This looks like dead film to me-or did I screw up?

Wolfram Malukker · Jul 8, 2025

1977 Plus X 4x5. Open box, unknown storage, it was free. The shot shown was exposed at 20ISO, the shot at 40ISO looks almost the same.

HC-110, Dilution H (1:63), 12 minutes. Kodak Hardening Fixer, developed in a paterson 3 reel tank in a 3d-printed film holder.

Here's what the 20ISO shot looks like:

aconbere · Jul 8, 2025

Not a good sign! I’ve shot similar era film with nothing but a small lift in base fog.

John Wiegerink · Jul 8, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
1977 Plus X 4x5. Open box, unknown storage, it was free. The shot shown was exposed at 20ISO, the shot at 40ISO looks almost the same.

HC-110, Dilution H (1:63), 12 minutes. Kodak Hardening Fixer, developed in a paterson 3 reel tank in a 3d-printed film holder.

Here's what the 20ISO shot looks like:

HC-110 usually is a good developer for aged/fogged film, but not this time it seems. I just tested two open boxes of 8X10 Tmax 100 and two open boxes of Tri-X Pro 320 in 8X10 that were 33 and 34 years old. All had been stored in various conditions like freezer, then fridge and then in an unheated non cooled garage loft. All the boxes had some form of water damage and two even have specs of black mold on the nice Kodak yellow. I developed them in ID-11 1+1 and while I don't have my densitometer here at the cottage it looks like there is very little fog, if any. What surprised me the most was the emulsion didn't show any defects as far as blotching, mildew or fungus.
Of course your film was a bit older than mine, but I think it has more base fog than it should, but like you said, "Unknown storage" and that could have been in an oven at 350 degrees. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. My loss record is much higher than my win record for sure, but you never know until you try.

F4U · Jul 8, 2025

Yep, no good. 1977 was a long time ago. Was worth a try I suppose. But nope. no good.

joho · Jul 9, 2025

here is my 2cents, HC-110 is not a developer for what you need.
buy diluting HC-110 and longer time you got the opposite of what you need...
the old film needs a developer that is more high contrast [one that dose not affect unexposed areas]
BUT will develop only exposed areas try something like R09 a 1to 30 add sodium hydroxide solution + alcohol 15cc for every 350cc working dilution dev. and if need add Kbr2

koraks · Jul 9, 2025

joho said:
here is my 2cents, HC-110 is not a developer for what you need.

Be that as it may, but choice of developer doesn't explain this amount of fog. So I'm with the others - this film is dead. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It has ceased to be. It is pushing up daisies. It is pining for the fjords.

F4U · Jul 9, 2025

koraks said:
Be that as it may, but choice of developer doesn't explain this amount of fog. So I'm with the others - this film is dead. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It has ceased to be. It is pushing up daisies. It is pining for the fjords.

agreed. Was worth a try, but it's dumpster food.

joho · Jul 9, 2025

Seeing that the boarders are pitch-black -Yes the film,it is a dead mule!
But then Some one like me -could use it for graphic art ----

Don_ih · Jul 9, 2025

Looks fully exposed to light and also water damaged. PlusX from 1977 would give an image if it hadn't been light-fogged, even if the film was moldy.

Wolfram Malukker · Jul 9, 2025

That was my take on it-no rebates at all. Heck the slide was pulled on one of these sheets and you can barely tell. Time to move on to the next box of film from 1977...the Royal X Pan 400...

(At least this box is still sealed!)

retina_restoration · Jul 9, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
That was my take on it-no rebates at all. Heck the slide was pulled on one of these sheets and you can barely tell. Time to move on to the next box of film from 1977...the Royal X Pan 400...

(At least this box is still sealed!)

Royal-X has a very poor reputation for surviving over the decades. High speed films degrade much faster than the slow ones. Set your expectations low.

Wolfram Malukker · Jul 9, 2025

Oh I know. If it works at all, I'm expecting it to look like one of those dyed sand paintings, where the grit is just glued on the page.

John Wiegerink · Jul 9, 2025

joho said:
here is my 2cents, HC-110 is not a developer for what you need.
buy diluting HC-110 and longer time you got the opposite of what you need...
the old film needs a developer that is more high contrast [one that dose not affect unexposed areas]
BUT will develop only exposed areas try something like R09 a 1to 30 add sodium hydroxide solution + alcohol 15cc for every 350cc working dilution dev. and if need add Kbr2

Hmm, your comment about HC-110 puzzles me. I've read here, on these forums, the advice to use HC-110 to develop old film that had been left in old folders for 50+ years. Why? It was said that HC-110 was a very good developer for reducing the fog due to age. Now, I agree with you about the dilution probably should have bee dilution "B". The truth is I have never tried HC-110 for aged film myself so I can only repeat what I have read here. I have never read any replies to the discussion that dispute HC-110 being a good developer for age film.

Dr. no · Jul 9, 2025

No mistakes! Congratulations for the attempt.
You can print these for your local contemporary art show. You will just need to write a pretentious "Artist's Statement" about the passage of time, how your parents abused you by making you color inside the lines or that Kodak betrayed your like-long trust.
Every sheet will have different mold/crystallization patterns, so these are limited editions.

joho · Jul 9, 2025

to Wolfram Malukker
The statement is from the negative you show in the opening of this thread. I can not see the actual sheet of film.
HC-110 is a developer which gives a balance between the high-lights [dense] and the low dense area of the neg. [have used it -not for me]
In this case, a dev. that is able to dev only exposed areas - is needed - and where unexposed area will remain undeveloped - I would start from there.
if need be ??????
how the film aged ?? is it FUBAR???

Wolfram Malukker · Jul 9, 2025

If you can see the image in the thread opening, that IS the negative. It's not a scan-that's actually a photo of the negative hanging to dry.

The film is useless, the thread was just a double-check to make sure I hadn't done something bone-headed. It's time to open the next packet, take a shot or two, and see how they do!

xkaes · Jul 9, 2025

Don_ih said:
Looks fully exposed to light and also water damaged. PlusX from 1977 would give an image if it hadn't been light-fogged, even if the film was moldy.

Exactly.

It's an opened box of unknown storage. A UNopened box of that age, kept at room temperature, would have given you MUCH better results -- with any developer.

For all you know, every sheet was exposed to room light, and then stored in the trunk of a car for 48 years.

npl · Jul 10, 2025

What is it you photographed is up to one's imagination

Bored on a long train ride, don't mind me ..

nosmok · Jul 11, 2025

My film journey started on old expired film, and it continues to be a really big part of what I do. My first developed film was expired Plus-X. But I quickly found PX was WAY LESS predictable and consistent than Verichrome Pan and Panatomic-X were, in my self imposed Caffenol regime (due to me using the kitchen to develop, and small kids in da house). PX from the 1990s or 2000s gave less consistent results than VP from the 1960s.

This looks like dead film to me-or did I screw up?

Wolfram Malukker

Attachments

aconbere

John Wiegerink

F4U

joho

koraks

Moderator

F4U

joho

Don_ih

Wolfram Malukker

retina_restoration

Wolfram Malukker

John Wiegerink

Dr. no

joho

Wolfram Malukker

xkaes

npl

Attachments

nosmok

This looks like dead film to me-or did I screw up?

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency