What should I rate this film at?

[DLM]

I got 5 100' rolls of film today for free. Three rolls are Tri-X Pan and the other two are Panatomic-X. It says to develop by 1980/1981, and I think it was stored outside of a fridge/freezer. Any suggestions on where I should start with the ASA rating for it, and should I use any specific development methods?

 

[alexmacphee]

With so much footage to play with, perhaps the best solution is to load a cassette with a strip, and take a number of test shots against a known light reading, develop (maybe D76), and see which exposure/ASA rating combination looks best.

 

[DLM]

That's what I'll proabably do. A search came up with some different opinions on what to shoot it at, but I'm guessing that the Panatomic will probably be 25-50, and I'm not sure about the Tri-X, maybe around 100?

 

[MartinP]

The Panatomic-X was 32asa when it was new, but 'should' have less fog than the Tri-X, being slower. Testing a short roll is the way to go, as you suggest. Supposedly (?) HC110 ends up with less fog than other normal developers but I had reasonable, but slightly grey and foggy, results with ID11 (Ilford version of D76) and old Tri-X @ 200asa - only 15 years old though.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

DLM please post your test results. Expired film seems to be everywhere and I like to know what I could get away with.
Thanks.

 

[2F/2F]

I would not bother with rating it at anything, initially. I wouldn't even shoot it. I'd just fill a reel with half a roll of the Pan X and half a roll of the Tri X, develop for a common time like 6 to 8 minutes, and see what the fog density looks like. The Pan X is probably usable, but I would hold out far less hope for the Tri X. As someone mentioned, HC-110 is a good off-the-shelf low-fog developer.

 

[DLM]

Good idea, I didn't even consider that.