Old HP5 and PanF (1980s)

09 Dec 2023

I was gifted bulk rolls of HP5 and PanF by a friend who was shutting-down his darkroom. The first thing I did was to open each can (in total darkness) and load a ~6 inch clip into a reel. I then proceeded to develop them in Kodak D76 (stock) for 7:00 minutes. The purpose of this process was to answer the question "How fogged are these films?". The answer is that the HP5 is very fogged, and the PanF does not show much fog. I turns out that the HP5 film was unused, whereas the PanF roll had been placed in a bulk loader then removed (because it is a short roll).

With the status of the film known, I loaded the HP5 in to my bulk loader and wound 2 rolls of 12 exposures each. I photographed with two different cameras (Rollei 35R and Leica CL), and processed the film in Kodak D76 (stock). When the rolls were dry I noticed that they were grossly underdeveloped - the leader was not anywhere near an OD of 2.0. This prompted two questions: (1) What is the difference between HP5 and HP5+?, and (2) Is the Kodak D76 developer (exp: 08/2025) not as active as it should be? It should be noted that I usually formulate my own D76.

I have looked for an answer to (1) and have come-up empty, therefore some of the "very experienced" photographers might have some insight to an answer. To answer (2) I did a clip test with a length of HP5+ and found that the fully exposed leader did not fully develop (maybe a little denser than the fogged HP5 leader). This experience lead me to three conclusions ...

1. The Rollei 35R an Leica CL are working properly, and give good photos.
2. The exposure meter on the Rollei works well, but requires the photographer to consider the subject lighting carefully.
3. That the Kodak D76 developer is bad, and I should return to formulating my own D76 developer.

I welcome any thoughts on an answer to (1) above, and what is going-on with Kodak D76 developer.

Regards,
Darwin

Try exposing each type of film at about a quarter of the original box speed. The HP5 at ISO 50 should give you some usable images. It’s really old film, have fun and experiment!

drpsilver said:

I did a clip test with a length of HP5+ and found that the fully exposed leader did not fully develop (maybe a little denser than the fogged HP5 leader)

Click to expand...

That would sound like the developer is bad - with exhausted developing agents.

I have HP5 and it develops at pretty much the same time as HP5+. Mine was frozen since new, though, so doesn't have terrible age fog.

Oh, and the PanF will probably be perfect at iso25-50. That stuff lasts forever.

I have some refrigerated HP5 I bought new in early 1980s. I tested it around 2006 and the base density was 0.65. Probably much worse now.

Time to mix up fresh, everything, just to eliminate any variables, so you can focus in on what the trouble is.

You might try shooting two short rolls of the modern production of each film you're testing and developed it, or, if you have tall tanks and enough reels, against several 12 exposure rolls, of different exposure iso, of each of the old film, to see what's happening.

Try developing all of each run at the same development time, and the adjust from there.

A lot of work, I know, but if you like to experiment, this is somewhere to start, without specialized tools, or, densitometry.

Good luck.

11 Dec 2023

To All:

Thank you for your thoughts, comments, and suggestions.

My plan is to ...
1. Wind 2 rolls of 12 to 15 exposures each of the fogged HP5
2. Expose these rolls either in the Leica CL or Canon AE-1P
3. Mix-up a liter of my "home brew" D76
4. Process these rolls in my D76 for the same time and temp I used for the Kodak D76
5. Compare negatives to the rolls developed in the Kodak D76

Depending what I see proceed working with the fogged film (for fun and experimentation), or pour myself a scotch and consider "next steps".

Regards,
Darwin

The process times for HP5 in stock ID11 is 7 1/2 minutes, and for Pan F 50 in stock ID-11 is 6 minutes.

According to the ProPhoto Mag 1989 reviewing the "new HP5+" version, the process times for HP5 are the same for HP5+, so at least there is a starting point.
You can find more info on HP5 & Pan F50 here: https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html, you just have to scroll down to the mid-1980's area, theres some info on the films there/some pdf's on the films

I have a mass roll of PanF, sometime from the early 80s - it hasn't budged. There is no fog, and it is as if the speed has not suffered from the weather. This thing never gets old!
For HP5 - I have two rolls, one from the early 80's, the other from the early 90's (bought for a project). I haven't tested them yet, but I don't expect perfect results. However, if I am based on other old films, it is good to have a 3-5 min pre-wash. Of course, these films will need to be shot at a corrected speed depending on the baseline haze and the haze reduction methodology in development. There is no formula for these things - tests will be needed to determine.

19 Dec 2023

After a little experimentation I have concluded that the Kodak D76 is either (1) prematurely gone bad, or (2) either the metol or hydroquinone have oxidized without showing as the typical brown color. I suspect the latter because Kodak adds some "preservatives" to the commercial formulation that is not in the published formulation, and may mask this oxidation. For whatever reason the redox development reaction is not as active as it should be. Below is some data to support my conclusion ...

I developed HP5+ film clips (fully exposed leader) in Kodak D76 and my "home brew" D76. Both D76 developers were mixed and allowed to "season" overnight (this constitutes "fresh"). All processing was done at the same temperature, and for the same length of time. All optical density (OD) measurements were taken with a densitometer.
Kodak D76 (fresh): OD = 1.8
Kodak D76 (2-day old): OD = 1.79
Home Brew D76 (fresh): OD = 2.39
Home Brew D76 (2-day old): OD = 2.38

The lesson here is to not use Kodak D76, and use only my "home brew" formulation, or test the Kodak D76 before using it to process film.

Regards,
Darwin

Edit: I used tap water to make both of the above D76 formulations, and this time of the year our water is very "hard". Does anyone know if the high ionic strength of the water would effect developer performance? I wish Ron (Photo Engineer) was still with us!

Looks like you should go back to making your own. How many packages of D76 have you now tested and found lacking?

Making my own is simple, fun, and easy to control.

I won't go back to prepackage D-76, it's so simple.

If others here have not mixed their own, give it a shot, as an ongoing new years project.