PDA

View Full Version : 70 Year Old Film



Pawlowski6132
27-Mar-2011, 14:38
I have a bunch of this. I wonder what it would like exposed and developed?

Any guesses?

Heespharm
27-Mar-2011, 14:41
fogged and not good looking... i dunno a vague post like this needs more details

Pawlowski6132
27-Mar-2011, 14:49
fogged and not good looking... i dunno a vague post like this needs more details

I have:

Kodak Trix-X 1944
Ansco Super Pan 1952
Ansco Super Plenachrome 1945
Kodal Ortho Portrait 1940

Obviously, nobody would expect this to be usable but, but, rather than try to use it and develop it to see for myself, I was wondering if anyone else had actually did this and exactly HOW bad was it?

Jay DeFehr
27-Mar-2011, 16:32
I've exposed and developed lots of old film, and most of it fit Heespharm's description. I'd have the most hope for the Ortho Portrait, even though it's the oldest of the bunch. I'd stick with a non-fogging developer, like HC110 or Rodinal.

Richard K.
27-Mar-2011, 16:49
What size are these filums? If 8x10, can you put a sheet in with the negs you are returning...just kidding...let us know - no harm in trying one to see...

Robert Hughes
28-Mar-2011, 13:03
years ago, I bought a WW2 gun camera, and tried to develop the 16mm cassette of DuPont film enclosed. It was almost completely fogged, except for - one frame, completely blank ??? Maybe it was an atom bomb camera?

toolbox
29-Mar-2011, 09:55
I developed a roll of Ansco Plenichrome from 1948 that came in a Zeiss Super Ikonta I got off ebay not too long ago... Developed it in Barry's two bath for about 10 minutes each. There were still images on the film...looked like a farm. They're a bit fogged, but I think they'll print. I was pretty impressed!

sun of sand
29-Mar-2011, 23:26
that is old for azo lol

I'd shoot it at like 3
add in like 15ml orthazite anti-fog or less if pure benzotriazole
develop in like xtol or whatever
for like 16 min

sun of sand
29-Mar-2011, 23:28
over on apug there is a little thread titled film archaeology or something by david goldfarb
i think ektapan from 50's
that would be pretty close and the results werent bad

depends on storage

Roger Cole
29-Mar-2011, 23:33
that is old for azo lol

I'd shoot it at like 3
add in like 15ml orthazite anti-fog or less if pure benzotriazole
develop in like xtol or whatever
for like 16 min

But not actually shoot at 3 and not actually use 15ml of anti-fog and not actually use Xtol, since the developer doesn't matter since "whatever" developer is an equally good choice, and then develop for some time that's not actually 16 minutes?

Dude. Like, seriously. ;)

winterclock
3-Apr-2011, 18:13
I have shot some 1947 Ansco triple S EI 80 Ilfosol 6 1/2 minutes, good tonality some fogging but easily printed through. The emulsion had shrunk so the film bows slightly in the holders leaving unfocused areas. When developing try to stay to the cooler end of the chemicals temperature range, higher temperatures will cause frilling and uneven development. I only shoot as a hobby and none of this is critical to me, but i like the effects and aberrations found in the combination of old films and lenses. The only way to find what you have is to put it in some holders and shoot!:)

sapata
5-Apr-2011, 16:59
I have:

Kodak Trix-X 1944
Ansco Super Pan 1952
Ansco Super Plenachrome 1945
Kodal Ortho Portrait 1940


If you're thinking of getting rid of them, I'd buy them depending on the price...:)

Pawlowski6132
5-Apr-2011, 19:48
I have no idea what these are worth (to you). How 'bout an interesting trade?

Scratched Glass
5-Apr-2011, 22:00
I developed some film from the 30's in 1997, it was faded and fogged. I would not recommend using it, unless you have a specific look in mind. If they are unopened boxes they would be worth more unopened. You might be able to trade someone for new film.

rguinter
6-Apr-2011, 03:50
But not actually shoot at 3 and not actually use 15ml of anti-fog and not actually use Xtol, since the developer doesn't matter since "whatever" developer is an equally good choice, and then develop for some time that's not actually 16 minutes?

Dude. Like, seriously. ;)

Roger:

You may agree but to me I find it amazing that the (almost useless and very irritating) word "like" is now like... working it's way... like... into like... written communications also... like...

What an example of the seriously deteriorated American verbal (and now written) communications.

My humble opinion.

Bob G.

Sevo
6-Apr-2011, 04:29
There really is no point in exposing it today - you can get similar effects in a far better controllable fashion from modern film. Developing historically exposed film can obviously be of considerable interest, but it is not easy - wherever I had high success rates, I had fair amounts of films or plates to work upon, so that there were still enough left after using some on experiments.

Some films benefit considerably from two-stage developers or stand development, but the bulk does best in something fairly normal like off-the-shelf HC-110 or D-76 with added anti-fogging. When testing for development times, bear in mind that you usually can/must overdevelop to a fairly considerable degree. On one hand, fogging reduces contrast, on the other, the film will be underexposed due to some of the latent image lost over the course of time - sometimes both factors will zero out with the right degree of overdevelopment, but more often you'll have to tackle some remaining flaws in the post.

E. von Hoegh
6-Apr-2011, 08:14
This is an interesting thread. I have a fair amount of 20 +- year old film, frozen for 17 or 18 of those years. It sounds as though it might be pretty useable, maybe more than useable. Except for the E-6, of course.

toolbox
6-Apr-2011, 10:24
This is an interesting thread. I have a fair amount of 20 +- year old film, frozen for 17 or 18 of those years. It sounds as though it might be pretty useable, maybe more than useable. Except for the E-6, of course.

20 years is nothing :D. I shoot stuff from the 90s all the time, and so far its worked great. I have no idea how it was stored...probably in a basement or garage. I don't even bother adjusting from box speed. I've only had one total failure, a roll of Ilford Delta 400 that fogged so bad it was unusable. It's always a crap shoot, so I wouldn't use it for anything critical...but for just having fun with my old folding cameras I love it. I've been developing it in either Barry's 2 bath, or DD-76, so maybe that helps too...I don't know.

Douglas Henderson
6-Apr-2011, 11:06
Well, just to ask, I have film dating to the early 1980's (4x5 Ilford FP4 and HP5) and mid 1990's (5x7 T-max 100, 400 and Plus-x--100 sheet boxes). All has been stored in the fridge.

I've gotten what seem to be perfectly good results using cold-stored T-max 100 120 roll film dating back to the 1990's. I'm wondering if the 5x7 film ought to still be OK--especially the unopend, slower film, 25 sheet packets in the 100 sheet boxes?

Robbie Bedell
6-Apr-2011, 16:02
I just exposed and processed some TMAX 100 4x5 that expired in 1994 and was not cold stored. It is beautiful...But I have done very old Plus-X and it was dead in it's contrast.

sapata
6-Apr-2011, 17:47
I have no idea what these are worth (to you). How 'bout an interesting trade?

I think it would be fun to play with them... most of the expired films I processed didn't came out well, few did... but I tried anyway, it adds a bit of challenge ;)

I'd love to trade... but unfortunately my 4x5 gear is the essential anyone could have, anything I trade will make my equipment useless:)

banana_legs
7-Apr-2011, 13:44
I have a couple of boxes of half-plate 1938 Kodak Ortho-X. I found that rated at EI6 and developed by inspection in my paper dev bath at room temperature, it works a treat with minimal fogging. I just need to find some old subjects now....

Best regards,

Evan

George in Georgia
13-Apr-2011, 11:06
I think that a lot of the very old stuff might be on a nitrate base rather than on acetate. If so they might present a serious fire hazard. Have a look at this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrate_film#Nitrate_film

I've seen a length of nitrate base film lit with a match, outside tacked to a board. The 3 feet or so burned in a tiny fraction of a second.

Gem Singer
13-Apr-2011, 11:14
George,

In post #3, the OP stated that this film was from the 1940's and 50's and named the type of film.

I doubt if any of them are nitrate based.

Pawlowski6132
14-Apr-2011, 02:46
I don't think they're nitrate either. They are labeled as "Safety" film. Funny huh?

Shadowtracker
14-Apr-2011, 22:06
check out unblinking eye... good info there; much of it helped me when developing old film a couple years ago.

Jim Graves
14-Apr-2011, 22:51
check out unblinking eye... good info there

Where? I went there and looked but didn't find anything on old films.

Sevo
15-Apr-2011, 00:54
I think that a lot of the very old stuff might be on a nitrate base rather than on acetate. If so they might present a serious fire hazard. Have a look at this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrate_film#Nitrate_film

I've seen a length of nitrate base film lit with a match, outside tacked to a board. The 3 feet or so burned in a tiny fraction of a second.

Photographic film rarely is nitrate - even less of if it is not 35mm (which initially was cine stock). Cine and technical film mostly is, up until the fifties.

And that is no safe test for nitrate. A strip of extended original acetate will burn quite as good as nitrate as long as there is enough oxygen around - only more recent oxidation-inhibited films are hard to set fire to at all. The difference between original acetate and nitrate is that nitrate will bring its own oxygen so that it cannot be extinguished and will even burn when there is no air around, in closed cans and inside sealed projectors, and the burn rate increases as it heats up (so that entire warehouses have burned down within minutes).

falth j
15-Apr-2011, 06:51
cheesish...

I should think 70 year old film should be exposed in at least 70 year old cameras with at least 70 year old lenses... and developed in at least 70 year old chemicals to get a real idea of old...

anybody want to do a comparative report on your seventy year old wives compared to a couple of thirty-fivers?