Do others agree with this? -David Lyga

You made me go to the computer AND go through my old files haha, found the images scanned by the lab not me, so I can't be sure of their correct scanning, but the first two snow scenes were from the beginning of the roll from years ago, the last two were from the images I shot. Sorry for the content (nude) AND for how bad they are, I was just messing around and wasn't really trying to be professional, this was after coitus and then after a discussion about her taking a film class in highschool and remembering she had an old camera somewhere that I was excited to see, after discovering it still contained film I shot a few images, but didn't expect anything to come out since it had no light meter and the film was so ancient, so it was more out of her wanting to feel like a model than an actual shoot, excuses I know but wanted to qualify the images weren't at all real work I would be shooting that I would use per-se.

I've also attached snap shots of the "contact print" from the lab and a few negatives and examples of the prints, the cell phone pictures don't really show the green in the "black" areas as badly as it actually looks to my eye in the far away shots of the contact print so I did a close up of her head/hair you can see it better. I did this to show I'm not faking it just to be right.

Yes I have an open ended model release from that time period and I've shot with her since (she's the B&W antique bedroom model) just so no one gets mad at me for "exposing" someone without their approval. She kept the negatives/prints that were hers though, I only have the scans on a CD so I Can't compare, but I'm fairly certain they are exposed properly. You can see that the images I shot that didn't have FULL black, were only slightly green, where the images that had BLACK blacks were almost a blue green. But if you look at the negatives they seem to be fairly exposed properly enough that it's not some miss-exposure trick. I think that's all the info... let me know if I missed something or if you need more info.

 

[wblynch]

StoneNYC, what you present is a valid point but I would say the old-shot photos are not perfect.

I found the roll of film I shot before my half-and-half roll and those were developed at the time. Compared to the 12 years later developed roll you can definitely tell the difference.

Yes, the old-shot photos can look perfectly usable, but there is degradation.

Even 40 year old found film can be processed to return usable results. But those old exposures degrade with every year they go undeveloped. They aren't losing speed they're losing strength.

 

[StoneNYC]

StoneNYC, what you present is a valid point but I would say the old-shot photos are not perfect.

I found the roll of film I shot before my half-and-half roll and those were developed at the time. Compared to the 12 years later developed roll you can definitely tell the difference.

Yes, the old-shot photos can look perfectly usable, but there is degradation.

Even 40 year old found film can be processed to return usable results. But those old exposures degrade with every year they go undeveloped. They aren't losing speed they're losing strength.

Oh I'm not arguing there isn't ANY degradation I'm saying you don't need to change development times as compensation the way you do for non-exposed old film where you have to compensate both for the exposure change in speed and development times. But the difference between the two is huge, maybe 60 yo film needs dev compensation but not really for what the OP is talking about I would start at standard dev times. That's all. I do agree some degradation happens.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wblynch]

The OP, Smigsy, has 35-40 year old unprocessed film....

I hope he isn't put off by this conflict and will report back with his findings.

 

[pentaxuser]

The OP, Smigsy, has 35-40 year old unprocessed film....

I hope he isn't put off by this conflict and will report back with his findings.

Yes and based on his current findings which produced practically nothing at normal dev times of 3 mins 15 secs he certainly shouldn't be conservative this week-end with his next attempt. I'd certainly go with the very long times and lower temps suggested. Better that he develops the hell out of these films to see if that works. I see no reason why sticking to normal times or only slightly longer times shouldn't produce blank films again - not what he wants.

pentaxuser

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes and based on his current findings which produced practically nothing at normal dev times of 3 mins 15 secs he certainly shouldn't be conservative this week-end with his next attempt. I'd certainly go with the very long times and lower temps suggested. Better that he develops the hell out of these films to see if that works. I see no reason why sticking to normal times or only slightly longer times shouldn't produce blank films again - not what he wants.

pentaxuser

My mistake, I forgot or missed he said it was Kodacolor II (C-41) not Kodacolor (C-22) that's why I was thinking he got bad results... I must be confusing threads somewhere... And yes conflict is normal but not "angry" here on APUG just heavy Opinions (and sometimes facts) please don't be put off by us OP we are still friends


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smiggsy]

Excellent input guys.

This weekend I'll process a portion of another film at 38deg, with dev time of 9mins and blix of 8mins and see if I can get a usuable image.

Whatever the results may be, it should point me in the right direction to make any changes for the rest of the film.

It's o.k. STONE all opinions count. No need for the boxing gloves!


Barry

 

[StoneNYC]

Excellent input guys.

This weekend I'll process a portion of another film at 38deg, with dev time of 9mins and blix of 8mins and see if I can get a usuable image.

Whatever the results may be, it should point me in the right direction to make any changes for the rest of the film.

It's o.k. STONE all opinions count. No need for the boxing gloves!


Barry

 

[smiggsy]

After developing a portion of Kodacolor II at the times and temp mentioned earlier, the film is completely green!

The fogged leader is a darker green. When closely viewed under strong light, like before there is the faintest portions of images and some borders. There is no name and frame numbers either.

Just to recap. Like before, I used fresh chemicals with a Jobo CPE2 & lift.

With recommended development times before I had the same very faint images etc. but with the normal orange colour.

I don't know what the next step is! Do I throw the remaining films in the bin and assume the film is just too old to be processed now?


Barry

 

[wblynch]

At least develop them in black and white instead of just tossing them out.

You might be surprised what a scanner can pull from those "green' negatives. Worth a try.

 

[pentaxuser]

After developing a portion of Kodacolor II at the times and temp mentioned earlier, the film is completely green!

Barry

Sell them as Greenscale films similar to Rollei's Redscale ones More seriously it does rather look hopeless but the suggestion to try B&W is worth a shot. You might get something and if as you say there is important stuff from the past that matters to you and your family as I think you alluded to then if reasonably successful you'll have something to print and retain

pentaxuser

 

[StoneNYC]

After developing a portion of Kodacolor II at the times and temp mentioned earlier, the film is completely green!

The fogged leader is a darker green. When closely viewed under strong light, like before there is the faintest portions of images and some borders. There is no name and frame numbers either.

Just to recap. Like before, I used fresh chemicals with a Jobo CPE2 & lift.

With recommended development times before I had the same very faint images etc. but with the normal orange colour.

I don't know what the next step is! Do I throw the remaining films in the bin and assume the film is just too old to be processed now?


Barry

Are you sure the canisters were not re-used? The results sound like E-6 cross processed... Why aren't you posting pictures of the film? That would help more than a description...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smiggsy]

Normally, I'm not one to give up too easily, but yeah if the content was not so important I would have thrown them out years ago.

Developing them with b&w chemicals is probably my next step then.

Stone, I don't think it's worth trying to post pics of the film. No detail would be visible.It's just a plain green strip with lots of little square holes along both edges!

I'm 100% sure the canisters are not re-used. They're original Kodacolor II clearly marked as C41. And I have earlier Kodacolor X marked as C22.


Barry

 

[StoneNYC]

Normally, I'm not one to give up too easily, but yeah if the content was not so important I would have thrown them out years ago.

Developing them with b&w chemicals is probably my next step then.

Stone, I don't think it's worth trying to post pics of the film. No detail would be visible.It's just a plain green strip with lots of little square holes along both edges!

I'm 100% sure the canisters are not re-used. They're original Kodacolor II clearly marked as C41. And I have earlier Kodacolor X marked as C22.


Barry

I would love to try out the C-22 in C-41 at lower temps so if you don't, I would love to take one as a test roll


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk