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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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!"
Then you will be on the hunt for old film. There are endless rabbit holes for us to chase.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
http://www.searing.photography
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks