Storing unfixed and dried film to fix at a later date

[Don_ih]

A week ago, I responded to the Supermarket Fixer question posted here by saying that a traveler could, if not wanting to risk bringing undeveloped film through airport scanners, develop the film, thoroughly stop it and dry it, and bring it home to fix it. That would not be a perfect solution, of course, but I thought it would be possible. So, I tested it.

I exposed a strip of Plus-X motion picture film, every shot exactly the same. I cut the film before putting it on reels then developed it in Parodinal. After developing, I stopped the film with freshly mixed Kodak stop bath. Then, in the dark, I took one reel out and resealed the tank. I hung up the film I'd taken out by safelight and fixed and washed the remaining film. I hung up the fixed film to dry in my bathroom.

Once the unfixed film was dry, I cut it in half and put one half in a film canister. The other half I left hanging and turned on the light.

I left it alone for a week. One small strip of film was sealed in the dark canister, another was hanging two feet from a 60watt bulb, another was fixed and dried.

Today, I fixed the film and scanned it.

From left to right: normal, unfixed and stored in the dark, unfixed and stored in the light.

The scans are pretty similar. In the same order:



So, it seems like you can fix film, let it dry, put it away, and fix it a week later - if there's an emergency.

 

[Don_ih]

To clarify - the strip I left hanging for a week was not in a fully lit room the entire time. When the light was on, it was 2 feet away from it. When the light was off, the door was open and light was coming in through there.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

What would prevent you from fixing the film right after it's developed? Presumably, if you've gone to the trouble of doing all the previous steps what would prevent you from doing the remaining 3 steps (fix, wash, wetting agent).
I am not criticizing, just trying to understand what this approach would benefit.

 

[Don_ih]

What would prevent you from fixing the film right after it's developed? Presumably, if you've gone to the trouble of doing all the previous steps what would prevent you from doing the remaining 3 steps (fix, wash, wetting agent).
I am not criticizing, just trying to understand what this approach would benefit.

It was originally in response to a question about the possibility of homebrewing fixer from commonly available ingredients. There is no benefit, other than the film is fully developed so might not suffer from nasty airport scans (these scans can fog film but that fog probably won't show up if the film is not developed after it happens).
So, I just wanted to know if anything bad would happen.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Don, thank you for performing this experiment. After reading your comments in my supermarket fixer thread I'd planned to do this but hadn't been able to get into the darkroom this week because of life. It's good to know that I'll be able to process my film using only supermarket items (instant coffee, washing soda, vitamin C, and white vinegar) even if I can't find a community or private darkroom in my travels.

Of course I hope it never comes to this, but backup plans are always good to have, especially now that airports are starting to install CT-based hand-luggage scanners. Again, my thanks.

 

[Don_ih]

Don, thank you for performing this experiment. After reading your comments in my supermarket fixer thread I'd planned to do this but hadn't been able to get into the darkroom this week because of life. It's good to know that I'll be able to process my film using only supermarket items (instant coffee, washing soda, vitamin C, and white vinegar) even if I can't find a community or private darkroom in my travels.

Of course I hope it never comes to this, but backup plans are always good to have, especially now that airports are starting to install CT-based hand-luggage scanners. Again, my thanks.

I only assume that the aggressive scans won't permanently fog the developed and unfixed film. It seems unlikely the scan would be more intense than direct light from a bulb. My exposed strip of film was quite light-fogged (much darker after a week) but it all fixed away. I doubt anyone could tell the difference between the scans I posted.

The only real difference that I can spot is more dust on the film that was hung up to dry twice. I think some dust gets in the emulsion and doesn't come out after it dries. That's definitely something to keep in mind.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

It was originally in response to a question about the possibility of homebrewing fixer from commonly available ingredients. There is no benefit, other than the film is fully developed so might not suffer from nasty airport scans (these scans can fog film but that fog probably won't show up if the film is not developed after it happens).
So, I just wanted to know if anything bad would happen.

Thanks Don - makes perfect sense; I feel silly for having asked, even!

 

[MattKing]

To make the test more complete, you could test both for residual silver (after fixing) and residual fixer (after washing).

 

[Don_ih]

To make the test more complete, you could test both for residual silver (after fixing) and residual fixer (after washing).

Someone could - I wouldn't. It doesn't seem to have much to do with it. If there's residual silver, it needs to be fixed more. If there's residual fixer, it needs to be washed more. (I can't guarantee that I am careful enough for any film to pass those tests.) There are two concerns with storing an unfixed bit of film: (1) image loss and (2) image fogging.

Thanks Don - makes perfect sense; I feel silly for having asked, even!

It wasn't a silly question at all. Just out of the blue, doing this seems pointless.

 

[ic-racer]

Poor fixing can be evident years later.

 

[MattKing]

There are two concerns with storing an unfixed bit of film: (1) image loss and (2) image fogging.

