Salvaging Verichrome Pan 126 shot in the 70s

[Albo Greene]

Hi all,

Long post ahead, and I hope some of you can offer some advice and problem solving.

I have inherited my father’s photographic legacy: negatives, slides, super8 home movies, and some undeveloped film. It was a hobby he picked up in the 50s and he passed on to me his curiosity for it. It would be extra meaningful to successfully develop the rolls he left behind.

I know getting anything off these rolls is a long shot, but it would be really meaningful to my family to turn up even a couple coherent frames.

[Please don’t say “just send them to a lab,” as I have explored those options and found it to be cost-prohibitive for such a large amount (19 rolls) of poorly stored film that might be unsalvageable anyway.]

Developing this film presents a plethora of challenges, and I have scoured these forums and other sites for relevant discussions on this film type, expired film in general, benzotriazole for fog, rodinal vs d-76, etc. But there are some unique challenges I haven’t found to be specifically addressed. Rather than pepper the forum with all the angles of it, I wanted to lay out the whole situation in one post.

I don’t mind experimenting and will document my process, but if anyone has insight on the following issues, I would be so grateful!

1. Film was exposed likely 50 years ago

To start, I’m looking at 6x 12 exposure 126 cartridges of Verichrome Pan likely shot in the early 70s, and never developed. I’ve attached a photo of one of the cartridges for fun.

A lot of what I have found about developing expired film is focused on how to develop film someone purchased unexposed. I turned up some “found film” advice but not quite enough for me to proceed.

How do I determine the developing time for the film? I have seen snip tests that dip the film slowly a few seconds at a time per section, I’m not sure how that would translate to a longer process like stand developing. Which brings me to my next point.

2. Stand develop in Rodinal

After doing some digging, I determined that stand developing with Rodinal is likely to be successful on this sketchy material as well as being the cheapest first stab.

I have no data on how this film was shot, and as far as I can tell it was just stashed in the basement of numerous houses over the decades.

D-76 and HC-110 were other options I considered, but Rodinal seemed safest. Any objection?

3. Fungus Amongus

Questionable storage and age has caused a pretty grody fungus problem on most of the rolls.

I found examples of film that was affected by extensive fungus, which had been undetected until the film was developed. In this case, it’s so extensive as to be visible on the outside of the cartridge. See the photo I included.

Unless this is some mysterious “cartridge onIy” fungus, I expect a lot of damage has been done to the film in all these rolls, and I will need to do some post work on anything I successfully develop. Again, these are potential long-lost family mementos, so any success counts as success.

How do I handle this kind of fungus going into the developing process? Is a pre-wash and a prayer sufficient? Add something to the wash? Alcohol pad swipe in the changing bag before loading?

4. To Benzo or not to Benzo?

I’ve seen that a few drops of benzotriazole is useful for eliminating base fog on negatives, but can also demolish shadow detail (which was possibly lost to fog anyway). Again, a lot of the info I found referred to shooting unexposed expired film, not developing film shot fresh and left to sit for half a century.

Is Benzo even necessary with stand development? Is the fog that’s there just the fog I live with?

Is it possible to test this ahead of time?

5. Backing paper stuck

Any tips for dealing with the backing paper being possibly stuck to the emulsion while I’m loading the film onto the spool? Does a pre-wash help loosen some of that gunk or am I just screwed?

6. Loading advice

Any other advice you can throw at me for how to handle physically handling the cartridge and loading this film onto a plastic reel is welcome!

--

Thank you all for reading this far and offering any help you can! I have a limited amount of film to experiment with, and I’d love to approach this puzzle armed with the best possible practice.

--Albo

 

[Paul Howell]

As I recall, 126 will fit a standard 35mm SS reel, not sure how it will on a plastic reel. I would first remove the spool from the plastic cassette then try to seperate the paper backing from the film, if it is stuck when I would put the roll in SS tank filled with distilled water. (No particular good reason for distilled water.) After a few hours of soaking then do the best you can to separate the paper backing from the film. Once you have clean film you will need to decide on a developer. My Kodak mid 60s vintage data guide lists Verichrome pan in HC 110 D. B at 7,5 minutes. If you can a quart size Diafine it would be 3 mints A and 3 mints B, 70 to 90 degrees, the bump in ASA will help with loss of film speed. Others have recommended stand development Rodinal or other highly concentrated developer at 1:100 for an hour. My concern would be increasing the fog of the very old film. The last roll of verly film I developed was a roll of GAF 500 that came with a camera I had bought. It had been exposed and left in the camera. I used D76 stock for the times given for Tri X, it was fogged but a few printable images.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

To boost your confidence that this can be done: https://www.westfordcomp.com/ - look under 'found film'

 

[MattKing]

I would develop one roll in HC-110 dil B with gentle but normal agitation.
It should fit in reels that are set for 35mm film.
If I still had 35mm aprons, I would use one of my Kodacraft apron tanks, because they are a bit easier to use with film that is coiled like spring steel.
You may be okay with the backing paper, because my sense is that 126 film isn't as tightly wound as 616 film is/was, and I've had decent success in developing similarly or even older 616 film. It probably turns on whether that debris is evidence of the film getting wet.

 

[Donald Qualls]

126 will fit a standard 35mm SS reel,

Correct, 126 is 35 mm wide, so it'll fit any 35 mm reel. It came in 12 exposure (film length around 14 inches) and 20 exposure (about 24 inches), so it's shorter even than 120. If it hadn't been rolled up for fifty-some years, I'd probably put two or three rolls into a Paterson reel, start of one tape to the end of the previous.

Where you're likely to have trouble, however, is that if the film has been damp enough to mold like that, you may find the emulsion glued to the backing paper.

 

[Albo Greene]

Thank you all for your feedback! I've been mulling it all over since I plan to do an initial test roll this weekend before I dive in during the upcoming holidays and I have some follow up questions.

I'm not sure how to reply to multiple people at once on this forum, so you'll have to bear with me.

Donald, thanks for the tip that the mold probably indicates the film got wet. Do you agree with Paul's assessment that soaking the film for a while can help to remove any debris?

Paul, how important is the stainless steel tank in this case? I have both, but prefer the handling on some of my plastic tanks. Thanks for your great suggestions.

Matt, the aprons sound like a great idea. I don't have any on hand, but I'll dig in my community darkroom and scope out online, especially if this first roll gives me grief. I do have a single roll of 616 to develop.

And the big question for all of you is back to the developer. I'm surprised to see the suggestion to go with "normal" developing recommendations over Rodinal stand developing. My plan was to do one roll in Rodinal this weekend since I have both the time and the chemistry to launch this project.

Can someone give me a technical explanation of why it still makes sense to use the typical developing specs from the Verichrome Pan data sheet, even in these conditions? The data sheet only provides information on using Kodak developers, and Massive Dev Chart/Digital Truth gives the Rodinal data for 120 Verichrome film as 1+50 ASA64 10 minutes @20C

What I don't understand is how to determine an appropriate developing approach using Rodinal, or why using standard (kodak branded) developing time and chemistry would still be a viable option. Doesn't the age and condition of the film warrant some kind of special treatment?

Thanks so much!

Albo

 

[Paul Howell]

My thinking is that the less time in the developer will decrease the risk of fog. HC 110, DK 50 were championed as clean working meaning less fog. I use to use Microdol X 1:3 until I noticed that the longish development time, in the range of 15mint did increase fog. With 126 you will treat the roll as a push, 126 was keyed the camera to the film type, sort of a early DX. My wife used a (I think) a Kodak 126 retina in the 60s as she hated loading 35mm. The only downside was she could push the film, ASA was fixed. When shooting very old film I usually drop the ASA or ISO by half or more, in this case you will need to increase the developer time.

As 126 is the same width as 35mm then you could use a Patterson reel.

 

[Albo Greene]

My thinking is that the less time in the developer will decrease the risk of fog. HC 110, DK 50 were championed as clean working meaning less fog. I use to use Microdol X 1:3 until I noticed that the longish development time, in the range of 15mint did increase fog. With 126 you will treat the roll as a push, 126 was keyed the camera to the film type, sort of a early DX. My wife used a (I think) a Kodak 126 retina in the 60s as she hated loading 35mm. The only downside was she could push the film, ASA was fixed. When shooting very old film I usually drop the ASA or ISO by half or more, in this case you will need to increase the developer time.

