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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How to develop old film
I recently was asked by a friend to develop 5 rolls of old pictures
that were taken by his mother, and then put away in a drawer and forgotten. There were 4 rolls of Verichrome (not Verichrome Pan), and 1 roll of un-named "panchromatic film" (the only identifier). The changeover from Verichrome to Verichrome Pan apparently took place in about 1954, so 4 of the film rolls were about 50 years old. The other roll is probably about that old. I tried several different methods with these rolls, and checked the densities on my Kodak Color Densitometer Model 10-k. The results were somewhat unexpected, so I thought I would share them. I checked development recommendations for Verichrome, and found the prevalent recommendation was 17 minutes in straight D-76. I processed the first Verichrome roll this way. The result was extremely high background, but some picture detail was observable in the freshly-processed film. However, as the film dried (I hung it in my darkroom and left if for a week), it got progressively darker. At this point almost no detail is observable. I measure an optical density (OD) of 1.84-2.05 pretty much everywhere. Comparing this with zone system densities I found on the net, this corresponds to approximately zones XI-XIII, and is approximately the maximum achievable negative density. The next roll of verichrome I processed in straight D-76, but added on Kodak anti-fog tablet to 1 quart of developer (as prescribed in the directions on the anti-fog bottle). Here I followed the previous procedure. Some detail was initially observable, but the negatives got progressively darker with drying. After 1 week I found OD of 1.95-2.0. Again, approximately zone XIII. The antifog tablet did nothing to reduce fog. The next roll I processed in straight D-76, but reduced processing time to 13 minutes. Again, some detail was initially observable, but the negatives got progressively darker with drying. After 1 week I found OD in the base +background (fog) of 1.62. The darkest area has OD=1.90. Here some detail is observable, with a density range in the negative of about 0.3. This is about 1/3 the density range in a "properly exposed and processed" negative, encompasing about 2 zones. A good negative should have about 7 zones.With high contrast paper I may be able to get decent prints. I processed a 4th roll using the same parameters as in the paragraph directly above. I found OD of base +background =1.44. The maximum density is 1.70. Again, approximately 2 zones range. The panchromatic roll I couldn't identify, so I followed my usual procedure and processed it in Diafine (which processes all films the same, 3 minutes in each of 2 developer baths). Here I found base +background = 0.67. Maximum OD=1.08. This density range of 0.41 is about 2 1/2 zones, only a slight improvement in tonal range. However, the overall background level is greatly reduced. I believe these negatives will produce acceptable (not great) prints. I'm uncertain whether the film is much newer (I doubt it), or whether the Diafine produces much less background (the view I favor). I'm uncertain at this point how to recommend processing of old verichrome. I definitely wouldn't use 17 minutes in D-76. I would use either 13 minutes in D-76, or Diafine. I have several rolls of old unexposed Verichrome 122 that I want to try in a Folding Pocket Kodak 3B, and several rolls of expired Verichrome Pan 620 that I want to shoot in my Kodak Medalist. If I resolve the issue I will publish the results here. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob" wrote in message oups.com... I recently was asked by a friend to develop 5 rolls of old pictures that were taken by his mother, and then put away in a drawer and forgotten. There were 4 rolls of Verichrome (not Verichrome Pan), and 1 roll of un-named "panchromatic film" (the only identifier). The changeover from Verichrome to Verichrome Pan apparently took place in about 1954, so 4 of the film rolls were about 50 years old. The other roll is probably about that old. I tried several different methods with these rolls, and checked the densities on my Kodak Color Densitometer Model 10-k. The results were somewhat unexpected, so I thought I would share them. I checked development recommendations for Verichrome, and found the prevalent recommendation was 17 minutes in straight D-76. I processed the first Verichrome roll this way. The result was extremely high background, but some picture detail was observable in the freshly-processed film. However, as the film dried (I hung it in my darkroom and left if for a week), it got progressively darker. At this point almost no detail is observable. I measure an optical density (OD) of 1.84-2.05 pretty much everywhere. Comparing this with zone system densities I found on the net, this corresponds to approximately zones XI-XIII, and is approximately the maximum achievable negative density. The next roll of verichrome I processed in straight D-76, but added on Kodak anti-fog tablet to 1 quart of developer (as prescribed in the directions on the anti-fog bottle). Here I followed the previous procedure. Some detail was initially observable, but the negatives got progressively darker with drying. After 1 week I found OD of 1.95-2.0. Again, approximately zone XIII. The antifog tablet did nothing to reduce fog. The next roll I processed in straight D-76, but reduced processing time to 13 minutes. Again, some detail was initially observable, but the negatives got progressively darker with drying. After 1 week I found OD in the base +background (fog) of 1.62. The darkest area has OD=1.90. Here some detail is observable, with a density range in the negative of about 0.3. This is about 1/3 the density range in a "properly exposed and processed" negative, encompasing about 2 zones. A good negative should have about 7 zones.With high contrast paper I may be able to get decent prints. I processed a 4th roll using the same parameters as in the paragraph directly above. I found OD of base +background =1.44. The maximum density is 1.70. Again, approximately 2 zones range. The panchromatic roll I couldn't identify, so I followed my usual procedure and processed it in Diafine (which processes all films the same, 3 minutes in each of 2 developer baths). Here I found base +background = 0.67. Maximum OD=1.08. This density range of 0.41 is about 2 1/2 zones, only a slight improvement in tonal range. However, the overall background level is greatly reduced. I believe these negatives will produce acceptable (not great) prints. I'm uncertain whether the film is much newer (I doubt it), or whether the Diafine produces much less background (the view I favor). I'm uncertain at this point how to recommend processing of old verichrome. I definitely wouldn't use 17 minutes in D-76. I would use either 13 minutes in D-76, or Diafine. I have several rolls of old unexposed Verichrome 122 that I want to try in a Folding Pocket Kodak 3B, and several rolls of expired Verichrome Pan 620 that I want to shoot in my Kodak Medalist. If I resolve the issue I will publish the results here. This is an instance where development by inspection might have been useful. Because Verichrome is orthochromatic it can be developed under a dark red safelight (Wratten No.2). The published charts for Verichrome show that the contrast for 17min @68F is pretty high, a gamma on the order of 0.85. Contrast is now more often measured by Average Contrast (Bar-G) or Contast Index, either of which will usually give different values from gamma but a gamma of around 0.7 is more like what films are developed to now. Guess what, that corresponds to a time of 13min for D-76. Obviously the problem is age fog. Increasing the amount of Benzotriazole in the developer will reduce the fog density, but at some point, it also begins to destroy the latent image. There are people who specialize in developing old filmm, for instance http://www.filmrescue.com/. I don't know for certain what technique they use because it is proprietary but I suspect it might be the use of a very active developer used at very low temperatures. There is just not much in the literature about this. The stability of the latent image depends on many factors. Formost is the emulsion itself. Additives are put into emulsions to stablize them and to stabilize the latent image. Age fog is much dependant on storage conditions. Exposure to heat and to moisture are bad. Roll film tends to survive well because the tight wrap tends to protect the emlusion from oxidation and polutants. I don't have any better solutions than what you are trying. I also don't remember when Verichrome Pan replaced the original Verichrome but it must have been close to the date you remember. I used lots of Verichrome when I was first starting out. There must be billions of family snapshots which were photographed on it. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 2/1/2005 7:06 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus:
"Bob" wrote in message oups.com... [...] ... However, as the film dried (I hung it in my darkroom and left if for a week), it got progressively darker. At this point almost no detail is observable. Richard--I was hoping you'd tell us what happened here to cause the negatives to darken *after* being developed. Either you did and I missed it or you omitted to say that. I'm very curious about this. -- Today's bull**** job description: • Collaborate to produce operational procedures for the systems management of the production Information Technology infrastructure. - from an actual job listing on Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/1/2005 7:06 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: "Bob" wrote in message oups.com... [...] ... However, as the film dried (I hung it in my darkroom and left if for a week), it got progressively darker. At this point almost no detail is observable. Richard--I was hoping you'd tell us what happened here to cause the negatives to darken *after* being developed. Either you did and I missed it or you omitted to say that. I'm very curious about this. I do not know what you mean by darkening, and how long it took. When I first learned to develop B&W film, I had some fixer that was dead, but did not know it. It must have gotten some of the fixer out, but within a day, the clear part of the film turned dark purple and I could no longer print them. Could you have dead fixer? -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 10:00:00 up 15 days, 18:14, 3 users, load average: 4.37, 4.23, 3.84 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I've always used hc-110 10 mins at 72 degrees on older unknown film
with good results. Film darkening after development is bad fixer. bj Niegowski |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
bj wrote: I've always used hc-110 10 mins at 72 degrees on older unknown film with good results. Film darkening after development is bad fixer. bj Niegowski I used new (i.e., freshly-mixed) Kodak fixer, and discarded it after a single use. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Feb 2005 08:35:46 -0800, "Bob" wrote:
bj wrote: I've always used hc-110 10 mins at 72 degrees on older unknown film with good results. Film darkening after development is bad fixer. bj Niegowski I used new (i.e., freshly-mixed) Kodak fixer, and discarded it after a single use. Just because it's "new" doesn't mean it's good. Look at Xtol for instance. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
David Nebenzahl wrote: On 2/1/2005 7:06 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: "Bob" wrote in message oups.com... [...] ... However, as the film dried (I hung it in my darkroom and left if for a week), it got progressively darker. At this point almost no detail is observable. Richard--I was hoping you'd tell us what happened here to cause the negatives to darken *after* being developed. Either you did and I missed it or you omitted to say that. I'm very curious about this. Sorry about the delay. I don't read the news groups as asiduously as I once did. I don't have a ready answer to this with more data. There is nothing about the film simply being old which AFAIK would cause this. If it was very under fixed the remaining halide might have darkened with exposure to light. This is called photolytic silver. You can demonstrate the effect by exposing a scrap of any film or printing paper to daylight. You can actually print a weak image on it with direct daylight. I can't be certain this is what happened. Degradation of the image from inadequate washing or from fixing in exhausted fixer takes a long time and usually results in conversion of some of the image silver to silver sulfide. This takes months or years. I have no other explanation than the above. BTW, I recently processed two rolls of old film but not nearly as old as this. Both were Ilford, one roll of HP-5, the other FP-4. Both had expired about 10 years ago. The results were interesting. Both were developed normally in D-76 1:1. The FP-4 produced good looking images and fog level about what I would expect on fresh film. However, about half way through the roll it shows a mottling which shows up on continuous gray areas like the sky. I have no idea what caused this or why it is on only part of the film. My guess is that some moisture got into the packaging at some point and condensed on the film. This film was refrigerated for much of its storage life. The HP-5 developed normally and produces good prints. Its fog level is somewhat high but ISO-400 films tend to have some fog anyway. I shot both films at about 3/4 stop below the rated speed. This is a general practice of mine because I find I get better shadow detail. I also expected both rolls to be a lot foggier than they were. I'm glad the HP-5 came out well because I discovered I have a fairly large stash of it and like the stuff. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, Ca, USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to develop over-exposed film | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 100 | December 22nd 04 02:06 AM |
Buy film, not equipment. | Geoffrey S. Mendelson | In The Darkroom | 545 | October 24th 04 09:25 PM |
darkroom wannabe | EC | In The Darkroom | 59 | September 4th 04 01:45 AM |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |