1970 Tri-x Pan

Hello,

 

Does any one knows de processing times for a Kodak Tri-x Pan from the 70s?

35mm film that provides only 20 frames e the box has no data.

Would it be far from modern Tri-x?

 

Best regards

Pedro Hingá

It should be the same, at least i’ve been processing it the same way since about 1975 in D-76 and Acufine depending on how it was shot.

 

Rick H.

This is one of those situations where it would be good to have a few rolls to play with.

 

As Rick says, the processing guidelines really haven't changed and I'd use that as a starting point.

 

With that said, you're likely going to have a fair bit of base fog. Not too long ago, I had a half dozen or so rolls of Tri-X that expired in the mid-90s. I shot the first one just as I would in-date Tri-X and processed it the same. I had negatives that scanned alright, but the base fog was substantially more than I'm use to on Tri-X(which I usually shoot either in date or at most maybe a year or two past, and always cold stored) and the one I tried to print was a disaster. I ended up doing the rest at EI 100 with normal development and relegated it to "camera testing"-I even managed to get some negatives that printed decent, but it was a lot more difficult that working with newer material.

 

So, my advice would be to try EI 100, develop normally, and see what happens.

There are at least three different versions of TMX and TMY, with different development times.

 

I believe Tri-X has also changed times.

 

If it hasn't been cold stored, you should treat it differently.

 

I think I agree with the above, EI 100 and normal development.

 

 

Here is the 1965 Tri-X data.

 

This is Tri-X, exposed new at box speed in 1980, developed with Diafine in 2012.

Edited June 17, 2019 by glen_h

Here: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4017_TriX.pdf

is the data sheet for new Tri-X.

 

You can see that the times are different.

Thank you for your replies.

 

I byed 2 Tri-x Pan expired in 1978 on a fleamarket, and got curious about the results.

I've already exposed one at EI400 and, for now, only have Rodinal.

Once I developed a 40yo exposed Fujifilm SS100, and after a research I’ve opted for de standard time. It worked.

The thing is that the box doesn’t show the time table, like the moderns ones.

 

What about stand development in Rodinal?

 

Pedro Hingá.

The older rolls had a paper insert in the box.

 

It is only more recently that they save costs and paper by printing directly on the inside of the box.

 

EI 400 is fine, but you will get better results at 100. More fun at 400.

 

I have some 20 year old TMax-3200, which is old even if it was kept frozen, but it wasn't.

 

There is much interested in cold (maybe 5C or 41F) stand development for old film.

 

I mostly haven't gotten into stand, warm or cold.

 

My choice for old film is HC-110 (B), at normal temperatures and times.

If you bought it because you wanted some film to take pictures on, then EI 100 is good.

 

If you bought it for the fun of trying out old film, to see what results you get, good or bad, then EI 400.

 

Unless it has been poorly stored, and even new film will go bad if it gets too hot, then you should

get results from it. They won't be as good as new film, though.

 

 

This is 20 year old TMax 3200 at EI 3200. Maybe not so different from 40 year old TX at 400.

Just shot the remainder of a 4x5 Tri-X Professional film pack (TXP523), which probably expired about 1980. Used EI 200, developed 12:30 in HC110 Dilution B at 64 degrees F. Deliberately chose lower temperature than 68, as developing with cold HC110 is known to minimize base fog. Came out very nice. No lack of shadow detail.

In my personal experience, Tri-X from the 70s and earlier seems to hold up well. I've ended up just processing as per the original instructions with a little touch up in printing/scanning.

Here's what used to come in the box.

I have a box of 100 ft of 70mm Tri-X that someone gave me. One test showed more fog than I wanted.

More specifically, more fog than I get from old VP116, which I could use instead.

 

I didn't try cold developer on it, though. It seems that some go much lower than 64F, maybe 40F.

 

There are time-temperature conversion tables and calculators that work the same for

most developers.

 

It seems that the times above are different from the ones I posted.

 

Newer ones are now called 400TX, again with different times.

Here is the paper that came in the box.

Processing? Take it to your dealer. No time chart.

 

 

I think i'll try the standar time on Rodinal.

Once more, thank you

Yes, for the international version, with more languages, they leave off some important parts.

 

I notice that the one that JDMvW posted has both ISO and ASA numbering. That should date it close

to the transition to ISO speeds. As well as I know, the transition to 400TX was bigger than the

previous changes. You shouldn't be too far off either way, though.

Hello again,

 

Finally, it is developed. But the results ...are not very bad :)

I've exposed it at 400 and used Rodinal 1+25, 7min, at 20ºc, and got very dense / over developed.

Due to the age of the film, it would be expected to lose sensitivity, so it would take more time to develop, am I right?

I wouldn't be surprised if it got under developed.

Now it's drying, later I'll scan it.

 

Based on this results, opinions for the second film are welcome.

 

Taken with a phone

 

 

My understanding is that while the ASA value might go down, it doesn't "lose sensitivity" such

that it needs more development.

 

ASA (and ISO) are based on density above base and fog. As fog increases, it takes more exposure

to get above the fog, but it isn't any less sensitive, such that it would need more development.

 

There are some films, Pan F+ being the one I hear most about, that seem to have poor

latent image keeping. If you expose it, and then wait for years to develop it, the fog might

not be high, but the image won't be as dark (in the negative) as it should be. Some exposed

grains go back to unexposed state. In that case, push processing might be useful.

(And the fog might be low enough, besides.)

 

As shown above, though, Tri-X can keep a fine latent image for 32 years.

Here they are. very very grainy!!