Using old chemicals and paper

mehguy · Apr 18, 2016

I have some boxes of old ilford photo paper, I don't know the age of it but it might be around 10 years old. I also have a packet of d76 and dektol that are about 10-15 years old. Are these any good?

RalphLambrecht · Apr 18, 2016

mehguy said:
I have some boxes of old ilford photo paper, I don't know the age of it but it might be around 10 years old. I also have a packet of d76 and dektol that are about 10-15 years old. Are these any good?

You won't know unless you try but chances are:Yes.

mklw1954 · Apr 18, 2016

I recently tried to use 8 year old b&w paper and it was apparently fogged as I could get very little contrast at normal contrast filtration, just dull gray prints. I opened up a new pack of paper and the normal contrast filtration was just fine. But it wouldn't hurt to try your paper and check as new boxes of paper can be expensive.

If the Dektol has any brown color it is no good and I assume that's how bad D76 would look. The yellow packets of D76 and Dektol come with expiration dates on them. You could try the Dektol if it's not discolored and the most you would lose would be a few sheets of paper if it's bad. You could use the D76 if you have a roll that you wouldn't care about if the D76 was bad. To me, fresh chemicals are inexpensive enough and I wouldn't waste time with old chemicals.

mehguy · Apr 18, 2016

Well actually the dektol has an expiry date of 2005 but the d76 has no date on it.

removed account4 · Apr 18, 2016

don't bother with the chemicals
i opened a bag of dektol ( have never used d76 )
that was 3 years old and it was brown ..
just get new or the supplies to make your own d72 from scratch
its easy to make and you can make as much or as little as you want
the well missed tom h posted the recipe. a brilliant person extremely nice and helpful
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

D-76 isn't hard to make oneself either
http://www.ohio.edu/people/schneidw/kod_d76.html

the paper ... with fresh developer see what it is like.
take a piece and in room light put it in fresh developer and
see how black the blacks are. don't bother with doing this with old or expired developer
because you will never know if it is the developer that is dead or the paper.
i use expired paper for the most part ( and film ), some was purchased by me
15 years ago, and some was given to me 20 years ago. RC, fiber graded, vc ... none has
been frozen just on a shelf and it is all still good.
depending on the paper, how it was stored, the placement of the sun, stars and moon upon purchase
and luck your paper might be good or it is good for lith and lumen and retina prints.

good luck !
john

John Bragg · Apr 18, 2016

The D76 should be ok as it is dry powder. As long as it has been properlly stored and there are no holes in the packet. It should be crystal clear when mixed and any discolouration would indicate deterioration. The paper is probably not ok and sadly I have no experience of Dektol.

mehguy · Apr 18, 2016

Well I searched up the cat number for the Kodak d76 and found this data sheet that was made in 1989... So we can assume that the developer is from the 90s.

http://www.uww.edu/riskmanagement/msds/data/kodak_developer_d-76_eastman_kodak_company_12.12.89.pdf

mehguy · Apr 18, 2016

Here's a picture of the packet.

MattKing · Apr 18, 2016

I think that the $2.89 price tag makes it quite possible that this package is older than 1989. The MSDS you linked to may very well be younger than your package.

That particular style of packaging may be the least robust of the many types over the years.

For film developer, I wouldn't risk it. Use fresh D-76 instead, and once you are fully back into the swing of things, consider some experiments with this older package.

Unless you have something reliable to compare it to, it may be hard to determine if it is working properly.

jeffreythree · Apr 18, 2016

Old paper, cheap and easy to test a bit. Fogged paper even has uses like lumens, lith printing, using a bit of anti fog agent, or bleaching the print. Having said that, my worst old papers have been from the '80's until recent. Especially Kodak papers with developer incorporated in the emulsion. Old paper developer, cheap and easy to test with a bit of good paper. Old film developer, I would not bother unless you have a cheap sacrificial roll to try.

Nodda Duma · Apr 18, 2016

Open the D-76 and if it is still white powder and not a brown color (indicating oxidation), then you can still use it.

A small can of D-76 from the 60s that I found at a yard sale worked just fine. The stuff lasts a long time in powder form if properly sealed.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 18, 2016

Kodak chemicals have a better chance at being good than chemicals from other manufacturers. I have a case of cans of DK-50 that are 50 years old and still fine. If you buy old chemicals check that the bags have no obvious punctures.

Older papers that contain heavy metals like cadmium or lead in the emulsion formulation age more gracefully that newer outdated papers. All the classic papers went extinct due to government regulations. So the names of the papers are important in determining age and type.

mehguy · Apr 18, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
Kodak chemicals have a better chance at being good than chemicals from other manufacturers. I have a case of cans of DK-50 that are 50 years old and still fine. If you buy old chemicals check that the bags have no obvious punctures.

Older papers that contain heavy metals like cadmium or lead in the emulsion formulation age more gracefully that newer outdated papers. All the classic papers went extinct due to government regulations. So the names of the papers are important in determining age and type.

Well the paper is ilford 5x7 paper and I have 2 boxes, one box is ilford multigrade 3 RC paper and the other is ilford multigrade 4 RC paper.

MattKing · Apr 18, 2016

The Multigrade III RC paper is quite old I have come across over the years has been problematic - usually lacking in contrast capacity, and often fogged.

This thread was from almost six years ago - note the post from Simon Galley (formerly) of Harman/Ilford: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Does the label on the MG IV RC say Harman or Ilford Imaging. If Ilford Imaging, it is at least 11 years old.

mehguy · Apr 18, 2016

MattKing said:
The Multigrade III RC paper is quite old I have come across over the years has been problematic - usually lacking in contrast capacity, and often fogged.

This thread was from almost six years ago - note the post from Simon Galley (formerly) of Harman/Ilford: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Does the label on the MG IV RC say Harman or Ilford Imaging. If Ilford Imaging, it is at least 11 years old.

Hm, where exactly does it say harman/ilford imaging on the box? I can't seem to find it.

MattKing · Apr 19, 2016

mehguy said:
Hm, where exactly does it say harman/ilford imaging on the box? I can't seem to find it.

It is in very small text on the part of the label that starts on the front, wraps over the end and finishes on the back. The part that helps seal the box.

Ian Grant · Apr 19, 2016

I'm currently using Ilford and Kodak papers that I know are at least 15 years old, I've also used papers made in the 19560s, with no issues at all, no fogging. It depends how well they've been kept.

Ian

jvo · Apr 19, 2016

Ian Grant said:
I'm currently using Ilford and Kodak papers that I know are at least 15 years old, I've also used papers made in the 19560s, with no issues at all, no fogging. It depends how well they've been kept.

Ian

ditto! i used paper that were said to be "properly stored", "in freezer", "in refrigerator", "cool, dark cabinet" - sometimes they're good, sometimes not... the ONLY way to know is to use them! have fun!

mehguy · Apr 19, 2016

MattKing said:
It is in very small text on the part of the label that starts on the front, wraps over the end and finishes on the back. The part that helps seal the box.

Well I'm looking on both sides of the label and I don't see harman or ilford imaging.

Ian Grant · Apr 19, 2016

We really need to see all the labeling.

Ian

mehguy · Apr 19, 2016

Ian Grant said:
We really need to see all the labeling.

Ian

Here is the label on the top.

MattKing · Apr 19, 2016

I've never seen one before that doesn't have either Ilford Imaging or Harman on the back.

Start a Conversation with the Harman/Ilford reps on APUG - Harman Tech Service - attach the two photos and ask them how old it might be.

Ian Grant · Apr 20, 2016

I have a box of MGIV with a similar label, I was given it along with a lot of other B&W paper (mostly Kodak) by my local pr lab about 12 years ago, it wasn't new then I have used some and it was fine, good contrast no issues at all. It was stored in a cool darkroom.

As MGIV was introduced in 1994 your paper can't be more than 21 years old. I have a 106.7cm x 10m roll of MGIV that I bought around 1997/8 (well work bought it) I only made one print, I tested that before moving out of my last hose and it was still OK as well the label is different but then it's also significantly larger.

Ian

Ricardo Miranda · Apr 20, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
Kodak chemicals have a better chance at being good than chemicals from other manufacturers.

So, you are saying that Ilford, Adox, Foma, Fuji, Rollei and all the other small manufacturers are not good?
Have you ever used chemicals from any of these for a long time so you could have made that comparison?

RauschenOderKorn · Apr 20, 2016

I got some MGIV (aprox. 15-20 years old) two weeks ago. It was stored inside a darkroom, dry and cool. Tested it, it works like a charm.

Using old chemicals and paper

mehguy

RalphLambrecht

mklw1954

mehguy

removed account4

John Bragg

mehguy

mehguy

Attachments

MattKing

Moderator

jeffreythree

Nodda Duma

Gerald C Koch

mehguy

MattKing

Moderator

mehguy

MattKing

Moderator

Ian Grant

jvo

mehguy

Attachments

Ian Grant

mehguy

Attachments

MattKing

Moderator

Ian Grant

Ricardo Miranda

RauschenOderKorn

Using old chemicals and paper

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency