Vericolor Print

[abruzzi]

I bought some used 5x7 film holders and three of them had film in them. My fingers can't tell one notch code from the next, so I just exposed one sheet at EI 100 and developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 9 minutes (I had a sheet of Foma100 so I used that time) mostly so I could see the edge markings. After I did that, I could see the notch and matched it up with Vericolor Print. I've never developed color film in B&W developer, so I don't know how well or badly that is supposed to work. Apparently, according to the datasheet, in daylight (where my test shot was taken) its supposed to be a ISO 160 film, but exposed at 100 and developed in Rodinal, the image was barely visible.

I don't have any expectations for these, and thought about just puling the sheets and trashing them, but I figured I'd shoot them for the hell of it (after all color in 5x7 is not a common thing.) So is minimal image just the effect of using B&W developer on color film, or for the other 5 sheets should I choose a much lower EI, like 25? The film holders are newer (i.e. not old wood holders) so I'm assuming this film isn't 40 years old, so it seems unlikely to have lost that much sensitivity. Should I try another shot at 100, but this time run it through C41?

[Mark Sampson]

Vericolor Print film 4111 is an unmasked C-41 film, meant for making positive transparencies from color negatives. In my Kodak years, we used it for making 8x10 transparencies to put on an overhead projector (pre-Powerpoint days).
It's balanced for tungsten light; we would print under an enlarger as if it was color paper, controlling color with the dichroic filters. Of course we processed it in our C--41 machine.
I don't know how it would work in daylight as a camera film. It was slow under the enlarger. If you process it in C-41 you'll get an unmasked color negative. Processed in any b/w chemistry, who knows? You may be the first and last to try that, as the film was discontinued c.2006 and there can't be much left anywhere.
best of luck, and have fun!

[Dugan]

I used a lot of 35mm Vericolor Print Film (5072?) for making reverse-text title slides.
It was very slow, maybe ISO 3-6...and, as stated, tungsten-balanced.
Perhaps the ISO difference explains why your image was underexposed?

[Drew Wiley]

They were ALL KINDS of Vericolor sheet films over the years. But it's highly unlikely any of them would be any good by now, especially in holders rather than refrigerated (which I wouldn't trust either). Your assumption these sheets should still be good is unrealistic. But if you just want to have fun trying, go the C41 route. An increased exposure factor is a total guess at this point, because you haven't even stated specifically which Vericolor it is. How long an exposure is needed? - it's like trying to do CPR resuscitation on a mummy.

[abruzzi]

Well, I don't expect them to be good, just something to play with. I have no way to date the film, and I can't color balance to save my life, but I thought I'd try. After all there are only 5 sheets left now, and I can't guarantee that the seller didn't open one up just to see what was in there (the one I shot did not have that happen.) I have some C41 chemicals I need to use up before I say goodbye to C41 forever. Mostly color just isn't worth it to me, except the occasional E6.

[Mark Sampson]

Drew, the OP specifically referred to Vericolor Print film.
Dugan, Vericolor Slide Film 5072 was essentially the same emulsion in 35mm form (we used that too). Also known as SO-279, in 100' rolls.
But it's true, all the many Vericolor film types are long gone now. Even kept frozen, it's unlikely that any of them would still be usable.

[abruzzi]

I don't know if Kodak reused notch codes, but specifically this is the notch code on the sheet:

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/e26-Vericolor_III.pdf

(notch code found on page 5.)

I called it "vericolor print" because thats what its called on the Kodak document of notch codes, which is where I first found it. Is it usable? maybe, maybe not, but I'm the sort that can't throw things out that might be usable. Purely in terms of emulsion sensitivity (ignoring color balance) I wouldn't think an ISO 160 film would have lost that much speed over 20 years.

So mainly I was just wondering if my developing a somewhat old C41 film in Rodinal was the cause of the negatives having almost no density at all? (the only density on the entire negative was the sky.) In the past I've shot 25 year old 400 speed color film and, in C41 developer, got much more density than this. (And the 35 year old E6 film lost no speed, though as a reversal, I'm not sure what speed loss looks like on E6.)

[Drew Wiley]

Mark - if it's in 5x7 sheets, hard to say if it was the equivalent to Vericolor S or L, both of which were 160 speed. Nearly all Vericolor films were print films, largely tailored to portraiture. But that name got tagged onto a few other pro film products too.

Wow. Even mentioning Powerpoint brings back memories of why all Marketing MBA's should be sent away until they become responsible adults with real jobs. ANYTHING totally ridiculous can be proven by a Powerpoint presentation.

[Mark Sampson]

Drew, Vericolor Print Film 4111 was an unmasked C-41 film for making positive transparencies; as a lab film it did not have an ISO rating. I believe that is what the OP has in his holders.

Not to be confused with "Vericolor II Professional Film, Type S", "Vericolor III Professional Film, Type S", or "Vericolor II, Type L Professional Film".. or "Vericolor ID/Copy Film", or "Vericolor Commercial Film". Those were all camera films and I used them all except the "ID/Copy" variant. That was for making photo ID cards, a very specialized market.
Neither should 4111 be confused with at least three versions of "Vericolor Internegative Film", 4112, 4114, and 4325.

"Vericolor" was just Kodak's nomenclature for their professional C-41 color negative films, as opposed to the mass-market "Kodacolor" emulsions. It can be confusing, to be sure... but look at the way EK used other terms, "Polymax" for example, and it will seem relatively simple.

[Drew Wiley]

But the old tech sheet he links, and the notch code shown in that, is directly adjacent to 4106 sheet size options. No mention of 4111. And I don't know, either, if the same notch code was used for more than one product. I don't have time to dig up any old Vericolor sheets of my own to compare. It's an arcane merely academic subject to me; but digging up old dinosaur bones can be fun too. And the mere reference to other tech publications nominally under Vericolor terminology doesn't necessarily identify the film in question, because that kind of mixing or oranges and apples has occurred before in their official literature. But then all kinds of optional sizing, including 9-1/2 inch rolls, are given identification numbers on a parallel column. So you tell me. I probably have the answer myself in some old manual buried somewhere under a pile; but the priority today is to get the yard weeds whacked down and raked up.

[abruzzi]

Drew, Vericolor Print Film 4111 was an unmasked C-41 film for making positive transparencies; as a lab film it did not have an ISO rating. I believe that is what the OP has in his holders.

I'm not sure that's correct. One thing I did notice is after developing in Rodinal, is that the sheet was orange, which wouldn't have been useful for transparencies. (Side note--I never realized that the orange was in the base--I always thought it was dye like the other colors)

One thing is clear--Kodak named too many different products "Vericolor". It certainly is a source of confusion for me.

EDIT: nonetheless, I appreciate everyone's input. For the hell of it, I'll expose another sheet at 50 this weekend and dev in C41--just to see what happens.

[Drew Wiley]

I have a fun assortment of now extinct roll films in my freezer just for fun - kinda a frozen nostalgia museum. I'm never going to try to shoot them. Sheet films I do try to either use up, or sell to somebody else. But last year somebody tipped me off to a huge liquidation sale across the Bay where a highly successful portrait studio had been. Boxes and boxes of Vericolor sheets, some of it custom cut clear up to 11X14 and even 12X16; lots of 8x10 Kodak and Fuji chrome film, much possibly over-age, but overall, such a bargain, who could resist? But the Estate liquidator, whoever that was, decided to open up every single box, and post a web shot of the respective stacks of sheets from each, to prove that actual film was still in those boxes!!! Is there an Academy Award for sheer stupidity?

[abruzzi]

I kind of expected that when I tested the first shot. I was actually surprised that that didn't happen, given that the seller was some sort of junk shop, not a camera store.

[Dugan]

5072 and 4111 should definitely have a clear base when processed in C-41.

[Mark Sampson]

Well, I went back and looked at the linked data sheet. Stupid me, you have VPS-III. That was the standard color neg film for portraiture and wedding work, low-contrast and balanced for skin tones. Nominal ISO 160, most users shot it @ EI 100. Meant for use (mostly) with electronic flash.
It was replaced by the Portra NC films around the time the data sheet was published, in '97 or '98.
Forgive me for being so pedantic- I guess the question unleashed a flood of memories. Some more accurate than others!

[abruzzi]

Well, I went back and looked at the linked data sheet. Stupid me, you have VPS-III. That was the standard color neg film for portraiture and wedding work, low-contrast and balanced for skin tones. Nominal ISO 160, most users shot it @ EI 100. Meant for use (mostly) with electronic flash.
It was replaced by the Portra NC films around the time the data sheet was published, in '97 or '98.
Forgive me for being so pedantic- I guess the question unleashed a flood of memories. Some more accurate than others!

no harm. As I said, Kodak's use of Vericolor is almost as confusing as Fuji's naming and markings on their lenses (to tie in another current thread...)