Processing old b/w film

[jim appleyard]

I'm going to be processing some old b/w film for a friend; probably a mixture of types and speeds. I was thinking of souping in
Thornton's two bath as I can do different films in the same tank and IIRC, two baths are supposed to yield full emulsion speed. Comments?

 

[Saganich]

If what I've read about various metol based 2-bath development and my actual experience were the same then sure go for it...but I've experience much less development than advertised so great for n- development.

 

[Milpool]

I'm going to be processing some old b/w film for a friend; probably a mixture of types and speeds. I was thinking of souping in
Thornton's two bath as I can do different films in the same tank and IIRC, two baths are supposed to yield full emulsion speed. Comments?

Yes, in general this type of divided development (ie metol-sulfite first bath and alkaline second bath) gives full emulsion speed as long as you don’t severely underdevelop in the first bath. I would not do less than 3-4 minutes in the first bath.

The longer you develop in the first bath, the higher the contrast. The type of alkali and concentration in the second bath isn’t critical. 5-10g of borax or metaborate will give the same results.

The only thing that potentially makes this sort of process less than ideal for old film is that it is not optimized for minimum fog.

 

[xkaes]

You don't say what film it is, how old it is, or what format it is.

Regardless, it takes almost nothing to run some simple tests -- for ISO and development time on a small piece of film. Then you will see how much fog there is. If there is "too much" fog, you can run additional simple tests adding enough benzotriazole to keep it under control.

Or you can just "wing it".

 

[John Wiegerink]

You don't say what film it is, how old it is, or what format it is.

Regardless, it takes almost nothing to run some simple tests -- for ISO and development time on a small piece of film. Then you will see how much fog there is. If there is "too much" fog, you can run additional simple tests adding enough benzotriazole to keep it under control.

Or you can just "wing it".

Most of the old threads here on this subject recommended Kodak HC110 since it battled fog like a trooper. At least that's what everyone said anyway. Never did use it myself.

 

[xkaes]

It's not a question of one developer being better than another in not creating fog. They all create it, and testing will determine how much is created. Then you can try to deal with it if needed.

Or, as I wrote, you can just "wing it".

 

[jim appleyard]

Thanks. I know some of the film is Ilford, but as of this moment, IDK which one. I was going to do at least 4 minutes in each bath. My friend knows that it's old film and won't be expecting too much. I may just wing it.

 

[xkaes]

You don't say what film it is, how old it is, or what format it is.

You also didn't say that it was exposed. What is the film in? The box(es) or paper-backing or cassette(s) must have something on them. That would give us something to work with.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I'm going to be processing some old b/w film for a friend; probably a mixture of types and speeds. I was thinking of souping in
Thornton's two bath as I can do different films in the same tank and IIRC, two baths are supposed to yield full emulsion speed. Comments?

No, I'd suggest you Ilford Ilfosol 3 which contains a restrainer to tame the possible age related film fog...

 

[npl]

For the best results and if you're willing to invest time on this, you might want to approach each films differently. As an example, for the Ilford one you can often find the original dev times online with developers that still exists today (D76, rodinal, HC-110..)

 

[rcphoto]

Big fan of old film in HC110. Processed several rolls that were probably 25-35 years old and got very useable results.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The chart below shows a comparison of Kodak developers, my go to developer is XTOL and replenished XTOL.

 

[MTGseattle]

My only experience with really old film so far has been a "found" roll of Agfa isopan iss in 120 size. I scanned around in the various online places and found what seemed to be an average starting point for that film in rodinal 1:50. I then added only 10% to the time. There ended up being 3 identifiable images on the roll, and a lot of frames with odd bubble shaped effects of varying density and some that were base+fog only. I'm not sure the original photographer exposed the whole roll.

I guess my point is that there should be a published starting point for almost any film/developer combo hiding somewhere in internet land. This is doubly true if you're dealing with some of the long-standing formulas and reasonably common film.

 

[xkaes]

I've got two rolls of unknown B&W film of unknown age (perhaps 50 years) that is exposed -- it in not in a labeled box or cassette. Just naked film.

I'm going to start off by developing a couple of inches at the inner END of the roll -- which probably will be clear -- to check for base + fog. I'll probably use D-76 for 5-10 minutes.

That will give me a starting point regarding the fog -- if it is a problem.

Then I'll move on to another couple of inches -- with some yet-to-be-determined adjustment.

 

[Disconnekt]

A photographer named Alex Luyckx did a video not that long ago on tips for developing unknown b&w films/b&w films with unknown dev times (dev times are @20:18):


The "6 minute rule" he was given (from Michael Raso of FPP & Mike Ekman) was to develop the b&w film for 6 minutes using either Kodak D76 (stock) or HC-110 (Dilution B, 1:31)(applies to Ilfotec HC & kodak hc110 clomes), and there's at least an 80-90% chance you'll get something from the roll

 

[Agulliver]

With old film I tend to use ID-11 which is functionally identical to D76. My rule of thumb is that if you cannot get an image with 7 minutes of ID-11 and occasional agitation, you're not going to get one with anything.

It helps to know what the film is though. What the ISO or ASA was will help you guess how much fog you can expect. Though there are plenty of other factors. If it's rollfilm with a paper backing, the chances are the backing paper will have reacted with the film. If it's 35mm or some other paper free film, that is at least one less concern.

Expected results range from "it could have almost been taken yesterday" to "Is that a person among all that noise and fog?".

Ilford Selochrome tends not to age well. FP and HP products do. Kodak B&W film often ages well, Verichrome Pan seems almost indestructible.

 

[jim appleyard]

I souped the film this AM. It was a mix of FP-4, HP-5, TX, Delta 400 and PX (Arista version); all film that are easy to look up. I started with Thornton's Two bath, then switched to HC-110, and finally D-23. In the end, it didn't matter as there was barely any image on any roll. I found out that the film is at least 15 years old and stored part-time in a vehicle. The film was shot at unknown EI's, but probably at box speed. While these are not my images, it didn't look like anything super important, but, I'm not the final judge. Oh, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Thanks for the input!

 

[xkaes]

A lesson for all of us. When I finally get around to test developing my two MYSTERY rolls, I'll report back.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilford Selochrome tends not to age well.

That's true. I was given some, many years ago, by Richard Hannay who'd bought it from a film machine at King's Cross station when in a hurray to get to Scotland looking for the 39 Steps

He never did develop it which was a pity as the result was all those films with different versions of the plot and ending. He could have prevented all of that by developíng at the time showing the right ending by using current developer such as Rodinal- still popular then

All I got was a severely fogged film that told me nothing and which leaves Netflix the chance to commission yet another version of the film

pentaxuser