Very Outdated Fuji Neopan 1600 Professional -- Developing Times?

[cooltouch]

Well, it's time for me to call upon the group's collective wisdom once again.

This film has been in my freezer for over 20 years. I always sort of put off using it because of its speed, but I decided to suck it up a few months ago, and ran a roll through my Canon T90. I let the camera auto-set the ISO, not thinking too much about it at the time. So anyway, it's been laying around for a few months and I'm doing some B&W developing today, so I figured I'd go ahead and include it in the mix. But then I remembered . . .

Since shooting it, I've read that old film's effective ISO should be reduced. Oh well, I still have a few more rolls, so I'll know better next time. But this error of mine has resulted in a situation where I'm thinking I should probably push-process it by at least a stop in order to get hopefully somewhat usable negatives from the roll. If I don't, it's no big deal. That roll was shot with the idea that it was gonna be a crap shoot anyway.

I've located a data sheet for the Neopan 1600 and Fuji was kind enough to include developing times for developers other than their own. I'm using D-76. I see on the sheet where it includes processing times for EI 3200. I'm thinking that these are the times I should use.

Am I correct in thinking this through, or should I consider doing something else? Besides dropping back 10 and punting, of course.

 

[Leigh B]

Develop it in Diafine.

That's a two-bath developer.
Do 5 minutes in Part A, then 5 minutes in Part B, at any temp from 70 to 85 degrees F.

Stop and fix normally after Part B.

- Leigh

 

[Agulliver]

To be honest, with B&W film that's been frozen...I would process as normal or possibly add 10% extra time. I use ID-11 (virtually identical to D76) and regularly use films I've had in the freezer for 15 years. I've shot a lot of Acupan 800 in the last couple of years which expired around 18 years ago and has been frozen for 15. I'm noticing very little difference between the film now and when fresh.

With Neopan 1600, I only ever shot it once and found it rather contrasty in ID-11 so I didn't buy any more. However I've had rolls of Ilford Delta 3200 rolling around my fridge for a decade which were fine once exposed and processed as normal.

Colour films are more susceptible to the ravages of time. They lose sensitivity quicker than B&W and and suffer colour shifts. My advice would be to develop your roll as usual, or at most just adding 10% extra time. Looking up Neopan 1600 in D76 I am getting a time of 7:30...maybe try 8:30 as it's not going to be a disaster either way. If you find the negs too dense, or not dense enough for your needs/preferences...you can adjust accordingly next time.

 

[cooltouch]

Thanks, guys. I think I'll try Agulliver's advice, since I'd rather not have to buy any Diafine. My local camera shop doesn't carry it anyway, so that means I'd have to order it.

Agulliver, what you wrote makes a certain amount of sense and I base it on past experience. I've since used it all up, but years ago I bought almost an entire brick of Plus-X Pan (ISO 125) and started using it after it had been frozen for about 20 years. What I noticed about it was, when I processed it according to directions, the negatives started coming out a bit on the thin side. So I added a minute to the developing times. As I dimly recall, Plus-X in D-76 requires about 6 minutes at 20 C. So I just added a minute to the developing time, and this did the trick. My negatives had much more depth and no appreciable increase in grain. So I'll try doing the same with the Neopan then.

I'll report back after I develop this roll, let y'all know how it came out.

 

[Agulliver]

The only caveats are that a faster film will start to deteriorate more quickly than slow film. That said, even a 1600 B&W film should be OK after being frozen.

I've just recently finished the last roll of a bulk load of Tri-X that expired in 1999 and which has been kicking around in my garage for 15 years...only slight degradation, barely noticable.