Salvaging Verichrome Pan 126 shot in the 70s

[Albo Greene]

Thank you so much for the additional thoughts, Donald, Agulliver, and lamerko. The specific technical information was a big help.

Rather than blaze ahead with rodinal, I've ordered some HC-110. I'll get going next week when it arrives. I'll keep the forum updated with my results.

 

[Romanko]

I developed dozens of Verichrome and Verichrome Pan films, the oldest shot in the 1940s. Here is what I do:
- use HC-110 dilution B and develop for 6 minutes at 18 degrees Celsius as per the Kodak datasheet. Lower temperature extends the development time as a precaution against uneven development;
- use 1L Paterson Develoment tank with Poilot/JC reels that I find much easier to use than the original. These combine the best features of Jobo and Paterson/AP and really help with old curled film;
- use a changing bag, put a cutting mat inside it to have a clean flat work surface and wear nitrile gloves while loading the film. They simplify handling of the film (you can touch it as much as you want) and provide extra friction which could be helpful in loading the film.

I did multiple snip-tests of Verichrome Pan of various vintage and storage conditions and within the (limited) accuracy of the method the development time in HC-110 was as recommended by Kodak for new film. The same is usually true for other film/developer combinations so I always use recommended times when they are known.

I did not experiment with restrainers/anti-fogging agents but the results I saw did not convince me they do much to very old and heavily fogged films.

Mold has most likely got inside the cassettes and attacked the emultion. There is nothing you can do to this. Development process apparently kills the mold. If you are concerned with archival storage of the film you can wash it in formalin at some later stage. It acts as a harderner for the emultion and a fungicide. I do not use it. You might want to clean the cassettes with ethanol to keep your changing bag clean and tidy.

Backing paper stuck to the emulsion is a real problem and I don't know a good solution to it. I tried soaking a strip of roll film with stuck backing paper in ethanol, Photo-flo and baking soda solutions but it did not help. I ended up developing the roll with the fragments of backing paper stuck to the emultion after giving it a good soak in distilled water. It did not work very well but this was the best I could do.

Please report your progress with developing the film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I tried soaking a strip of roll film with stuck backing paper in ethanol, Photo-flo and baking soda solutions but it did not help. I ended up developing the roll with the fragments of backing paper stuck to the emultion after giving it a good soak in distilled water.

Another option would be load the film into the developing reel with the backing paper still in place, if you find it stuck. Backing won't affect development, since it's on the base side (it might prevent antihalation from washing out, but refixing after removing as much backing as possible at the end will solve that). The only potential snag is that in some formats the backing a millimeter wider than the film, which might cause problems getting it into the reel, but it's worth trying, compared to trying to clear the backing in the dark...

 

[Albo Greene]

I have a short update on this project. From the advice and discussion here, I ordered some HC-110 and developed the mankiest roll from the lot. Since plenty of folks were curious about the result, here's the first pass.

I followed the Verichrome Pan data sheet: developed in HC-110 B @ 18C for 6 minutes, water bath stop, Ilford Rapid fix 1:4 for 5 minutes, photo flo.

The good news: Opening the cartridge gave me no trouble, the paper was not stuck, and it loaded onto my plastic reels very easily. I got a full roll of arguably legible shots, a few samples of which are below. Turns out these are more photos from my dad's time in the Caribbean, dating them from 1961-1965, which is up to 10 years older than I was expecting.

The bad news: The negatives are way underdeveloped. There was lingering anti-halation on the edges, but on the outer part of the roll and not the inner. This It could be the reel, but I doubt it since it wasn't present the whole way through. (I could use a SS reel, but this film is so tightly curled I don't know that it will stay in place.) I only did a 1 minute pre-wash, so I'll do longer next time around. There is evidence of some fungus, but not enough that it diminishes seeing photos my dad shot 60 years ago. It would be easier to tell with better developed negs.

Based on these issues, I plan to re-fix and wash this roll and make the following adjustments for the next one:

• 3 minute pre-wash
• develop 8 minutes at 20C
• fix for 10 minutes

Thanks all for your thoughts, and I'll keep the forum updated as I keep exploring.

Photos attached are just a quick snapshot via my phone with color inversion + bit of clarity on LR for preview purposes.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Surprisingly good results!
They look printable.
After re-fixing, hypo clear and a very thorough washing, you might try intensifying the negs with selenium toner, 1+3 dilution....it would add some density, a bit of contrast and some permanence.

 

[Romanko]

Nice! Considering the age and storage conditions the results are as good as they get.

I would recommend against extending the development time. 8 minutes at 20 C is too much in my experience (60% longer than recommended). All you achieve is a denser negative with more fog that will be harder to scan and print.

I did not notice any effect from pre-washing the negatives but the anti-halation layer that comes off Verichrome Pan in roll formats is a very pleasant tint of pink.

Also, I never experienced anti-halation layer sticking to the developed negative but I only developed roll formats (127, 120/620, 116/616 and 122).

A couple of cloth pegs attached to the end of the negative will help in keeping it flat while drying.

 

[Albo Greene]

Nice! Considering the age and storage conditions the results are as good as they get.

I would recommend against extending the development time. 8 minutes at 20 C is too much in my experience (60% longer than recommended). All you achieve is a denser negative with more fog that will be harder to scan and print.

I did not notice any effect from pre-washing the negatives but the anti-halation layer that comes off Verichrome Pan in roll formats is a very pleasant tint of pink.

Also, I never experienced anti-halation layer sticking to the developed negative but I only developed roll formats (127, 120/620, 116/616 and 122).

A couple of cloth pegs attached to the end of the negative will help in keeping it flat while drying.

These really do look underdeveloped rather than just fogged, here is a closeup of the edge markings. Maybe stick to 18C but do 7 or 8 minutes? They're so thin.

 

[Romanko]

Maybe stick to 18C but do 7 or 8 minutes? They're so thin.

The fog is not too bad on this roll. You can try extending the development time, 8 minutes should be fine. You can also agitate a bit more to further increase contrast. With latent images 60 years old expect to lose information in shadows even for a properly exposed negative.

You have two competing factors here: the speed at which image density is formed against that of the fog. If you plot the curve of the ratio of the two versus development time you will see a hump-like curve. With very long development times your image density is no longer increases while fog density continues to grow. The curve is usually very gentle so there is some room for error/experimentation. The goal when developing very old latent images is to get the best image density to fog ratio rather than achieve a certain contrast.

You've done quite well. Good luck with the rest of your archive. This must be very rewarding to develop your father's negatives which are 60 years old.

 

[Albo Greene]

The fog is not too bad on this roll. You can try extending the development time, 8 minutes should be fine. You can also agitate a bit more to further increase contrast. With latent images 60 years old expect to lose information in shadows even for a properly exposed negative.

You have two competing factors here: the speed at which image density is formed against that of the fog. If you plot the curve of the ratio of the two versus development time you will see a hump-like curve. With very long development times your image density is no longer increases while fog density continues to grow. The curve is usually very gentle so there is some room for error/experimentation. The goal when developing very old latent images is to get the best image density to fog ratio rather than achieve a certain contrast.

You've done quite well. Good luck with the rest of your archive. This must be very rewarding to develop your father's negatives which are 60 years old.

Thanks so much! This first roll was very encouraging. I'm excited to do the rest.

 

[MattKing]

The bad news: The negatives are way underdeveloped. There was lingering anti-halation on the edges, but on the outer part of the roll and not the inner. This It could be the reel, but I doubt it since it wasn't present the whole way through. (I could use a SS reel, but this film is so tightly curled I don't know that it will stay in place.) I only did a 1 minute pre-wash, so I'll do longer next time around. There is evidence of some fungus, but not enough that it diminishes seeing photos my dad shot 60 years ago. It would be easier to tell with better developed negs.

Old film can be sticky. When you load sticky film into a plastic reel, it sometimes sticks!
You aren't seeing just lingering anti-halation. You are seeing where all the liquids/chemicals were prevented from getting to the emulsion, because the emulsion was stuck there to the reel. Those areas won't have been developed, stopped or fixed. As they have now been exposed to the light, they will now be totally fogged.
Re-fixing them will render them clear in those locations.
Normally I wouldn't suggest this, but for films like this that are exhibiting this behavior, I would try adding some lower than normal strength photo-flo to the pre-wash, to see if that can help them become unstuck.
Due to the introduction of photo-flo, you will need to be quite diligent in cleaning those reels after the developed film is removed.

 

[Romanko]

Old film can be sticky. When you load sticky film into a plastic reel, it sometimes sticks!

If you decide to extend your development time you can safely eliminate the prewash step (I never use it). Agitate continuously for 30 seconds after filling the tank and then 10 seconds (4 inversions) at the start of each minute. If you have a twizzle stick for your tank you can try combining the two methods of agitation, maybe it could help with the sticky emulsion if this is really the cause of your problem.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I doubt the emulsion was sticky as such -- more likely the tight curl of film that's been on a takeup spool for 50+ years just kept the emulsion side hard against the groove in the reel, more so on the outside where the reel is less tightly curved.

The "underdeveloped" look could be due to latent image fading. Developing more may bring up the density a bit, and with HC-110 you're already doing about all you can to reduce fog. I'd say it's worth trying for one roll.

 

[pbromaghin]

You may be able to learn something from The Rescued Film Project. They process old film going all the way back to the 1930's.

The Rescued Film Project Contribute

An online archive of forgotten and lost pictures trapped in rolls of film until now, have never been seen. Old film developing. Expired Film Developing.

www.rescuedfilmproject.com

 

[Romanko]

I doubt the emulsion was sticky as such -- more likely the tight curl of film that's been on a takeup spool for 50+ years just kept the emulsion side hard against the groove in the reel, more so on the outside where the reel is less tightly curved.

