They once were lost but now they're found

[osscat]

Hi, I am Osscat and new to the forum.

We moved house ten years ago - things get put in boxes - some do not get unpacked for ages.

When I unpacked my darkroom equipment I could not find a box of about 40 exposed TriX rolls. Well they turned up recently when clearing clutter.

Any suggestions as to how I should approach development? (apart from trial and error)

Osscat

 

[Vaughn]

To paraphrase Ted Orland, you have already exposed for the secrets, now develop for the surprises!

Besides that, you have 10+ year old exposed film...I'd add 10% onto the recommended time for the first roll, then use that to determine what you'll do the next roll at. You will probably be battling two opposing situations -- loss of contrast due to the aging which can be countered by increasing the development, but increased fog due to age which will probably be made worse by increasing the development. But you do have 40 rolls to "trial and error" with, so just jump into it! I believe HC-110 is suppose to be a relatively clean-working developer (low fog). Others might have other recommendations.

I base this on my experience using very out-dated film (15+ years), but exposed recently -- so your results may differ.

Vaughn

 

[Larry Bullis]

Good luck. I don't want to be responsible!

However, I've been experimenting with Edwal 12, a glycin containing developer which seems to produce very little base fog and great straight line curve up to about zone 12. If you want the formula, let me know, but hey, what ever happens -- It is NOT MY FAULT!

 

[p3200TMZ]

You could always do a few clip tests...

I would start with Rodinal 1:100 for 60min with minimum agitation, has worked with some almost 20 year old film that was recently exposed.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Osscat - Welcome to APUG

10+ year old Tri-X - hmmm... - I think you are in unknown territory.

I agree with the slight extended Dev times to help kick up the inevitable loss of contrast the storage will have brought.

An extra 10 to 15% seems a reasonable place to start – from the time you used to use – not the currently quoted times – emulsions are changed from time to time over the years and the current Tri-X will probably not be the stuff you have.

I found some old FP4 a couple of years back that had been hiding in the back of a cupboard and developed it to my old standard. The base fog was a little high but seemed reasonable otherwise.

With 40 rolls to develop you need something reasonably quick & readily available – ID11 in 5L packets?

ID11 is even available from Jessops in your high street if you order it – or a Saturday morning trip to Silverprint.

Have fun

Martin

 

[Chaska]

Another recommendation for HC-110 with about 10% more time. I have done some found film this way and was successful with a 25 year old roll but unsuccessful with some film from the 30's. The one from the 30's probably had no hope anyway, but the one from the 80's was printable.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I was thinking that, depending on subject matter, the loss of contrast may not be that big of an issue. If the images were scenic daylight shots, for instance they might actually be improved with a slight loss of contrast. You can always print to a higher contrast, but getting a normal contrast print with a high contrast negative is a lot harder to do.

You also need to consider how you will be printing these images; optically or by scanning? Scanning prefers a bit thin of a negative, so I'd recommend starting out by developing just one roll at a "normal" developing time. Then, based on what that roll looks like, you should be able to figure out if you'll need more development time, or a more sophisticated method, such as semi-stand (for a compensating effect.)

~Joe

 

[osscat]

Thanks Everyone.

I was under the impression that Rodinal had been discontinued - at least here in the UK? That was my first thought as well as Microphen.

Have not tried HC-110 at all so it is worth a go.

ID-11 is not for me - I remember looking into the recipe and it is missing something that is present in D76 - my experience with both led me to stay with D76 for the last 30 odd years.

My normal processing method was D76 for 11.5 mins at 1+1.

Must bite the bullet.

Thanks Jo, Chaska and Vaughn - your comments are noted - and Bowzart - if the first batch is not to my liking I will try your recipe.

Thanks to all for being so helpful.

Osscat

 

[Larry Bullis]

Here's another thought. You may get a bit of increased base fog, especially if you increase your time to rebuild lost contrast. Whatever you choose to use, why not do a roll and see how it looks, then if you see a need for increased development, correct as needed. Check also the base density. If it seems objectionable, add a bit of benzotriazole ("anti-fog #1) to the developer. This will decrease the fog. You need to be careful with it because it is a powerful restrainer. I don't have the right book to look it up here in the office, but the information is out there. It is used in a dilute stock solution, seems to me something like 0.1% (but don't take my word for it) and added in small quantities to the developer.

 

[mabman]

I was under the impression that Rodinal had been discontinued - at least here in the UK? That was my first thought as well as Microphen.

Rodinal wasn't discontinued per se - Agfa went backrupt, and another German company (A&O) bought the chemical assets (I think - although it may have been only the Rodinal formula), it just took a while for them to get restarted on producing more and distributing it, etc.

I don't think Microphen was ever discontinued - I seem to recall it being on my favourite photo store's shelves last time I was in.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Silverprint sells Rodinal - http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ProductByGroup.asp?PrGrp=5011

Martin

 

[osscat]

Thanks again.

Bowzart, Mabman and Martin,

Thanks all for the added info - I am now getting very keen to start developing in fact I can hardly 'restrain' myself - sorry for thr pun.

Rodinal was my favourite dev to push TriX to 1600. I thought it might do a reasonable job in lifting contrast.

Now I have a choice of four plus the benzotriazole addative.

As far as I remember there is one frame I have been lamenting the loss of, lets hope it is not on one of the test rolls.

This is one on TriX at 1600 in the 1970's. (are images allowed?)

Osscat

 

[Thanasis]

Bowzart, Mabman and Martin,

Thanks all for the added info - I am now getting very keen to start developing in fact I can hardly 'restrain' myself - sorry for thr pun.

Rodinal was my favourite dev to push TriX to 1600. I thought it might do a reasonable job in lifting contrast.

Now I have a choice of four plus the benzotriazole addative.

As far as I remember there is one frame I have been lamenting the loss of, lets hope it is not on one of the test rolls.

This is one on TriX at 1600 in the 1970's. (are images allowed?)

Osscat

Lovely stuff that Tri-X @ 1600 in Rodinal isn't it? Not the best for portraits of women, but men seem to like the look of their faces on photographs from negs shot & processed in this way.

 

[resummerfield]

Another recommendation for HC-110 with about 10% more time. I have done some found film this way and was successful with a 25 year old roll but unsuccessful with some film from the 30's. The one from the 30's probably had no hope anyway, but the one from the 80's was printable.

I developed a 30+ year roll of FP4 this summer, using HC-110B and 50% more time, and got printable negs.

As far as your 10 year old film, I would suggest HC-110B and around 25% more time. The base fog will be higher, but I'll bet you get good printable images.

 

[DWThomas]

I found a roll of Plus X from 1981 in my old Flexaret TLR this summer -- quite shocking, as it was I who somehow left it there. I developed it in HC110 1+63 for about 10% more time than I usually would and got recognizable images. The background density was higher, and something looked a bit funky about the grain, but they would be printable. The results definitely don't look as good as an earlier roll of the same film taken and processed in 1981, but they're salvageable. Of course faster films may suffer more, I've no experience with that. The shots were taken with flash, documenting a project in a basement workshop, and aren't exactly optimum to begin with. The whole experience was a bit mind-boggling, actually -- 27 year old latent exposures.

DaveT