• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Tri X 400 Developing

ww12345

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
115
Format
35mm
Why did the film turn out like this? It looks like it was overdeveloped, but I wondered what trained professional opinions might be...

The film is Kodak Tri X 400, in a 100' bulk roll I was given that expired in 1986. I exposed and metered for 400 ISO, and thought I cut my normal 100 ISO developing time enough, but what do you think? The sprockets even came out tinged grey...



 

BMbikerider

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
3,039
Location
UK
Format
35mm
Not a trained professional view but one with over 50 yrs experience. This is typical of film that is well past it's use by date and has not been kept in the best of places. Possibly close to a heat source. It doesn't have to be a source which is hot, just one that is above the ambient room temp. Possible the heavier fogging was the side nearest to the heat which has made it fog even heavier
 

Red Tractors

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
135
Location
The windswep
Format
Multi Format
Agreed, Look at it this way, you got images on free film that expired 27 years ago, so, not bad overall.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,715
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Yes, that is called 'age fog' and results from film being stored way past its expiration date.

My recommendation, especially if you are new at this, is to buy fresh film. That way you will learn what your developed film should look like, and you can then move on to deal with the uncertainty that way expired materials throw at you.
 
OP
OP

ww12345

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
115
Format
35mm
Thanks for all the advice. I'm not too "new" to this; I've done my own bulk loading and B/W developing before, just never with 400 speed film. I just wondered if I was doing something wrong. Now that I know that it is just due to the age of the material, I'll work around it. I'll also buy a bulk roll of new stock 400 speed film...
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,715
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format

Cool. Good luck, and have fun!

For your information, 400 film doesn't look significantly different from slower speed films if you just look at the negatives. Keep in mind that all in all 400 speed film will have less inherent contrast than most ISO 100 (or lower) films, which means you will have to experiment a little with film exposure and film development to reach a similar negative contrast in both speeds.
 

GarageBoy

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
994
Format
35mm
Always wanted to know what high base fog looked like
 

Athiril

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
3,062
Location
Tokyo
Format
Medium Format
If you don't like it, you can either, decrease development time to develop the fog to a lower level and increase exposure to compensate, or add some restrainer to the developer and increase developing time.
 
OP
OP

ww12345

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
115
Format
35mm
Oh, ok. Cool - thanks for the tips on how to decrease the fog. Would half the time on development be sufficient? What about exposure compensation - maybe 2 stops over and half time development?
 

Nuff

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
581
Location
Tokyo, Japan
Format
Multi Format
From the little bit of reading around that I have done. HC110 is a good developer for old expired B&W films. Ast it should help with keeping the base fog under control. Good luck.
 

Fixcinater

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
2,500
Location
San Diego, CA
Format
Medium Format
I've done some expired TMAX 100 and 400 that I bought from a source that didn't know the storage history. It was in a dollar store when I bought it, so it was cheap enough to experiment.

As for the HC110 as a good-for-suppressing base fog developer, it's a bit better than rolls I did in D76, but it is not the *huge* difference I had read about.