Probably worth trying a different reel/tank or load the film emulsion side out (if it is even possible with a stiff and curled old film).

The "underdeveloped" look could be due to latent image fading.

Sometimes they just disappear. I don't really understand what is happening here but presumably the process of sensitizing silver halides with light is reversible and the energy provided by the photons during exposure somehow dissipates returning silver salts to their unsensitized state. Shadow areas which received just enough light to become developable would be affected first. That's the hypothesis anyway. Fogging (chemical, thermal and radiational) should theoretically counteract this process. It is complicated. If someone has an explanation on what is happenning with latent images please share your knowledge (in a new thread).

 

[MattKing]

Probably worth trying a different reel/tank or load the film emulsion side out (if it is even possible with a stiff and curled old film).



Sometimes they just disappear. I don't really understand what is happening here but presumably the process of sensitizing silver halides with light is reversible and the energy provided by the photons during exposure somehow dissipates returning silver salts to their unsensitized state. Shadow areas which received just enough light to become developable would be affected first. That's the hypothesis anyway. Fogging (chemical, thermal and radiational) should theoretically counteract this process. It is complicated. If someone has an explanation on what is happenning with latent images please share your knowledge (in a new thread).

@Romanko ,
We would welcome your starting a thread on that very subject - it would fit well in this very sub-forum.
There are lots of threads that touch on the subject.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Fogging (chemical, thermal and radiational) should theoretically counteract this process.

Fogging wont' offset image fading (which is equivalent to bleaching). Fogging adds density evenly to the entire emulsion, bleaching/fading removes density evenly -- the result is that the lowest exposed areas will fade below Zone I and information is lost, and is not replaced when fogging brings back density. Fogging can bring a Zone II up to Zone III, but it can't put detail into a Zone 0.

 

[Tel]

This is a known fact.

+1: I’ve developed 60+ year-old Verichrome in HC-110 dil. B with good results

img641 by terry, on Flickr

Edit: It had those blobs on the negs, definitely water damage and perhaps involving schmutz from the backing paper. The film was in very tough shape but I got three or four recognizable images from it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And I've developed Verichrome (the original ortho version, discontinued in 1955) just a couple years ago, in D-23 with a little benzotriazole added. Nice thing with ortho film is you can DBI under a red safelight, and I did. One roll of full frame 127, I got four scannable images (and the roll was sitting on frame 6 when I got the camera).

 

[Albo Greene]

Thanks all for the continued helpful discussion. The film wasn’t sticky at all, it’s been clean and easy to handle so far. The anti-halation remainder was most likely from pressing against the reels, probably from being so curly. It was solved with a better pre-wash.

Here are the results from my second roll using the same reel and tank as the first roll.

1 minute vigorous pre-wash to make sure there was no contact between film and reel. HC-110 B @ 18C @ 8 minutes. Water stop. 8 minute fix (ilford rapid 1:4). 20 minute wash.

The density is way better than the first roll and still no significant fog. I’m very pleased with these results and think I’ll keep these processing numbers for the 4 other cartridges, since the rest of them don’t show any visible fungus (these ones did). Again, I got all 12 shots off the roll.

I was also able to clear the anti-halation left on my first roll by refixing 8 minutes with a SS reel and tank.

The photo below shows the first roll after refixing on the left, second roll on the right. The edges of both rolls show some degredation (even frame lines fade away) and especially on the second roll it seems to spread from the perfs. Not sure what that’s about.

For the photos, this reel is also from Jamaica, probably 1964, and features my dad’s co-teachers boiling crabs, launching canoes, and partying with priests.

As before, these are just quick snaps with my phone inverted on lightroom for a preview.

Edit: The photos actually have better detail than this, the images were compressed to fit under the file size. I'll link to high quality scans when I have them.

 

[Romanko]

The edges of both rolls show some degredation (even frame lines fade away) and especially on the second roll it seems to spread from the perfs. Not sure what that’s about.

This is normal. Roll film degrades quicker near the edges where it is less protected by the backing paper.

8 minutes development time seems to work well for this film. Continuous gentle agitation in pre-wash (by inversion or rotating the reel with a stick) would work better than any "vigorous" manipulations. 8 minutes fix might be excessive (though it does not do any harm). Two-bath fixing would achieve better archival results if that was your concern.

Very nice images! Good luck with the rest of the batch.

 

[Albo Greene]

Thanks! I'll stick to the 8 minute fix since the first roll didn't fully clear with 5 and I'd rather not have to redo them all. Like you said, no harm.

 

[Tel]

Finding images on very old film is eminently cool, but knowing that you’re recovering your family history makes it all the sweeter. Nice work!

 

[mshchem]

These are great!!!