Old outdated film with a pleasant surprise!

[John Wiegerink]

I've read countless posts on the topic of outdated film, but never really messed with outdated film myself. I mean really outdated, and not just a year or so outdated. The story begins in Chicago at a Camera collectors show where I was set up. A fellow came to my table with a stack of outdated sheet film in 4X5 and 8X10, both B&W and Fuji transparency film. He asked me if I'd be interested in buying all of it. I ask him if it was all good and properly stored. He said it was kept at room temps and never got over 75F. I told him I couldn't give him much since I couldn't try it out first. He wanted me to make an offer, and I just told him to tell me what was the absolute rock-bottom price he would take. Well, I ended up with a pile of film dirt cheap. That was in about 1994-95. Fast-forward to now. Well it's been in the bottom of my freezer ever since and even went through one freezer breakdown/thaw out to boot. My wife and I are preparing to move to or cottage full time, so it was time to start cleaning the old house out. I dug the film out and thought I'd see just how bad it was, or if it was even useable at all. So I loaded some 4X5 holders with TMY2 dated 03/1992, TMX 100 Dated 09/1991, Tri-X dated 11/1991 and Plus-X dated 1/1992. I used a little Fuji 150mm f5.6 (single coated) lens and my LunaPro light meter in incident mode. I rated the 100 ISO film at 80 and the 320 and 400 speed films at 250. The results really surprised me in a very good way. There is a tad bit of base fog, but not as bad as I thought. Also, there were no emulsion defects like molting or mildew. I hope the 8X10 film is as good. I haven't even tested half of what I bought, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Here are some straight scans out of Vuescan and an old Epson 3200 flatbed scanner.

This is a nice early Christmas present for sure.

 

[nosmok]

Nice! I had the opposite experience this week-- a box of very old 4x5 Panatomic X was, finally, too damn old (the date had broken off the box, but the old-style labeling probably indicated 1957 or so). It was an open box when I got it, so my rule of thumb of "Pan X in a sealed box from 1963 or newer is plenty usable" is stretched but not broken.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Nice! I had the opposite experience this week-- a box of very old 4x5 Panatomic X was, finally, too damn old (the date had broken off the box, but the old-style labeling probably indicated 1957 or so). It was an open box when I got it, so my rule of thumb of "Pan X in a sealed box from 1963 or newer is plenty usable" is stretched but not broken.

I also found a box of Kodak Royal Pan from 1958, but it didn't come from the guy in Chicago. In fact, I have no idea where it came from, but I'm pretty sure it's toast. What really surprised me with this test was that the TMY2 and Tri-X were no more fogged than the 100 speed films. I've always heard that HC-110 was the developer for old, outdated film, but ID-11 1+1 seemed to do pretty good for me. I'll be trying Pyrocat-HDC or Wimberley's wd2h+ next and will post the outcome from that. One last note, the actual scans from the old Epson are much sharper than what ended up here. Don't know why other than the downsizing?

 

[chuckroast]

Just processed a roll of 35mm Tri-X from around 1990s. Used semstand Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200 for an hour with an initial agitation of 2min and a midpoint agitation for 15sec. Negs are just fine, with no particularly noteworthy fog.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Just processed a roll of 35mm Tri-X from around 1990s. Used semstand Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200 for an hour with an initial agitation of 2min and a midpoint agitation for 15sec. Negs are just fine, with no particularly noteworthy fog.

I would have thought that with the films I developed that the faster films like TRI-X and TMY2 would have shown a little more fog than the slower films, but they didn't. I might try semi-stand Pyrocat-HDC with the outdated films I have. I've not really tried semi-stand with Pyrocat and this might be a good time to try it. What is your agitation regime with your Pyrocat-HD?

 

[chuckroast]

I would have thought that with the films I developed that the faster films like TRI-X and TMY2 would have shown a little more fog than the slower films, but they didn't. I might try semi-stand Pyrocat-HDC with the outdated films I have. I've not really tried semi-stand with Pyrocat and this might be a good time to try it. What is your agitation regime with your Pyrocat-HD?

Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200

Prewet for 3 min
2min initial agitation
15sec at 31min
Pull at 60 min

More here. See especially the Updates section at the end:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

 

[John Wiegerink]

Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200

Prewet for 3 min
2min initial agitation
15sec at 31min
Pull at 60 min

More here. See especially the Updates section at the end:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

Thanks, after Christmas, I'm going to give that a try and see what I get.

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks, after Christmas, I'm going to give that a try and see what I get.

Read my notes in the document above first. How you suspend the film is critical.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Read my notes in the document above first. How you suspend the film is critical.

Yes, I'll follow it to the letter.

 

[chuckroast]

Yes, I'll follow it to the letter.

Please do share your results.

Note that I do everything in Pyrocat-HD with Part A in glycol, not -HDC. I've no idea if this has any bearing on propensity toward bromide drag and streaking. It will be interesting to hear your outcomes.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Please do share your results.

Note that I do everything in Pyrocat-HD with Part A in glycol, not -HDC. I've no idea if this has any bearing on propensity toward bromide drag and streaking. It will be interesting to hear your outcomes.

My times for HDC are pretty much the same as Pyrocat-HD. My Pyrocat_MC times were a little different, but not much. My part A is also in glycol. I'll post the results after the holidays.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I checked out the 50 8x10 sheet’s of Tri-x and 25of Tmax 100 and they are both good with just a little more fog on the Tri-x

 

[Jojje]

In my books your catch is fairly modern! I've been using (slowly!) a bunch of 23 boxes of glass plates from 1940's and even earlier. Some of the stuff only has very slight silver mirroring on the edges. All of the Ilford plates have been good, haven't tried Kodak yet. Sensitivity is much reduced, like from 200ASA to 25. I've had good results with powerful developers like Ilford ID-33, (may even try some day paper developer, if lazy). Some more in Flickr: glass plates

 

[John Wiegerink]

In my books your catch is fairly modern! I've been using (slowly!) a bunch of 23 boxes of glass plates from 1940's and even earlier. Some of the stuff only has very slight silver mirroring on the edges. All of the Ilford plates have been good, haven't tried Kodak yet. Sensitivity is much reduced, like from 200ASA to 25. I've had good results with powerful developers like Ilford ID-33, (may even try some day paper developer, if lazy). Some more in Flickr: glass plates View attachment 357742

Your results are amazing. I was wondering also as to which is possibly the best developer for old outdated film to get the best results. I've read that HC-110 works very well, but I'm sure there are others too. I have one box in the bunch I got that's dated 1959, the same year I got my first camera. One other box of 8X10 is from 1978. The Tri-X 8X10 I tested yesterday had no date sticker left on it. The 4X5 Tri-X seemed to be pretty close when rated at EI 250, but the 8X10 was definitely lacking in the speed department.
Your results and mine surprise me because there are no emulsion defects after all this time in storage. We now seem to have problems with molting and mildew on just freshly expired B&W films. Must be the gelatin and base materials were better back then. I have 5 more 4X5 boxes and 4 more 8X10 to check yet, not counting a bunch of Fuji boxes of 50D (E6) in 8X10 and 4X5. I'm going to test the Fuji 50D by exposing it and then send it out so I know it's processed right. I'm willing to bet there is probably going to be a color shift in the E6 film, but I could be wrong.

 

[Jojje]

Maybe some things indeed were better before..!