Probably.
But I would be concerned that there might (I stress might) be two more:
1) requires extra fixing; and
2) requires extra washing.
Thus the suggested tests, to make sure.
That gelatin will have gone through a lot of unexpected things.

 

[removed account4]

Excellent test! But I wonder if it was was bombarded with X-rays if it would still be as it is . I was mainly worried about the effects post air port pollution not so much post development…. The current machines are dangerous not only to film but to you and me….

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Poor fixing can be evident years later.

true. In lost a poorly fixed film(exhausted fixer) after ten years of dark storage;refixing helped somewhat

 

[Don_ih]

Poor fixing can be evident years later.

Yes - and I've previously had to refix film that started to show signs of that.

That gelatin will have gone through a lot of unexpected things.

That's true, also. And, actually, I was expecting to see some sign of something different, especially in the strip I left out hanging. But I can't see anything.
For both of these points, I think one could be more cautious and extend the fixing time 25%. It might also be a good idea to do a 5 minute soak in water before fixing.

But I wonder if it was was bombarded with X-rays if it would still be as it is

I wonder that, too. But I doubt it would have more of a fogging effect than even 5 minutes of hanging next to a 60 watt bulb.

 

[removed account4]

I wonder that, too. But I doubt it would have more of a fogging effect than even 5 minutes of hanging next to a 60 watt bulb.

maybe. ..
thanks for your test...
I live near an airport. but sadly I don't know any tsa agents who currently work there
it would be kind of fun for them to scan it. and see if it got fogged ...
years back when I was traveling through Heathrow to get to other parts of Europe. .. it was after
the subway bombings I think. .. there were scanners every like 50 feet it seemed. .. one trip back and forth
I think we were scanned 14 times. .. film was fine though

 

[mshchem]

I wonder that, too. But I doubt it would have more of a fogging effect than even 5 minutes of hanging next to a 60 watt bulb.

This is unlikely IMHO.

 

[gone]

It seems unlikely the scan would be more intense than direct light from a bulb

I wouldn't assume that. Scanners have really bright lights, and the film is extremely close to the light source. I don't think any simulated light test will be consistent w/ what an xray machine will do. It would need to be tried by actually going through the machines.

 

[relistan]

Excellent experiment @Don Heisz !

Regarding the later part of the conversation... Correct me if I'm missing something, but unless re-developed, no matter what fogging happens afterward will still just fix out. X-Rays and other forms of normally-encountered radiation don't reduce halides into silver, and whatever the ionic state of the silver halides, they will fix out.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think if I went as far as developing the film, and then running it through stop bath, I would also fix it, too. I guess this is good to know if I found myself short of fix.

 

[Don_ih]

unless re-developed, no matter what fogging happens afterward will still just fix out. X-Rays and other forms of normally-encountered radiation don't reduce halides into silver, and whatever the ionic state of the silver halides, they will fix out.

That is what I was assuming when I first suggested the idea. I assume, though, that if you keep a piece of film in the light long enough, it will get printed-out. But I've had film that was improperly fixed and sat around for 5 years - it got quite obviously fogged and all that fixed out. But as Ralph Lambrecht said above, if you wait too long fixing won't really "fix" it, anymore.

 

[Don_ih]

I think if I went as far as developing the film, and then running it through stop bath, I would also fix it, too. I guess this is good to know if I found myself short of fix.

So would I. This was just an experiment to see what would happen. But it is a good thing to know, since it's not impossible someone would start developing film thinking they had a bottle of rapid fix only to find it empty.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So would I. This was just an experiment to see what would happen. But it is a good thing to know, since it's not impossible someone would start developing film thinking they had a bottle of rapid fix only to find it empty.

Agreed. That's kind of what I was thinking... and running out of fixer after I thought I had some, or the diluted bottle I had had exhausted itself with over use... it's all happened to me. Cheers!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

unless re-developed, no matter what fogging happens afterward will still just fix out. X-Rays and other forms of normally-encountered radiation don't reduce halides into silver, and whatever the ionic state of the silver halides, they will fix out.

This is the hypothesis. Result of OP's experiment is encouraging enough to test the hypothesis in the field.

 

[Don_ih]

Not necessarily. There is “printing out”

I was trying to test whether a bit of direct light-fogging would fix out (in this case it does, but I wonder what it would be like with a Tmax film). It is demonstrated that fog due to improper fixing will reach a state where it cannot be fixed out - I have no idea how long that would take. The "proper" thing to do, if you can't fix the film right away but have already developed it, is keep it in the dark. Maybe even keep it out of the open air, in case that actually has some unwanted impact.

 

[Don_ih]

Kodak used to recommend ISO 400 film be hand inspected, but my guess is the latest x-ray machines are too powerful even for slower films. Checked luggage is probably blasted with gamma ray bursts at this point.

I think, barring being able to fully process the film before leaving, mailing it home is the best bet - by courier, if the film is important.