What is "Kodak Recording Film 2475"?

[ricardo12458]

Again, I suggest piggybacking a strip on another roll that you develop before you even worry about how to rate it.

I don't have the equipment for that at the moment.

Here are two images I made in 1985 during the last apparition of Halley's comet. These are about 45 sec. unguided exposures made with f/1.7 50mm lens and processed in D-19 (2475, Halley-1) and D-76 (Tri-X, Halley-2), if I recall correctly. Both images are almost full-frame, viz. scans of about 80% of the 35mm frame.

The exposures were made on a moonless night with a clear and cold New Mexico sky and no exterior lights to interfere by brightening the sky.

I believe the 2475 was about ten years out of date at that time and had been kept frozen until use. I post these here just to add interest to the discussion.

So that's how grainy it was.

Tonight's the meteor shower. I might get a chance to use this film after all.
Waiting for the film to thaw out.

 

[2F/2F]

I don't have the equipment for that at the moment

All it takes is a metal tank and reel.

 

[ricardo12458]

You don't even need to shoot to test it. Just piggyback a little snip onto another roll the next time you develop film. Make sure it is emulsion side out when you put it on the reel, so the two films are base to base. My guess is that it will be black or dark gray.

It might not really matter, since I'm taking a long exposure with it.

The only reason I would use this film would be for astronomical photography, especially for something this old, to get over the base fog.

All it takes is a metal tank and reel.

I don't develop my own film.

 

[2F/2F]

I don't develop my own film.

Labs will do clip tests, usually for about $5. Snip of a piece and stow it in a black film cartridge and give it to the lab. Better than taking a bunch of shots to test. It will use up less of the film.

Or just use your paper developer and fixer in a tray in the dark. You are just testing to develop the fog, so it is not that critical in terms of what developer you use or for how long.

 

[ricardo12458]

It might not really matter, since I'm taking a long exposure with it.

The only reason I would use this film would be for astronomical photography, especially for something this old, to get over the base fog.



I don't develop my own film.

I do now. How long should I develop using D-76? (only b&w developer at the moment)

 

[cmacd123]

I was born in 1996.

I think I have film in my freezer that is older than that....

 

[Goforride]

Just got a box out of the freezer with May, 1977 expiration. I seem to recall that it was indeed something like 1000 ASA, although oddly, it doesn't say anything about that on the box. Does anyone know if it is processed in the same chemistry as Tri-X?

 

[Jim Jones]

It might not really matter, since I'm taking a long exposure with it.

The only reason I would use this film would be for astronomical photography, especially for something this old, to get over the base fog.

I don't develop my own film.

Film is much better since 2475 days. I believe 2475, like other out-of-date high speed films, would have lots of base fog. The 2475 recommended exposure time for metered 1 second exposure is 1.6; for 10 seconds, 25, for 100 seconds, 500. It was even worse for the standard films of that day. A 1998 Kodak publication gives the increase for T-Max 100 as: 1 second, open aperture 1/3 stop; 10 seconds, 15; 100 seconds, 200. For T-Max 400: 1 second, open aperture 1/3 stopt; 10 seconds, 15; 100 seconds, 300. For T-Max 3200: 1 second, none; 10 second, 15; 100 second, 400. Even fresh 2475 would have little advantage over T-Max films in reducing expsoure times, and a great increase in grain.

If I shot any 2475 that might be mislaid in all my junk, it might be to develop it in print developer for high contrast and gross grain, and reduce the negatives in potassium ferrocyanide to cut through some of the fog. Such post development reduction might be controlled better than using Benzotriazole with the developer

 

[Nigel Bourne]

I used to use 2475 frequently, when I was asked to shoot some stills for the Mermaid Theatre, unobtrusively, so flash was out of the question, The light levels in the production were low, and as I had friends and ex colleagues on Wallace Heaton's Fleet Street shop, I managed to lay my hands on some Recording Film. I shot at ASA 1600 on a Pentax S1a with a SuperTak 135mm f3.5 so a high ASA rating was essential. The results were quite astonishing. Dev was (I think) D76, home made acid stop and thiosulphate fix.

 

[Larry the sailor]

I think I have film in my freezer that is older than that....

I'm wearing clothes that are older than that right now.

 

[kreeger]

The film was on a very thin Kodak Estar AH base, strong but very curl prone. I tried shooting with it once, just for experience of knowing what it might be used for. I tossed the whole role after trying it. It had a very high B+F compared to Tri-X at 1600, so I stuck with Acufine and Tri-X as my go to for anything that needed low light.

 

[cobbu2]

Hello All,

Yes, I realize, kind of an old thread, but I found some expired at 1976 2475 in the bottom of my freezer and I couldn’t resist giving it a try and posting the results. I walked through the neighborhood with it loaded in my Yashica TL-Electro, metered at ISO 50 to blast through whatever fog there might be, developed normally at 8 minutes, 70 degrees in HC-110B.

I expected a strip of black film, but the base fog wasn’t too bad and images were easily visible... I was stunned! Here’s an example, scanned with minor adjustments:

 

[laser]

Looks very good for a 45 year old roll of film. It probably recorded some cosmic radiation that increased the grain a bit.
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[cmacd123]

the grain is still at ASA 1600
actually it is to bad that their are not more choices over 400 ISO

 

[CMoore]

It really is Astonishing/Astounding how many films (and paper, developer, etc etc) used to be available. I was around for all of that stuff, but circa 1980 i only used Plus-X and whatever Color Neg film was being sold at whatever store i went to, to buy it from.
It is hard to believe, how such a huge (and important) industry could come crashing down so fast.

 

[cobbu2]

When I first became seriously interested in photography (around 1975-76) and began learning about the available products, it was like a whole new hidden world had been revealed and I drank it all in, buying all the Dataguides and trying everything/anything that I could find. The demand for all these products was high, then as processes and materials evolved, they gradually disappeared as technological advances took place and demand shifted to those new processes.

2475 Recording (and Royal-X in 120) were some of those more obscure products that I became fascinated with because of their (at the time) extreme capabilities and I used them frequently. I enjoyed their results and it was fun to use it again now as well as be happily surprised with the results.

On the other end of the film spectrum, I recently tried some Panatomic-X Pro (FXP) and the results were equally stunning but in a different way... it was as if it was new (I know the film speed makes all the difference as far as radiation exposure over time is concerned). It makes me wish some of these products would return, but I’m not holding my breath. So in the meantime, I regularly use what is available now and once in a while use some old stuff to play around with.

 

[Bill Burk]

Very nice, good plan to shoot at 50. What great grain!

 

[cobbu2]

Thanks Bill! What surprised me was the base fog wasn’t as bad as I expected and the grain pretty much looked the same as I remember from when I used it regularly 40 years ago. It’s definitely something I’ll be experimenting with more, I still have four or five rolls left.

 

[Old_Dick]

I would shoot it at 6400. Wonderful stuff, another eye opener when I got back into photography and found it missing.

 

[ricardo12458]

I am the OP back after 11 years, finally exposed the rest of this same roll at EI 1600, developed in DK-50 stock 4:45 (72F)

actually got an image on the film (!), even after 11 more years of frozen storage. should have exposed at 1000, the shots i took present day are much harder to make out from the physical damage

the first part of the roll i'd shot in 2011 was exposed at EI 1000

 

[Bill Burk]

ricardo12458​

Can you show some photos of the negs? Just cellphone pictures to illustrate how much fog there is and how weak the 1600 density is vs when you shot at 1000. I am curious how useful expired 5247 might be. There is a bulk roll of it up on eBay.

 

[ricardo12458]

the first one was taken in 2011, at EI 1000, #2 in 2022 also at 1000
third one was exposed at EI 1600 and that was honestly the best I got at that value, the rest started out like #4 and i think i accidentally tried to expose at EI 3200 on some of the other frames, was practically unusable due to emulsion damage

 

[MattKing]

Bill Burk was asking to see photos of the negatives themselves - backlit with the edge printing, sprockets and space between the frames visible preferably, I would guess.

 

[Old_Dick]

One of my favorite films. I would shoot at 6400 ASA and soup it in Acufine. Can you say "golf balls". You could take action shots in a coal mine Just kidding. I miss 2475, Panatomic-X and Plus-X. I also miss a few things not directly related to photography.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks, well positives show plenty of grain and adequate photographic detail.

It might look good (and grainy) at 400, which could make for a fun project.