A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Very Old Latent Image



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 9th 08, 03:20 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Jean-David Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default Very Old Latent Image

VOR-DME wrote:
Have read some articles here and there about astonishing persistence of a
latent image on exposed film. I have a couple of rolls of Tri-X 120 from
the mid to late '70's. Every time I have had a darkroom to work in these
rolls were not anywhere near me, so they remain undeveloped.


What are the chances of recovering an image from these rolls?


Very good, unless you stored them next to a strong heat source, in very high
humidity,
or x-ray machine.

If I take them to a pro lab, will they laugh me out of the place?


If it is a really professional lab, they will not. If they are a 1-hour lab
in a mall, they will not know how to process it.

The images are nothing important - only curiosity - I don't even really
know what's on them, but I'd love to see. What's my best strategy for
getting these rolls developed?


Do it yourself, and develop normally with a normal developer like D-76 or
HC-110 dilution B.

Thanks for responses. . .

Greg



--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:15:01 up 5 days, 19:33, 5 users, load average: 4.23, 4.42, 4.98
  #2  
Old December 9th 08, 06:57 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Ken Hart1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Very Old Latent Image


"VOR-DME" wrote in message
...
Have read some articles here and there about astonishing persistence of a
latent image on exposed film. I have a couple of rolls of Tri-X 120 from
the mid to late '70's. Every time I have had a darkroom to work in these
rolls were not anywhere near me, so they remain undeveloped.

What are the chances of recovering an image from these rolls?

If I take them to a pro lab, will they laugh me out of the place?

The images are nothing important - only curiosity - I don't even really
know what's on them, but I'd love to see. What's my best strategy for
getting these rolls developed?

Thanks for responses. . .

Greg


They will surely be age-fogged, this will result in low contrast images.
There are developers and additives that can help with this.

There is a company in Canada called Film Rescue International, which
specializes in processing old film. I've spoken with the owner, Greg Miller,
who has developed several special 'secret' techniques for dealing with
obsolete and old films. If you are in the USA, he also has a US mail drop,
so you don't have to deal with Customs.


  #3  
Old December 9th 08, 11:20 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
VOR-DME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Very Old Latent Image

Have read some articles here and there about astonishing persistence of a
latent image on exposed film. I have a couple of rolls of Tri-X 120 from
the mid to late '70's. Every time I have had a darkroom to work in these
rolls were not anywhere near me, so they remain undeveloped.

What are the chances of recovering an image from these rolls?

If I take them to a pro lab, will they laugh me out of the place?

The images are nothing important - only curiosity - I don't even really
know what's on them, but I'd love to see. What's my best strategy for
getting these rolls developed?

Thanks for responses. . .

Greg

  #4  
Old December 10th 08, 03:06 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Very Old Latent Image


"Ken Hart1" wrote in message
...

"VOR-DME" wrote in message
...
Have read some articles here and there about astonishing
persistence of a
latent image on exposed film. I have a couple of rolls of
Tri-X 120 from
the mid to late '70's. Every time I have had a darkroom
to work in these
rolls were not anywhere near me, so they remain
undeveloped.

What are the chances of recovering an image from these
rolls?

If I take them to a pro lab, will they laugh me out of
the place?

The images are nothing important - only curiosity - I
don't even really
know what's on them, but I'd love to see. What's my best
strategy for
getting these rolls developed?

Thanks for responses. . .

Greg


They will surely be age-fogged, this will result in low
contrast images. There are developers and additives that
can help with this.

There is a company in Canada called Film Rescue
International, which specializes in processing old film.
I've spoken with the owner, Greg Miller, who has
developed several special 'secret' techniques for dealing
with obsolete and old films. If you are in the USA, he
also has a US mail drop, so you don't have to deal with
Customs.

My long ago conversations with Greg convinced me he
knows what he is doing. Not cheap but if you think there are
important images on the film its worth trying him.
As far as developer additives go most are anti-fog
agents and absolutely should not be used for recovering weak
latent images because they will further weaken them. Since
fog is uniform it really does not affect contrast any more
than the anti-light-piping pigment is most 35mm B&W films,
it just makes printing exposure times longer. The problem
with old latent images is that the charges in the halide
crystals that make them developable when struck by light
begin to recombine given enough time. Simply put, if enough
time goes by there is no latent image left. Film which has
been protected from oxidation and from high temperatures
does best. Modern films have agents in the emulsion to
stabilize the latent image and there has been steady
improvement in this for many years so even fairly old film
can have a reasonably stable latent image.
Age fog is due to another mechanism or rather mechanisms
because there is more than one. All emulsions continue to
"ripen" a bit after coating even though treated with
substances which are intended to stop this process. Ripening
is a part of the emulsion making process that substantially
increases the sensitivity of the emulsion. When it continues
after coating it tends to produce silver halide crystals
that are developable even though not struck by light. Some
fog is caused by oxidation of the emulsion and some by being
struck by cosmic rays but the latter is insignificant for
slow films and printing paper emulsions. This is all pretty
oversimplified but will give some clue as to the rather
complex mechanisms of both fog production and loss of the
latent image.


