Pyrocat for "Seriously" Outdated Film?

[John Layton]

I've just about finished with refinements on my DIY "lightweight" 11x14 camera...and still have twenty four sheets of Tri-X in that format, with the expiration date being June of....1988!

I'd last used this film with good success about two years ago, with my "go to" exposure and development regimen for outdated films...setting ISO at around 80 and using a strong dilution of 72 F HC-110 for a bit of extra time to boot.

But as the HC-110 is now gone, I'll be testing a sheet with Pyrocat-HD...and my gut says to use it double strength (2/2/100) and for a generous amount of time (20 minutes), and perhaps up the agitation a bit - starting with one minute of tray rocking, then rock every thirty seconds for the remainder of development.

At any rate...if anyone here has used Pyrocat (in trays) for processing "seriously" outdated films, I'd love to hear about it!

Note: While I'm tending towards PMK for sheet films these days, I'm thinking that Pyrocat might be a better choice for films that are "seriously" outdated. Again...comments welcomed!

[Jim Noel]

Through my 40+ years using various pyro developers, i found Pyrocat HD to be the best for general use, and for experimenting with old films. I don't know what you mean by "seriously" outdated film.
How old is it? How has it been stored? What is the brand?
I have used many old films with success. My favorite has been Ilford FP4+. Film stored at a steady temperature for up to 5 years I used my normal dilution according to the image, 70 deg, and times usually were normal or up to 30% longer. I develop everything by inspection. I tried several methods over the years including time/temp in a JObo. However, i was always mor satisfied with the negatives produced via inspection.

[John Layton]

Thanks Jim...I'd be developing my remaining "old stock" of 11x14 Tri-X, expiration-dated June of 1988 (stored in a mix of warm/cool conditions since) - which as of two years ago still gave very useable results with (the old formulation of) HC-110 - mixed up strong and processed "agressively." At any rate...I'll be testing a sheet of this old film either tomorrow or the day after, and will relay results as I get them.

[monochromeFan]

I always read that semi stand development in rodinal was the "go -to" for seriously outdated films.

[Vaughn]

I have used PyrocatHD with out-dated film. I found an increase in exposure times due to the staining of the ample base fog of the film (due to its aging), but otherwise made fine platinum and carbon prints. However, my exposure times are long enough already without the stained base fog, so I tend to use Ilford Universal PQ Developer instead.

If silver printing, the staining of the base fog may not be such an issue.

[John Layton]

Here are two prints (one silver and one tannin toned cyanotype) from the most recent (maybe three years ago) "circa. 1988" 11x14 negative, films stored in conditions including hot attics...exposed at ASA 50 and processed "aggressively" in strong HC-110:

245830

245831

(Very noticeable base fog...but otherwise quite useable)

Edit: I've just received a new box of 25 sheets of 11x14 HP5+, dated to 2026 (B+H stocks this...bless them!), and will be starting to put this to good use - but will also be using up the rest of the old Tri-X, as there are certain advantages to what amounts to a massive amount of "pre-exposure!"

[jnantz]

hi John

I've never used HC110 ( but I have a bottle of the latest concoction for tintypes ) or pyrocat .. my go to for outdated film is 1/3 the ISO and develop in ansco 130, about 72F because glycin likes warmth, 1:6 for 6 minutes. you can do the same with Dektol but at 68F. develop like you would normally for your sheet film. I also use caffneol C ( made with home roasted Sumatra but any cheep crappy instant coffee will work / table/teaspoon recipe / doesn't need to be exact eyeballing it is fine ) .. with about 20cc of either the Ansco or Dektol in it. I split develop between the caffenol and either the Dek or Ansco .. 1:10. so 5 minutes in the print developer and directly into the caffenol (don't bother rinsing), it's like DD23 but not. I only expose and develop expired shelf stored film in that and it scans and/or printed in a darkroom without a hitch. (including really old tmz stored in a sock drawer for 20 years).

a few years ago I exposed an armload of 4x5royalpan1250 or whatever it was this way I contact printed everything on old photowarehouse faux Ilford RC with a bright light I usually use for silver chloride, 5-10seconds and then in caffenol+dektol .. if I could find the scans on my computer I'd post them but sadly my JPG stash is MIA.

[Tin Can]

I use Ilford Universal Developer for 130 year old plates

Just got fresh? NOS 1/4 plate at least 125 years old

Sealed

I will shoot it

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53484517406_cdfa70b3b5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2puf8DQ)Nos 1/4 plate (https://flic.kr/p/2puf8DQ) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[PRJ]

Staining developers and old film is no bueno in my experience. The stain just adds more base fog. Rodinal with sulfite has been the best for me but I haven't tried everything.

[John Layton]

Just processed a sheet of the old stuff (Tri-X circa. 1988) with Pyrocat...and while it does indeed exhibit a good amount of base fog and the associated "extra" bit of stain, it still looks useable.

PMK would likely go a bit too far, stain-wise, for the old film - but my new 11x14 film (HP5+) will likely go into PMK.

[Mark Sampson]

Last year I was given some 4x5 TXP 523 (film pack) that expired in 1975. I tested it, and it looks good at EI 32 or so; printing through the base fog takes a while but I was pleasantly surprised- the high values still separate. I developed it "normally" in Pyrocat. I should make some enlargement to see if such torture has increased visible grain...

[John Layton]

Looking a bit more thoughtfully/carefully at yesterday's results...what I'd assessed as evidence of diffraction (305 set to between f/45 and 64), I think now is only partially so because previous results with this lens/f-stop combo have been less "diffracted looking." I'm now thinking that there might be an additional element of a loss of the film's acuity due to its age and (less than stellar) storage history.

I did "overdevelop" this ancient film by quite a bit, and went with a stronger Pyrocat brew as well...but I'm not sure how this sort of processing would contribute to a lessening of acuity. Comments?

I did take a second photo yesterday exactly the same as the first...but this time with a new sheet of HP5, and will soon process this and see if it looks a bit sharper.

[Michael R]

You are assessing this how?

All things being equal Tin Can’s suggested use of PQ Universal would likely be best for age-fogged film rather than staining concoctions.

[John Layton]

Michael, this initial test only relates to that which I can achieve with my current "go to" film developers, which happen to be staining developers.

To be sure, my next move with what remains of my old film stock will be to either go back to my "tried and true" HC-110 procedure, or barring that (likely as that formula has changed?) will be to do yet another test based on other's hopefully well-informed suggestions - like that PQ reference Mr. Can has provided, which I'm guessing would be a good bet - so many thanks!

Edit: But its always good to know the specific properties/qualities of a stained "long expired" film negative...because who knows - someday these very qualities might just come in handy!

[paulbarden]

I would imagine that a pyro developer will only add to the base fog density of expired films, and so not the best choice. If I were planning on using a large volume of seriously expired film, I’d experiment with a low fog developer and incrementally add drops of dilute benzotriazole and evaluate the results. You could accomplish this by cutting a single sheet of film into strips for testing.

[Michael R]

Not sure of the current availability of HC-110 in the context of the re-launch of Kodak-branded chemicals but Ilford's Ilfotec HC would be an equivalent. Rodinal would be another low fog option (not that a developer on its own will remove age fog but at least will not promote additional chemical fog). PQ Universal is probably the lowest fog. If you wanted to be more adventurous you could experiment with additional restrainers, in particular benzotriozole. This would be an empirical exercise though, which will cost you some film for testing. Another option would be to try reducing the negatives with something like a cutting or proportional reducer.

Offhand I can't think of a reason why an age-fogged film would be objectively less sharp although it will certainly be grainier and perhaps somewhat "muddier" in tone reproduction. On the other hand maybe in addition to fogging, other emulsion components such as acutance dyes or even anti-halation dyes eventually lose some efficacy with old age/poor storage. Don't know. Since staining could involve some degree of image spread perhaps something is going on there, but I imagine you'd need a lot of enlargement/magnification for anything to be noticeable.


Michael, this initial test only relates to that which I can achieve with my current "go to" film developers, which happen to be staining developers.

To be sure, my next move with what remains of my old film stock will be to either go back to my "tried and true" HC-110 procedure, or barring that (likely as that formula has changed?) will be to do yet another test based on other's hopefully well-informed suggestions - like that PQ reference Mr. Can has provided, which I'm guessing would be a good bet - so many thanks!

Edit: But its always good to know the specific properties/qualities of a stained "long expired" film negative...because who knows - someday these very qualities might just come in handy!

[John Layton]

Just processed the new HP5 negative in PMK...which looks great - with just about the amount of diffraction that I'd expect from my 305 lens stopped down to between 45 and 64.

Looking once more at the "old" negative (processed in Pyrocat)...but with a better loupe, it looks very close, sharpness-wise, to the new one. Not a great test as I'd used two different (albeit both staining) developers.

Two things about the stain on the old negative adding to already quite obvious base fog - I can still see a good palette of tonalities and am confident that I can print through the base fog...and as this negative is also visibly overdeveloped I can try another one at a closer to "normal" development scenario. Hopefully this will give me an even more useable negative, after which I'll stick my neck out a bit further and try another old film with PMK.

To the extent that this extra bit of fog might not bode well for making enlargements, I'm guessing I'd be using it mostly for making contact sheets.

Finally, this old film owes me nothing at this point, so I really don't see this testing as a waste of materials...but more as a way for me to learn a bit more. And who knows, maybe by the next sheet (or the one after that), I'll be getting some real "keepers!"

[esearing]

Finally, this old film owes me nothing at this point, so I really don't see this testing as a waste of materials...but more as a way for me to learn a bit more. And who knows, maybe by the next sheet (or the one after that), I'll be getting some real "keepers!"

Then you will be on the hunt for old film. There are endless rabbit holes for us to chase.

[John Layton]

The problem with rabbit holes is that they can be addictive...and thus, indeed...endless!

[jnantz]

The problem with rabbit holes is that they can be addictive...and thus, indeed...endless!

hi John

I have used some ancient film for years ( 50s on up ) and for years only used ansco 130 to process all my film, there's something in there that inhibits fog, not sure what it is
the glycin or amount of KBr combination of everything or what, and the folks at rockland colloid ( Bob Cone ) told me similar things about D72 ( which is like ansco 125 but without the Glycin )
and that's why it's what they suggest for developing their Silver Gelatin Dry Plates, and anything coated with their emulsion. Strong developer for the shortest time .. sometimes I do 1:5 for 5 mins that works too with any film any ISO, any type ( c41, E6 and B/W ), even found roll film in crappy box cameras from the 40s. it's been my go to .. hope you get what you are looking for !
John

[John Layton]

John thanks so much for this info!

[Daniel Unkefer]

Last year I was given some 4x5 TXP 523 (film pack) that expired in 1975. I tested it, and it looks good at EI 32 or so; printing through the base fog takes a while but I was pleasantly surprised- the high values still separate. I developed it "normally" in Pyrocat. I should make some enlargement to see if such torture has increased visible grain...

Hi Mark!

Good information from you, I also have some TX filmpacks expired 1980ish. I shot a lot of expired filmpack back when I first started using 4x5 view. Back then straight D76 did the job. There was -is- a fold at the edge of the frame, I remember Fred Picker masked the edge his groundglass so he wouldn't be tempted. It has to curl in order to transport correctly. Bet mine is still usuable?

[Michael R]

hi John

I have used some ancient film for years ( 50s on up ) and for years only used ansco 130 to process all my film, there's something in there that inhibits fog, not sure what it is
the glycin or amount of KBr combination of everything or what, and the folks at rockland colloid ( Bob Cone ) told me similar things about D72 ( which is like ansco 125 but without the Glycin )
and that's why it's what they suggest for developing their Silver Gelatin Dry Plates, and anything coated with their emulsion. Strong developer for the shortest time .. sometimes I do 1:5 for 5 mins that works too with any film any ISO, any type ( c41, E6 and B/W ), even found roll film in crappy box cameras from the 40s. it's been my go to .. hope you get what you are looking for !
John

It’s not anything magic or fancy. It’s just that print and/or universal developers are balanced not to promote chemical fog (for obvious reasons). Since you can’t optimize for everything, the prices you pay are usually on emulsion speed and/or contrast control.

[Mark Sampson]

Daniel-
All I've done with those negatives was to make 'proper proof' contact sheets. Next week I'll make some quick enlargements and see how they compare with my usual Ilford FP4+. I'd made exposures of the same scene with both films.
Of course you realize that using any film that old is a complete gamble, and that while the film manufacturers 'built better than they knew', nothing is guaranteed.