Longevity of film developer
 

OK, so this may not exactly be news to some of you, but I just
discovered that sometimes at least, film developer lasts a lot longer
than you think it should.

Specifically: just souped a roll of film (FP-4) in some D-76 that had a
date of 2005 on my label (full strength). I shot the roll as a focus
test for a camera I just rebuilt, and thinking that the developer was
suffering the effects of age, I gave it considerably more than the 8-1/2
minutes that was called for, just in case.

Looked at the film after rinsing it: it was waaaaay too dense. I shoulda
used the given time. The developer seems to be just as strong as the day
I mixed it. (It was stored in a PETE drink bottle, which may partially
explain things, as it's less permeable than polyethylene.)


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

Longevity of film developer
 

On 12/28/2009 6:33 AM Lew spake thus:

Since the camera was rebuilt, were you sure of the shutter speeds?

Reasonably, yes. It's a Pax M4, which has a really simple leaf shutter.
Hard for it not to be (at least somewhat) accurate. I can test it with
my shutter speed tester, but the exposures seem to correspond well. I'll
probably do that the next couple of days.

Next roll is going through my Pax M2. Same shutter mechanism and lens.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

Longevity of film developer
 

On 12/28/2009 11:51 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 12/28/2009 6:33 AM Lew spake thus:

Since the camera was rebuilt, were you sure of the shutter speeds?

Reasonably, yes. It's a Pax M4, which has a really simple leaf shutter.
Hard for it not to be (at least somewhat) accurate. I can test it with
my shutter speed tester, but the exposures seem to correspond well. I'll
probably do that the next couple of days.

Ack! Posted that too soon.

Turns out the shutter speeds for that camera (the Pax I shot the roll of
film with) plus another one were pretty far off--like almost twice as
slow as they should be at most speeds.

Still, that means the exposure would have been off by 1 stop, not a huge
amount, so my original premise that the developer I used is still
practically full strength is correct. It's just that the over-density
wasn't helped by the slow shutter.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

Longevity of film developer
 

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 12/28/2009 11:51 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 12/28/2009 6:33 AM Lew spake thus:

Since the camera was rebuilt, were you sure of the
shutter speeds?

Reasonably, yes. It's a Pax M4, which has a really simple
leaf shutter. Hard for it not to be (at least somewhat)
accurate. I can test it with my shutter speed tester, but
the exposures seem to correspond well. I'll probably do
that the next couple of days.

Ack! Posted that too soon.

Turns out the shutter speeds for that camera (the Pax I
shot the roll of film with) plus another one were pretty
far off--like almost twice as slow as they should be at
most speeds.

Still, that means the exposure would have been off by 1
stop, not a huge amount, so my original premise that the
developer I used is still practically full strength is
correct. It's just that the over-density wasn't helped by
the slow shutter.



Check the edge printing on the film. This is done with
pretty closely controlled exposure. When overdeveloped the
edge printing will be very dark, normally it is a sort of
dark gray.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Longevity of film developer
 

On 12/28/2009 3:05 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 12/28/2009 11:51 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 12/28/2009 6:33 AM Lew spake thus:

Since the camera was rebuilt, were you sure of the
shutter speeds?

Reasonably, yes. It's a Pax M4, which has a really simple
leaf shutter. Hard for it not to be (at least somewhat)
accurate. I can test it with my shutter speed tester, but
the exposures seem to correspond well. I'll probably do
that the next couple of days.

Ack! Posted that too soon.

Turns out the shutter speeds for that camera (the Pax I
shot the roll of film with) plus another one were pretty
far off--like almost twice as slow as they should be at
most speeds.

Still, that means the exposure would have been off by 1
stop, not a huge amount, so my original premise that the
developer I used is still practically full strength is
correct. It's just that the over-density wasn't helped by
the slow shutter.

Check the edge printing on the film. This is done with
pretty closely controlled exposure. When overdeveloped the
edge printing will be very dark, normally it is a sort of
dark gray.

Thanks for the tip. I did check it, and the edge printing (text and
coding) is maybe a little darker than dark gray, but definitely not
black. Parts of the negative *are* black. So I guess I overexposed the
film, and that the developer may be a little less than full strength,
but still capable of pretty close to proper development.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

Longevity of film developer
 

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 12/28/2009 3:05 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in
message
.com...

On 12/28/2009 11:51 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 12/28/2009 6:33 AM Lew spake thus:

Since the camera was rebuilt, were you sure of the
shutter speeds?

Reasonably, yes. It's a Pax M4, which has a really
simple leaf shutter. Hard for it not to be (at least
somewhat) accurate. I can test it with my shutter speed
tester, but the exposures seem to correspond well. I'll
probably do that the next couple of days.

Ack! Posted that too soon.

Turns out the shutter speeds for that camera (the Pax I
shot the roll of film with) plus another one were pretty
far off--like almost twice as slow as they should be at
most speeds.

Still, that means the exposure would have been off by 1
stop, not a huge amount, so my original premise that the
developer I used is still practically full strength is
correct. It's just that the over-density wasn't helped
by the slow shutter.

Check the edge printing on the film. This is done
with pretty closely controlled exposure. When
overdeveloped the edge printing will be very dark,
normally it is a sort of dark gray.

Thanks for the tip. I did check it, and the edge printing
(text and coding) is maybe a little darker than dark gray,
but definitely not black. Parts of the negative *are*
black. So I guess I overexposed the film, and that the
developer may be a little less than full strength, but
still capable of pretty close to proper development.

Both overexposure and overdevelopment will result in
dense negatives but the contrast will be different. If
overexposed, unless the overexposure is very severe it will
print with about normal contrast, just longer exposure time
in printing. If overdeveloped it will be very contrasty. See
if you can print at about normal contrast.
The edge printing sounds like its about normal.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA