Everyone loves a mystery

[Jim Galli]

Here's the available evidence. I'm hoping you super sleuth's can tell me what went wrong. :cool:

Purchased a lovely old Graflex 4X5 complete with Cooke Series II 6 inch lens for a whopping $76 bucks. At first I was going to rob the lens and chuck the rest thinking it was surely one of the 3 1/2X5 1/4 ones that's nearly impossible to get film or holders for.

Turns out it was an early - ish 4X5. No slot for cable release. Not even the funky hook for pull string to release. Nevermind, it was in fine shape and the curtain seemed willing, so I took the back off and oiled all the axles. It rewarded me by running like new.

Then I purchased some film holders. Those came yesterday, so I promptly loaded with 1986 4162 Ektapan film that I bought as part of a large lot of long expired sheet film on ebay. No provenance at all. The 20 sheets left in the box were floating inside the 3rd box with no remaining protective foil or otherwise envelope. Just loose sheets in the 3rd box.

I shot 10 sheets because that's what fits in the jobo CPP 3005 tank. Rated the film around 200 - ish as I figured it had plenty of film base plus fog because of age. Developed in 11:11:800 PyrocatHD for 8 1/2 mins. at 72 degrees. Fixed etc.

Every sheet displays the "rim" of less developed area around all edges? Haven't seen this before as usually that 3005 tank is "fool" proof.

All guesses welcome. Age? Dual emulsion on Ektapan causing the verso to get less developer along the edges? Or increased stain along the edges? Can post more of the 10 pics if necessary.

[Jmarmck]

My guess is that it has something to do with the age of the film and how it was stored. Oxidation or something similar to prolonged exposure to air changing only the edges but not the center. This assumes a certain degree of curl.

[Jim Galli]

My guess is that it has something to do with the age of the film and how it was stored. Oxidation or something similar to prolonged exposure to air changing only the edges but not the center. This assumes a certain degree of curl.

Not curled. But I'm leaning this way myself. Stored in a box out of it's protective envelope in who know's what environment, the emulsion seems to have hardened or died closer to the exposed edges. Here's another one that seems to me to help that theory.

The way the dead area has encroached further on this one could be because it was near the top, or at the top and got even less protection?

[Jmarmck]

Well the "curl" comment was just a possible means to have less damage at the center, centers are touching preventing less degradation. I have no idea what it is, oxidation, reduction, biohazard. But I do believe it is the film. Have you tried another film?

[Jim Galli]

Have you tried another film?

Not yet. More fun to come here and ask dumb questions. We'll do some semi-modern in-date film (something made in this century) soon.

[ic-racer]

Try processing a sheet in a tray. I suspect the film is damaged from age.

[Bill_1856]

For me, the only mystery is what is that car sitting in front of the squatter's shack? Model A?

[Tin Can]

That's how all film will look in the future.

You got the first batch.

[Bill_1856]

1930 Model A?

[Jim Galli]

Try processing a sheet in a tray. I suspect the film is damaged from age.

I've convinced myself it's old age hardening of the arteries. The film is no good either.


For me, the only mystery is what is that car sitting in front of the squatter's shack? Model A?

Yessir. 1931


That's how all film will look in the future.

You got the first batch.

Exactly right :~'((

[onnect17]

The pattern does not match the flow of the solution inside the tank but to be sure I would cut in half one of the exposed sheets, swap the halves and reattach them using chemical tape. Process the batch and then compare.

[Jim C.]

It could oxidation as Jmarmck said, or the edges of the film drying out more since they were more exposed to air,
the top sheet of the loose sheets should exhibit even underdevelopment.

Did you do a presoak ?

fwiw, it looks like edge fog to me, leaky holders ?

[Jim Galli]

It could oxidation as Jmarmck said, or the edges of the film drying out more since they were more exposed to air,
the top sheet of the loose sheets should exhibit even underdevelopment.

Did you do a presoak ?

fwiw, it looks like edge fog to me, leaky holders ?

Thanks Jim. Holders are fine. Yes, I did a pre-saok. Not long though. Usually a minute or so is all I do for pre. The more I think about it, the more very old film makes sense. Have 10 more sheets loaded but maybe I'll just save myself the trouble. I figured it would have plenty of nice even film base plus fog. Silly me. 28 year old film.

[RickV]

For what it's worth Jim, I had similar results many years ago using 20 x 24" graphic arts films which had been stored loose in the box which inadvertently been opened in low level tungsten light (briefly until the "Doh!-factor" cut in!). After discarding the top 20% of the sheets (which were fixed to be used as clear-base), it was found that the remaining sheets had the same perimeter fogging...... I presume it was light piping at the guillotined sides and through the base material.

[Jim Galli]

For what it's worth Jim, I had similar results many years ago using 20 x 24" graphic arts films which had been stored loose in the box which inadvertently been opened in low level tungsten light (briefly until the "Doh!-factor" cut in!). After discarding the top 20% of the sheets (which were fixed to be used as clear-base), it was found that the remaining sheets had the same perimeter fogging...... I presume it was light piping at the guillotined sides and through the base material.

Excellent thought. Could very well be what we've got.

[Jac@stafford.net]

It is moisture damage.

[koraks]

It is moisture damage.
I'm inclined to think so too. I developed some very old C41 film earlier this year that was stored in its original packaging, but the moisture-proof bag was opened as a few sheets from one particular box were already used. The developed film showed exactly the same fogging/lowered contrast as the ones shown here (but then in color).

[Jim C.]

Thanks Jim. Holders are fine. Yes, I did a pre-saok. Not long though. Usually a minute or so is all I do for pre. The more I think about it, the more very old film makes sense. Have 10 more sheets loaded but maybe I'll just save myself the trouble. I figured it would have plenty of nice even film base plus fog. Silly me. 28 year old film.

Your remaining sheets probably have the same issue, so it might be worth doing a longer presoak, just to see if
the drier emulsion at the edges will rehydrate enough to let the developer do it's job.

[Jim Galli]

Your remaining sheets probably have the same issue, so it might be worth doing a longer presoak, just to see if
the drier emulsion at the edges will rehydrate enough to let the developer do it's job.

I'll give that a try. 10 sheets left and it was good practice film to get the hang of hand held 4X5 Graflex photography. Here's one I was rather proud of. I don't think the artifacts hurt it at all.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Under a strong loupe, does the emulsion look reticulated?
That will happen to dried-out gelatin.

[Hugo Zhang]

Love that Jimmy in the mirror with a Graflex in hands.:) Isn't fun shooting that little thing? BTW, that is such nice lens with some characters. You should try to get a 12 sheets bag holder for it.

[John Bowen]

Most likely Little Green Men.....

[Jim Galli]

Most likely Little Green Men.....

The LGM's just bring me the lenses. They normally don't booger the pictures.


Love that Jimmy in the mirror with a Graflex in hands.:) Isn't fun shooting that little thing? BTW, that is such nice lens with some characters. You should try to get a 12 sheets bag holder for it.

Yeah, this'll be a fun little ride along camera. The Cooke is incredibly sharp.


Under a strong loupe, does the emulsion look reticulated?
That will happen to dried-out gelatin.

Looked with a 60X scope, and no reticulation at all. Just beautiful grain. Makes you sad to think what we've lost with yellow box.

[Mark Sawyer]

Here's one I was rather proud of. I don't think the artifacts hurt it at all.

Now you're sounding like a wet plate photographer... :rolleyes:

[Jim Galli]

Now you're sounding like a wet plate photographer... :rolleyes:

Who needs wet plate! This is way cheaper. Just buy some 1986 Yellow Box. Only 10 more sheets though. That might not be enough to be famous. And the LGM's are definitely NOT pixies. So there's that.

[Tin Can]

Anti Geek fikm has pinholes, dust, scratches and no retouching, why only wet platers allowed 'happy accident'...

Damn PS perfection, full speed in reverse.

[Filmnut]

I have seen this before, with highly outdated film and print paper, and never figured out why the edges were worse than the centres. I agree with the previous posters about some kind of long term envrionmemtal damage, or a bit of fog. If the box was accidently opened in the light, I'd expect it to be worse, even after discarding the top few sheets, but you can never be sure, as it could of happened in safelight, which be less agressive than than daylight.
Keith

[cowanw]

Maybe stored in a darkroom with toners that give off H2S fumes getting to the edges of paper stored nearby? This sure looks like something got into the pile of film from the edges and the thickness of the pile protected the centers.
From Kodak.
Chemical fumes that can harm photographic products may come from
industrial emissions, motor exhausts, paints, solvents, cleaners,
mothballs, chipboard, glues, mildew and fungus preventives,
foam-injected insulation, fabric treatments such as permanent press
and stain inhibitors, and insecticides. These may contain formaldehyde
or aldehyde derivatives, sulfides, or other agents that can harm either
unprocessed or processed photographic materials.