Old film....

[Seabee]

Is there any way to tell from the Ilford wrapper how old the film is?

I bought 35 rolls of undated Ilford HP5 on ebay and think it may be waaaaaay over.

Did they always have the same wrapper or is there a way to get an approximate date somehow?

Thanks
Chris

 

[railwayman3]

The original "HP5" was on the market from 1976 to 1989, when it was replaced by "HP5 plus". If there is the name "Harman Technology" anywhere on the film, it will be from about 2005 onwards. (Sorry can't be any more helpful without more clues...is it 35mm or roll? )

 

[Seabee]

Hi,

Its roll.... and from my first attempts to develope... it looks like its rolled on into the sunset :-(

No discernable image appeared on the film after developing :-(((

 

[milkplus-mesto]

Seabee, i'm no expert, but you could try developing for a little longer. Perhaps five extra minutes, seeing as you got no image. It could work. Did you get any text on the film rebate?

 

[Seabee]

Hi,

The Ilford site said 11 minutes for HP5 400 in Rodinal. (I thought that sounded short?

On the film there were gostlike figures, along the botton the "Ilford HP%" and the small arrows with frame numbers were very clear.

Do you think a bit longer then?

Thanks
Chris

 

[Neal]

Dear Chris,

While I'm confident there are development issues, it sounds as though you need more exposure. This is not unreasonable for old fast film.

Neal Wydra

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'll second more exposure. Make a test roll where you expose at EI 50, 100, 200, and 400 of the same normal contrast scene. Develop normal. Pick the neg that has the best shadow detail, that's the speed you have to shoot it at. Then develop longer or shorter based on how much highlight density you want. You should be able to do this with two rolls.

- Thomas

 

[Seabee]

Hi,

do you take a light meter reading then take the same photo as if I had 50, 100, 200 and 400 asa film to see what comes out?

Thanks
Chris

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes, absolutely. Take a light meter reading, and then either double the shutter time or open up one stop to double your exposure.

- Thomas

 

[Seabee]

Well, its done.

Took a light meter reading, took a shot, opened up one stop, then another, then another, then another.

15 minutes in Rodinal.

Its now drying in the closet....

 

[Seabee]

As per light meter

 

[Seabee]

one stop more

 

[Seabee]

one more...

 

[Seabee]

one more

 

[Seabee]

Last one...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Looks like a successful experiment. Which negative do you find the shadow detail to be 'good looking and adequate'?
- Thomas

 

[Seabee]

Hi Thomas,

will post the second series... then we can see...

 

[Seabee]

Shot 2

 

[Seabee]

shot 3 and 4

 

[Seabee]

I think 2 stops down is best?

A strange thing to be shooting with film that is probably 20 years over its date... or more....

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I like the one stop over exposure best, I guess. Hard to tell on a computer monitor at this resolution, but I think it looks good from here. All the negs seem useful. The ones 3 or more stops overexposed seem to have blacks that are too weak.

- Thomas

 

[Anon Ymous]

Spots

Hello Seabee,

you've got some bright spots on your photographs at random places. These are not bubbles I suppose. They would have low density at the negative and that would mean dark spots on your photographs. I don't know if it's your developing method or the film, but you seem to have a problem to solve.

 

[2F/2F]

Looks like the film works to me.

A few months ago I decided to shoot some Tri-X from probably the 1950s. I had been given a ton of it and thought i might get some cool crazy jacked-up lucky shots. I developed the film, and it was 100% black, edge to edge and end to end. Niiice. That's what test rolls are for.

 

[Seabee]

Hello Seabee,

you've got some bright spots on your photographs at random places. These are not bubbles I suppose. They would have low density at the negative and that would mean dark spots on your photographs. I don't know if it's your developing method or the film, but you seem to have a problem to solve.

Hi,

I think its just dust that got on when I was drying off the film. I did not take care there.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Hi,

I think its just dust that got on when I was drying off the film. I did not take care there.

Hmmmm... I don't think so. Dust wouldn't look circular. I guess you scanned the negatives with your 8800f. If it was dust it would look like... dust.