As 126 is the same width as 35mm then you could use a Patterson reel.

This is so helpful, thank you. I'm not sure which camera my dad used for this film, so unfortunately I don't have a clue there. He had several Brownie 127 cameras and a Retina II that takes some lovely shots, but I haven't turned up any 126 camera.

So I think you're saying that more fog results from longer developing, but because of the film's age it needs to develop longer, thus making the fog problem worse, so it's best to use the shortest possible developing time accounting for age. Is that accurate?

So a shorter developing time in HC-110 would be better for fog than stand developing 1:100 Rodinal with a couple drops of 1% benzotriazole? One reason I was leaning toward stand developing with Rodinal was that from my understanding it can be very forgiving when you don't know the shooting conditions of a roll.

Not trying to be stubborn here, but hoping to increase my understanding and take the best approach. I've primarily worked with pretty straightforward developing prior to this.

Thanks again!

Albo

 

[Albo Greene]

One more question for folks who worked with 126 cartridges, with the way it loads and runs through the camera, where would I find unexposed edges for doing a snip test? I'd love to clip off a little edge and see what kind of fog I'm dealing with, but would like to avoid chopping up part of a frame. How much leeway does the beginning or end of the roll have in this regard?

Albo

 

[BrianShaw]

To my knowledge, there is no clear and definitive assurance that Rodinal stand development is really the best in this situation. There are probably mroe folks on the internet that recommend a more standard processing. Commercial processors who recover old film don't seem to use stand development either, wheter because it takes a lot of time or other methods work better. You might want to look at it from that perspective and reconsider your current bias. Alternatively, randomly pick one roll of film and give it a try, and let us know the results.

 

[Albo Greene]

To my knowledge, there is no clear and definitive assurance that Rodinal stand development is really the best in this situation. There are probably mroe folks on the internet that recommend a more standard processing. Commercial processors who recover old film don't seem to use stand development either, wheter because it takes a lot of time or other methods work better. You might want to look at it from that perspective and reconsider your current bias. Alternatively, randomly pick one roll of film and give it a try, and let us know the results.

Thanks, that's a helpful perspective. I'm not biased toward Rodinal + benzotriazole other than my previous research had led me to think it was a good approach to the situation, which was useful since I have them on hand via my community darkroom. That's why I posted---to get some insight on what I'd gathered from more experienced people and use that to inform my plan. It's still surprising to me that the conditions wouldn't demand a greater change in handling, and that's what I'm trying to understand. But there's only one way to find out, after all!

I'll definitely post about my results!

Albo

 

[Paul Howell]

One more question for folks who worked with 126 cartridges, with the way it loads and runs through the camera, where would I find unexposed edges for doing a snip test? I'd love to clip off a little edge and see what kind of fog I'm dealing with, but would like to avoid chopping up part of a frame. How much leeway does the beginning or end of the roll have in this regard?

Albo

Either end of the roll, there is not much of a leader, so maybe an inch or so.

 

[Albo Greene]

Either end of the roll, there is not much of a leader, so maybe an inch or so.

Perfect! Thank you so much.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Do you agree with Paul's assessment that soaking the film for a while can help to remove any debris?

I wouldn't count on it helping, either in terms of the mold or the likelihood that the emulsion has decided it's glue and stuck the film to the backing -- but it isn't likely to hurt. That said, warm water (80-90 F, so as not to just float the emulsion off the base) would help more with the latter, maybe (or may just make it easier for the gelatin to slide off the acetate). The gelatin in B&W films was softer back then than it is now...

where would I find unexposed edges for doing a snip test?

The last inch (at least) of the tail end will be free of image -- the one perforation per frame was skipped at the end to ensure the camera would continue advancing far enough to get all of the film into the takeup chamber. The tail will be the first part to come off the spool after you've broken open the cartridge.

 

[Albo Greene]

I wouldn't count on it helping, either in terms of the mold or the likelihood that the emulsion has decided it's glue and stuck the film to the backing -- but it isn't likely to hurt. That said, warm water (80-90 F, so as not to just float the emulsion off the base) would help more with the latter, maybe (or may just make it easier for the gelatin to slide off the acetate). The gelatin in B&W films was softer back then than it is now...



The last inch (at least) of the tail end will be free of image -- the one perforation per frame was skipped at the end to ensure the camera would continue advancing far enough to get all of the film into the takeup chamber. The tail will be the first part to come off the spool after you've broken open the cartridge.

Very helpful, thank you!

 

[MattKing]

I would start with the cartridge with the most mould - because opening the cartridge in the dark has its own challenges.
There may be some YouTube or similar internet resources out there to help you with that.

 

[Albo Greene]

I would start with the cartridge with the most mould - because opening the cartridge in the dark has its own challenges.
There may be some YouTube or similar internet resources out there to help you with that.

Yes, I've found some info on how to get them open. I have a feeling I'll be craving oysters.

Why most mold first in regards to opening them? I plan to use a changing bag to contain the spore explosion and so I can wipe it down after.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, I've found some info on how to get them open. I have a feeling I'll be craving oysters.

Why most mold first in regards to opening them? I plan to use a changing bag to contain the spore explosion and so I can wipe it down after.

Because it is the most likely to contain damaged film, and therefore the most appropriate to experiment/learn with!

 

[Albo Greene]

Because it is the most likely to contain damaged film, and therefore the most appropriate to experiment/learn with!

Great point! I appreciate everyone's help. I hope to have some results to report over the weekend if anyone is curious.

Albo

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, I wouldn't use a changing bag, I would wipe things down before opening the cartridge and control the ventilation around where I worked.

 

[Albo Greene]

FWIW, I wouldn't use a changing bag, I would wipe things down before opening the cartridge and control the ventilation around where I worked.

I don't usually use a changing bag, but I don't have much control of the dinky ventilation fan in my apartment bathroom, and I want to be considerate about bringing my moldy funky experiments into my community darkroom.

 

[Paul Howell]

You can always open the cassette in a bucket of water. Once the paper is off then you need to get onto a reel, with wet film you will to use a SS reel.

 

[lamerko]

For possible fungi and lichens - nothing specific you can do. This suggests moisture, and this is a paper-backed film - in addition to biological attack, it is possible that the paper is stuck to the emulsion, thus "fitting" numerous lint that are impossible to remove.
It may be a long topic, but there is something that works for you - the latent image is formed before the accumulation of age fog. This means that you are not interested in the topics of sensitivity decline. The only thing you need to do is fight the fog to compromise values, if it is too dense. I have seen many films from the 70s and 80s that have very low values of age fog. On the other hand, I have also seen those from the 90s that are almost completely black. Perhaps the biggest enemy is heat. Also, there are films that are preserved very well over time, and others perform extremely poorly.
The first step is to determine the level of fog. Use a developer that is known for low fog - for example, HC-110. Higher concentration and lower times and temperatures. If the fog is acceptable in the test - you can process the film.
In more severe cases, you can try a combination of very high concentration of developer + low temperature and a reasonable amount of a limiter such as benzotriazole. The idea is to start developing the highlights quickly for a short enough time to not let the fog rise too much. The latent image is above the fog, but the difference may be too small. Benzotriazole in this case would help to control and find the best compromise, including a surprising increase in the contrast, which will have already suffered a lot.
Unfortunately, this can only be done with a series of samples, while at the same time you should not allow the film to be destroyed. This may not be much fun

 

[Agulliver]

The good news is that Verichrome Pan is virtually indestructible. There will be images on those films.

Others are best able to advise on any films that have mold/fungi growth.

I don't think stand development is of any assistance. Personally I'd keep it simple. Any standard B&W developer....ID11, D76....develop for the recommended time and see what happens. I've had Verichrome Pan 60 years old deliver almost as new results, both when exposed 60 years ago and when exposed recently.

I would echo the advice to develop one film first which looks to have the most fungus/mold on the cartridge. Until you get the film out in a dark bag or darkroom you don't know how or to what extent the film itself is affected by any fungus.

 

[Donald Qualls]

There will be images on those films.

This is a known fact. I've personally developed VP that I exposed twenty years previously, and others have gotten usable images from much older film. Going back further, a couple years ago I developed a roll of Verichrome (the original ortho version, discontinued in 1955) and got scannable images. Most B&W films are durable in terms of latent image (Pan F being a well known exception), and Verichrome/Verichrome Pan is one of the most durable.