What 35mm film had no edge markings at all?

[Donald Qualls]

Last night, I processed two rolls of B&W film. One I know was .EDU Ultra 400, and old bulk-loaded roll that sat in my Vivitar SL220 for ten or twelve years. The other was marked as "Old Tri-X" and has been waiting for processing for a similar period. This film has significant fog, but there are clearly images on it, though I can't tell what camera it was shot in or precisely how long ago. What's odd is that, like 35mm Ultra 400, it has no edge markings at all -- not "foot" markings you'd see on cine films, not products codes, not frame numbers (as usually found on bulk rolls of 35mm, even though they won't match up with manual loading).

I'm pretty sure this film marked "Old Tri-X" was some bulk loaded cassettes sent to me by an APUG or Nelsonphoto member back around 2005 or so; I think I've got another unexposed cassette still on hand. It seems to be approximately correct contrast (if rather foggy) after 7 minutes in Xtol replenished (I use the MDC "Stock" times with good results).

Was bulk load Tri-X unmarked, many years ago? Any ideas, or is it just "unidentified film from an unknown source"?

 

[PhotoJim]

It would have to be old indeed to be unmarked and Tri-X, unless somehow Kodak made a batch without imprinting edge markings. (By "old indeed", I mean at least 1980s.)

I strongly suspect it's someone else's film stock. Are the perforations normal 35mm still film ones, or are they the more rounded motion picture ones?

 

[Donald Qualls]

It would have to be old indeed to be unmarked and Tri-X, unless somehow Kodak made a batch without imprinting edge markings. (By "old indeed", I mean at least 1980s.)

I strongly suspect it's someone else's film stock. Are the perforations normal 35mm still film ones, or are they the more rounded motion picture ones?

I won't say this isn't potentially 1980s vintage Tri-X. I'll have to look at the perfs when I'm home, but I don't recall them catching my eye.

 

[Pentode]

The only stocks that I've run into with no edge marking at all were various motion picture intermediate stocks and/or technical fims that I was "abusing" for pictorial use. I've never seen commercial still films with no markings, even on bulk rolls, but I'm not an authority by any stretch....

 

[MattKing]

The old J & C 120 film I tried didn't have any frame numbers, but I can't remember if it had any other rebate information.

 

[Вormental_old]

One of the Deltas, when sold in 100ft rolls, had no markings. At least my roll didn't. Sorry I don't remember if it was the 100 or the 400.

 

[Alan9940]

My stock of 35mm EFKE 25 has no edge markings. I know I've run into a couple of others over the years, but can't remember which ones.

 

[pentaxuser]

Warning a rambling vague recall follows that be so wrong but isn't Foma one such film? I have a feeling that in the likes of a mju II p&s camera that has no means of dialling the ISO someone or somebodies mentioned that you need a DX coding label as Foma doesn't provide DX coded cassettes and the film does have any edge markings either

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've never used Foma in 35mm in factory cassette -- after trying it in 120, I bought a bulk roll of 100 and another of 400. Bulk roll 35mm Foma absolutely has no edge markings -- but the cassette this film was in had very old masking tape, with my handwriting, saying "Old Tri-X 36 exp." That would have gotten there between 2005 and 2007. I have a vague recollection of possibly having gotten a bulk roll or partial bulk roll of long-expired Tri-X -- that would explain why I have a bunch of scans of experimental stuff shot on Tri-X. Apparently, another 12-15 years at room temperature hasn't helped the film, but at most, I've got one or two more cassettes of this around.

 

[relistan]

Arista Premium did not have edge markings as I recall and was known to be Tri-X. Maybe it's that?

 

[Arvee]

Arista Premium did not have edge markings as I recall and was known to be Tri-X. Maybe it's that?

+1. IIRC, both the 100/400 had no markings.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Arista Premium did not have edge markings as I recall and was known to be Tri-X. Maybe it's that?

+1. IIRC, both the 100/400 had no markings.

A bulk roll of Arista Premium 400 I used in the past certainly had edge markings.

 

[relistan]

A bulk roll of Arista Premium 400 I used in the past certainly had edge markings.

I was wrong. I went and looked through my negatives and the rolls I shot are marked "Arista Premium 400"

 

[pentaxuser]

So calling all Kodak experts who know its history: Did Kodak ever either sell Tri-X without edge markings or if not, did it ever sell Tri-X to third parties and in so doing omit the edge markings?

pentaxuser

 

[cmacd123]

I do recall that Freestyle used to sell bulk rolls of things like areo film, which they apparently slit and perforated themselves (or had done by a contactor) and those had no edge markings. the ones I bought were described as "Plus-X Areo" and "Fuji 125". the plus x was nothing to write home about and redally picked up scratches. the fuji looked just like the then current fuji B&W. (same film base colour and everything.

Bell and howell used to make a perforator for movie labs and so it is possible that someone in LA might be equipped to slit and perforate wider surplus film.

 

[Finn lyle]

I had a bulk roll of HIE which had no edge markings whatsoever, it was of the late 90s vintage expiring in 2001. I’m not suggesting it’s HIE but Kodak did produce unmarked bulk film in that time.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Finn lyle That's about the right vintage for this film I have -- so I'm going to continue to assume the remaining roll or two is actually somewhat fogged Tri-X until I know better. Might plan to shoot it at EI 200 or so and cold process in Parodinal with some benzotriazole to help cut the fog compared to Xtol replenished.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Last night, I processed two rolls of B&W film. One I know was .EDU Ultra 400, and old bulk-loaded roll that sat in my Vivitar SL220 for ten or twelve years. The other was marked as "Old Tri-X" and has been waiting for processing for a similar period. This film has significant fog, but there are clearly images on it, though I can't tell what camera it was shot in or precisely how long ago. What's odd is that, like 35mm Ultra 400, it has no edge markings at all -- not "foot" markings you'd see on cine films, not products codes, not frame numbers (as usually found on bulk rolls of 35mm, even though they won't match up with manual loading).

I'm pretty sure this film marked "Old Tri-X" was some bulk loaded cassettes sent to me by an APUG or Nelsonphoto member back around 2005 or so; I think I've got another unexposed cassette still on hand. It seems to be approximately correct contrast (if rather foggy) after 7 minutes in Xtol replenished (I use the MDC "Stock" times with good results).

Was bulk load Tri-X unmarked, many years ago? Any ideas, or is it just "unidentified film from an unknown source"?

Fomapan 100, 200 and 400 bulk rolls...

 

[Agulliver]

I once had a single 100 foot roll of the "old" tri-x (before the 21st century change, I was told it expired in 1999). It had edge markings. This was Kodak branded, not a re-brand.

The films I have come across that do not are 50 and 100 foot rolls of Fomapan....both sold under Foma's own brand and as Arista.Edu

there may well have been others in the past.