--
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #5  
Old December 10th 08, 02:54 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 450
Default Very Old Latent Image

VOR-DME wrote:

PS - I was somewhat surprised to see the response about HC-110 and D-76,
as these are the developers I was using the first times I ever worked in
a darkroom - say 1969 . . . I would not have guessed they were still
around.


Rodinal is almost 100 years older than that.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
  #6  
Old December 10th 08, 10:25 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Very Old Latent Image


"VOR-DME" wrote in message
...
Thanks to all for taking the time to provide these
informative responses.
Greg Miller's service looks like a good bet to me - I have
looked it up
and the prices are more than reasonable as well.

I'll get back to you all here to let you know how it
worked out.

Greg

PS - I was somewhat surprised to see the response about
HC-110 and D-76,
as these are the developers I was using the first times I
ever worked in
a darkroom - say 1969 . . . I would not have guessed they
were still
around.

D-76 is not only around but still the basis of
comparison for film developers. It is very reliable and will
yield good results with most films. HC-110 is a remarkable
developer. While its not the optimum for most films it is
extremely convenient and long lived and is adapable to
nearly any film. The method of producing such a highly
concentrated developer is of interest to chemists.
The biggest change in developers over the last couple
of decades is the application of Phenidone and ascorbic acid
type developing agents. Ascorbic acid has been known as a
developer since the mid 1940s but was not applied to
practical developers until perhaps twenty years ago.
Phenidone was known for longer than that but until Kendall
of Ilford found a method of producing it economically it was
not much used. Both have the advantage of being more
environmentally friendly than the older agents Metol and
hydroquinone. Phenidone also has the advantage that it can
deliver a bit more film speed than Metol based developers
(maybe 3/4 stop).
The fact is that quite old formulas such as D-76 and
D-72 (Dektol) can be used with excellent results and only
slight loss compared to the very best newer stuff. However,
a developer like Xtol does less damage when poured down the
drain.
Emulsion research has progressed very much further than
the chemistry and is a different story. The very good
performance requied in multi-layer color films has resulted
in improvements for B&W too and I doubt if many would accept
film of the sort sold perhaps fifty years ago.
FWIW, D-76 was devised in 1926 as a fine grain
developer for a new motion picture negative duplicating film
announced by Kodak at the time. It was quickly adapted to
routine motion picture negative development and far
outlasted the film it was intended for. Within a short time
lab operators noticed that the activity of D-76 increased
with time when stored. Kodak researched this thoroughly and
came up with a buffered formula (published as D-76d) in
1929, which did not change activity. The current packaged
version is similar to the published buffered formula.
Nearly every manufacturer of film had a developer
similar to D-76, usually with only slight variations in the
ratios of the ingredients. There is more to the story but
D-76 remains a developer of choice for many films.


--
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #7  
Old December 10th 08, 11:37 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
VOR-DME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Very Old Latent Image

Thanks to all for taking the time to provide these informative responses.
Greg Miller's service looks like a good bet to me - I have looked it up
and the prices are more than reasonable as well.

I'll get back to you all here to let you know how it worked out.

Greg

PS - I was somewhat surprised to see the response about HC-110 and D-76,
as these are the developers I was using the first times I ever worked in
a darkroom - say 1969 . . . I would not have guessed they were still
around.

  #8  
Old December 11th 08, 01:24 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 450
Default Very Old Latent Image

VOR-DME wrote:

I guess my surprise in finding the classic old developers still used is
at least in part based on the fact that I have seen so many emulsion
types come and go over the years. Also the processing chemistry for color
films has changed several times (I recall E3, E4 and C3 if my memory
serves me well, before settling on today's E6 and C-41).


The development process for the Ektachrome films was more of a simplification
than a major change in chemistry. What used to be develop, stop bath, rinse,
expose to light, color develop, stop bath, bleach, fix and stabilize has
be reduced to three steps that do basicly the same things, using mostly
the same chemicals.

The biggest change in chemicals was in E4 going to E6 and c22 going to c41
with the elimination of formalin as a stabilizing agent. That was done for
environmental and personal saftey, the other changes were to increase
automation and decrease processing time.

The film speed, contrast, and dyes have changed over the years too, but that
was not due to processing. C-41/E6 films have ranged from ISO 25 to 3200, high
contrast to low, and with various levels of color saturation, dye stability,
etc. Anyone remember Ilfochrome?

Each new emulsion is supposed to bring improvements, but there is often
some lingering skepticism. Just as Ernst Haas regretted the demise of
Kodachrome I, others regret Vericolor VPL for long exposures. . .


Some things can't be compensated for by using other films, some things
die off because there are not enough customers to continue them. People
have been saying film is dead, which I don't really believe, but it has
retired and moved to Florida.

While Kodachrome I has been long gone, replacements have never really taken
off. Ektar 25, which was as close to it that a negative film could be, was
never a big seller and eventually was dropped. There are some modern slide
films that are close, having recently been developed with that in mind,
and we shall see if they sell enough to last long.

I'd still love to see Panatomic-X come back.


Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
  #9  
Old December 11th 08, 05:43 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default Very Old Latent Image

"VOR-DME" wrote
True what you say about films emulsions.


They are not as good as they used to be.
What is more, they never were...

Film is dead. Long live film.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com


  #10  
Old December 11th 08, 10:06 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
VOR-DME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Very Old Latent Image

True what you say about films emulsions.
I guess my surprise in finding the classic old developers still used is
at least in part based on the fact that I have seen so many emulsion
types come and go over the years. Also the processing chemistry for color
films has changed several times (I recall E3, E4 and C3 if my memory
serves me well, before settling on today's E6 and C-41).

Each new emulsion is supposed to bring improvements, but there is often
some lingering skepticism. Just as Ernst Haas regretted the demise of
Kodachrome I, others regret Vericolor VPL for long exposures. . .




In article ,
says...



"VOR-DME" wrote in message
...
Thanks to all for taking the time to provide these
informative responses.
Greg Miller's service looks like a good bet to me - I have
looked it up
and the prices are more than reasonable as well.

I'll get back to you all here to let you know how it
worked out.

Greg

PS - I was somewhat surprised to see the response about
HC-110 and D-76,
as these are the developers I was using the first times I
ever worked in
a darkroom - say 1969 . . . I would not have guessed they
were still
around.

D-76 is not only around but still the basis of
comparison for film developers. It is very reliable and will
yield good results with most films. HC-110 is a remarkable
developer. While its not the optimum for most films it is
extremely convenient and long lived and is adapable to
nearly any film. The method of producing such a highly
concentrated developer is of interest to chemists.
The biggest change in developers over the last couple
of decades is the application of Phenidone and ascorbic acid
type developing agents. Ascorbic acid has been known as a
developer since the mid 1940s but was not applied to
practical developers until perhaps twenty years ago.
Phenidone was known for longer than that but until Kendall
of Ilford found a method of producing it economically it was
not much used. Both have the advantage of being more
environmentally friendly than the older agents Metol and
hydroquinone. Phenidone also has the advantage that it can
deliver a bit more film speed than Metol based developers
(maybe 3/4 stop).
The fact is that quite old formulas such as D-76 and
D-72 (Dektol) can be used with excellent results and only
slight loss compared to the very best newer stuff. However,
a developer like Xtol does less damage when poured down the
drain.
Emulsion research has progressed very much further than
the chemistry and is a different story. The very good
performance requied in multi-layer color films has resulted
in improvements for B&W too and I doubt if many would accept
film of the sort sold perhaps fifty years ago.
FWIW, D-76 was devised in 1926 as a fine grain
developer for a new motion picture negative duplicating film
announced by Kodak at the time. It was quickly adapted to
routine motion picture negative development and far
outlasted the film it was intended for. Within a short time
lab operators noticed that the activity of D-76 increased
with time when stored. Kodak researched this thoroughly and
came up with a buffered formula (published as D-76d) in
1929, which did not change activity. The current packaged
version is similar to the published buffered formula.
Nearly every manufacturer of film had a developer
similar to D-76, usually with only slight variations in the
ratios of the ingredients. There is more to the story but
D-76 remains a developer of choice for many films.


--
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Image recovery: Recovering fragmented image files from flash memory cards George Johnson Other Photographic Equipment 0 September 9th 07 11:10 PM
Image recovery: Recovering fragmented image files from flash memory cards George Johnson Other Photographic Equipment 0 September 9th 07 11:10 PM
Image recovery: Recovering fragmented image files from flash memory cards George Johnson Digital Photography 0 September 9th 07 11:09 PM
latent image Michael Scarpitti In The Darkroom 0 August 18th 04 03:03 PM
Latent Image Decay Dan Quinn In The Darkroom 1 February 3rd 04 03:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.