Jump to content

Kodak 2484 film


Recommended Posts

<p>I recently won a 100' roll of this film for 50 cents plus shipping. With a box speed of ISO 800 and an expiration date of 1985 it is likely severely fogged so I bought it mainly for display purposes. I remember that Freestyle used to sell this film back in the 70's, but back then my black & white was limited to Tri-X, Plus-X, and the occasional roll of Panatomic-X. <br>

Anyone here ever try any 2484 film? I did google and found a few sample images here and there. From what I've gathered the film was high in contrast and very grainy, but I don't think it was intended for general picture taking. Like I said, mainly for display, but who knows, I may try some of it for fun.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The ancient roll of 2484 I have comes up at a Dmin of 0.65 when processed unexposed. I don't know if I actually took any pictures with it when testing, I may just have developed an unexposed snippet.<br>

2484 is known for unpleasant grain (gritty, raw, uneven) where 2475 was noted for wonderful coarse but uniform grain.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oh, the "Recoding" films were used for two things in general. One was high-speed photography (sequence in motor drive) of CRT displays of "nuclear weapons tests". The other was "big physics", recording the events from particle collisions.<br>

(Think how much film the CERN Large Hadron Collider would use if it used film. But, of course, all six of the detectors are digital.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've still got about 30 ft of a 100 ft roll left that I've had for several years. Mine was apparently military surplus - no expiration date, or else it's covered up, but it has a USAF last inspected sticker date of 1986. It's grainy, but after toying with several options I found it works best to my liking rated at 50 and processed in HC110B for 7 minutes. It works really well to check new camera herd members for shutter problems or light leaks without committing a good roll of film.</p><div>00aXnj-477073584.jpg.a56c81554be5d6b4d5627b594ec9cc4a.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yeah, grain like store-brand pepper. I still may shoot some of it for fun anyway. I keep HC110 developer in my darkroom. I have a partial bulk roll of Super XX that I've been able to coax some images from using that developer.<br>

Back in the late 70's I shot a few rolls of 2475 Recording film and found it fast, but too grainy for my purposes. When I needed speed I used Tri-X in Acufine or D-76 with Min-Max speed additive. Still, the 2484 looks like fun. I also noticed that Freestyle had another film, 2485 that they claimed was even faster. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mike, years ago I bought twenty 100 foot rolls of 2484 at a photo show (exp'd 1994) and it was SLOW and FOGGY. NOW it is worse! It seems to reach a point where it does not get any worse. The speed is not about 25 and needs about double the development time as for Tri-X. It does come out foggy and you might then use Farmers Reducer to make it printable. The biggest problem here is attaining sufficient contrast. That is why you must develop a long time. But the longer you develop it the foggier it gets! Still, develop a long time. The Farmers Reducer will attack the weakest parts of the negative first, thereby allowing a bit more contrast to remain. - David Lyga</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Scans coming- I shot a roll of 2484 using E.I.'s of 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 with 5' at 68 degrees Fahrenheit at dilution B for HC110. Overall, the negatives have a gray fog about them, but nothing I can't print or scan through. The E.I. 25 looked too dense with the E.I.'s of 50 and 100 looking like they might scan well. The 200 might even print well. Surprisingly the E.I.'s of 400 and 800 weren't a loss either, though I think I'd see a substantial loss in quality. Regardless of E.I., though I'm sure the images will be quite grainy. But remember, this was a grainy film to start with when it was fresh. Negatives are drying so they will be scanned on my Epson V600 either late tonight or sometime tomorrow.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...
<p>Scans coming- I shot a roll of 2484 using E.I.'s of 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 with 5' at 68 degrees Fahrenheit at dilution B for HC110. Overall, the negatives have a gray fog about them, but nothing I can't print or scan through. The E.I. 25 looked too dense with the E.I.'s of 50 and 100 looking like they might scan well. The 200 might even print well. Surprisingly the E.I.'s of 400 and 800 weren't a loss either, though I think I'd see a substantial loss in quality. Regardless of E.I., though I'm sure the images will be quite grainy. But remember, this was a grainy film to start with when it was fresh. Negatives are drying so they will be scanned on my Epson V600 either late tonight or sometime tomorrow.</p>

 

 

Did you ever figure out developing times for this stuff? I have a ton of it and use hc110 b

It’s been awhile since I’ve used any of it and have forgot developing times....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An old thread but some people may still have some of this film. Freestyle listed it in one of their ads as ISO 400 with medium fine grain. In a different ad it was sold as ISO 800. The little bit that I used from the old bulk roll I bought on ebay was all processed for five minutes in HC110 dilution B. I would imagine that if one deliberately wanted a lot of grain processing in Rodinal might do the trick.

Dave- a I shot a few rolls of 2475 in the late 70's. I believe I used Kodak DK-50 to process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...