![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 02:49 PM |