20-year old Kodak Tri-X Pan Prof. 120 film for developing

<p>Hi all,<br /> I need some guidance on how to develop this 20-year old Kodak Tri-X Pan 120 film that has been exposed. One of my friends wants me to attempt developing it. It doesn't have a box speed on the film itself and I don't see a reference on any developer charts I can find online. I have the Ilfotec DD-X developer I can use. Suggestions on dilution ratios, times, temp, agitation? I have no idea how this will turn out, but just thought it would fun and interesting to do!<img src="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55d891fde4b00c779e7e57fd/t/57519357044262124f410a9d/1464963951103/?format=1500w" alt="" width="1224" height="1632" /></p>

<p >This will be a controversial answer, likely counter to the majority of advice given by others. </p>

<p >Film is sensitive to light, that’s what it does. Film also is degraded by heat, humidity, and it ages. The result is a slow fogging meaning that the entire film acts as if it were exposed to light. This is a matter of degree that is unpredictable. Therefor I recommend that you develop this film in the usual way however I suggest shorting the developing time to 80% (20% reduction). In other words, if the prescribed developing time is 6 minutes, modify by 6 X 0.8 = 4.8 minutes.</p>

<p>According to my old Kodak Professional Photoguide 1975, Pan Professional is ASA 125. Medium speed, extremely fine grain, High enlarging capability. The Kodak Master Darkroom Data Guide 1966 has a variety of Kodak developers and a calculator to select times for desired contrast. If you can get anything Kodak, I can give you info -- based on new film -- you are on your own from there. Microdol x would seem ideal to optimize the fine grain.</p>

<p>HC-110 is the favorite developer of older film. </p>

<p>I had a 30 year old roll of Tri-X (last days of my college dorm) which came out reasonably well. I used Diafine, which was probably not the best choice, but it is what I had.</p>

<p>If you have unused old film, best to overexpose it to help get above the fog. Then I might go for decreased development time. For an existing roll, I would use the normal time, but you never know until you try it. I usually consider 50 years for Panatomic-X, 30 years for Verichrome Pan, and 20 years for Tri-X to be about where I would expect it to work fine.</p>

<p>Since you are within the 20 years, I suspect it will be just fine. But you never know about the heat or humidity that it might have experienced. You might look at benzotriazole, also known as Kodak Anti-fog #1, which helps reduce fogging on old film, but that probably isn't needed.</p>

<p>Thanks Alan! That makes sense to me. This film is most likely not preserved well so it would be safe to assume it's pretty degraded. Do you happen to know what box speed these film used to be made 20 years ago? I've been google researching to no avail. All I see on the developing chart is 320 or 400. The person who shot it can't remember.</p>

<p>Tri-X was rated at 200 ASA until 1960 when a revision of the method used to calculate film speed bumped it to 400 ASA, no change in film formula. The ISO (International Standards Organization) adopted the ASA method. I believe this film was rated at 400 ISO. </p>

<p>The professional version should be ISO 320. </p>

<p>Can't see Tri X in the photo, so not certain, but Pan Professional was a different film.</p>

<p>I really appreciate everyone's input. <br>

Sandy, here is the other side of the film you can't see the previous image. I also just read in another manual (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf) that the Tri-X Pan Professional has been replaced by the Tri-X 320. I'm guessing it may not make too much more of a difference whatever box speed I choose to develop it as long as I probably do that 80% developing time as Alan suggested. <br>

Glen I do have the HC-110 as well. I hadn't considered using it because my friend wanted a finer grain, but that might be a good idea since this film is probably pretty foggy. <img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55d891fde4b00c779e7e57fd/t/5751cd8eb654f988681fce78/1464978840464/?format=1500w" alt="" width="1224" height="1632" /><br>

Thank you all!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Develop in HC110 dilution B or H ( http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ ) at 65°F for standard time.<br>

Standard time for TriX Pan is 5.5 minutes at 68°F, convert that to 65°F and the time is 6 minutes for dilution B or 12 minutes for dilution H.</p>

<p>I have processed old TriX in HC110 and at 68°F exposure equaled base fog, at 65°F base fog was roughly 35% to 40% of what it was at 68°F.</p>

 

<p>Along with some other things, I got two rolls of TX 135-20 though eBay that came in reusable 35mm cartridges, but with the end just barely out. (I think that makes them about 50 years old.) Assuming one was exposed, I developed it, but found that it wasn't, and the fog was pretty low!</p>

<p>For ordinary room temperature and normal humidity, there is a good chance it will be fine.</p>

<p>For tropical (south US) temperatures and humidity, less likely, unless the air conditioner is always on.</p>

<p>For 120 film, there is at least an inch (2.5cm) on the end that isn't exposed. You could cut some off in the dark and develop that, which would give you a fog level. Or, cut it off in the dark, and put it inside a 35mm camera. (That doesn't have a window in the back.) Then expose one frame and develop. That will give an even better idea. (There is some loss of latent image with time, but small enough that it should be close.) </p>

<p>Oldest I have done is VP122 that was 60 years old. I suspect underexposed, too. They didn't come out so bad, considering all that. </p>

<p>The only one I had that didn't work was Verichrome (not Pan) from 1945. So much fog, you couldn't see anything. I suspect that they didn't make it as well back then, though.</p>

<p>I think you will be surprised!</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you all so much for your sharing your insight in this! I am excited to start developing this film and see what we got! </p>

<p>I like to go the other way with old film. I would use undiluted Ilford Microphen (a phenidone based developer like HC-110) and add 25% to the recommended time. You can always print through any additional fog. Sometimes a dense negative is easier to work with using projection printing than by scanning.</p>

<p>And please let us know how it turns out!</p>

<p>Unexposed 35mm Tri-X from "best before 1990", then shot and developed as though it were fresh, worked just fine over a number rolls I had.<br /> On the other hand, latent images do seem to be pretty faint if left undeveloped for years.<br /> I'd still try normal development, then do whatever is needed to recover in post-processing after you've digitized the negatives.<br /> Or try the old film dodges for printing faint negatives....</p><div></div>

<p>I would assume two stops loss of speed due to age and thus increase development time by about 70%, e.g. if the dev time for new film were, say, 8 minutes, I'd give it 14 minutes.</p>

<p>Elle, sorry to waste your time -- I do have my dumb moments. Should have recognized the colors!</p>

<p>Sandy, no worries at all! I'm so grateful for all the input I'm getting here! I was going to jump in and do this yesterday evening when I found out the center column for my Paterson tank is MIA--so I have a couple more days before the replacement arrives and decide what development time I should do. The owner of the film says he had kept it in a drawer all those years in controlled temperature (and I'm assuming humidity as well).<br>

JDM thanks for the screen shot--that looks great! I'm only planning on digitizing the negatives--don't have equipment for printing at the moment so I will probably try and dodge/burn on software if needed.<br>

Will update you all with pics! Thanks again everyone!</p>

 

<p>I have never known a loss of speed old film. If exposing old film, increasing the exposure allows for keeping more of the image above the fog. </p>

<p>But developing already exposed film, there isn't much to do about the exposure. Loss of latent image might be a reason to increase development, though I haven't notice that in films that I have developed. More likely, once with a low contrast image were underexposed in the first place.</p>

<p>Last week, I went through an airport and asked for non-Xray on a roll of VP116. They were happy to do it, but did ask if the date was really March 1973. Most likely, that is before the TSA agent was born. For this one, the box was already open, the inside mylar back is still sealed.</p>

<p><img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55d891fde4b00c779e7e57fd/t/5763f3d6579fb39c643b36e8/1466168284080/?format=1500w" alt="" width="622" height="454" /></p>

<p>Thank you all very much for your contribution here. I ended up processing with HC-110 Dilution B at 6 minutes. I thought about Dilution H but didn't think it would make too much of a difference. Initially, I was told this was a 20-year-old film, but come to find out he took these on he and his wife's honeymoon 35 years ago in Yellowstone! There was quite a bit of light leak on the one side, but otherwise, I think they turned out pretty well!<br>

<br>

<img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55d891fde4b00c779e7e57fd/t/5763f3c0579fb39c643b3699/1466168267877/?format=1500w" alt="" width="622" height="454" /></p>

<p>Looks good! In the 30 year old Tri-X that I have pictures on, the black areas have little white spots. That is the beginning of fogging, on the bigger, most sensitive, grains. I don't see that here, though. </p>

<p>But I used Diafine on mine. HC-110 is a better choice. </p>

<p>TX Pan Professional ISO 320 is a sheet film only (slightly different formulation from the roll film which used to be the most popular b&w film in the world). The difference in exposure index of less than 1/2 stop probably won't make that much difference; if you test your personal equipment and procedures, you might come up with an E.I. of anywhere from 200 to 600 or so; pushing beyond that will lose shadow detail unless your shutters are really off! <br>

HC-110 (dil. B) gives brilliant results, but plain old D-76 has more compensating action, which might be useful in a film old enough that you don't know where the effective index has wandered to. The offsets are increasing fog—potassium bromide or benzotriazole can reduce that a bit, but at the expense or reducing film speed as well—which effectively makes the film "faster" but veils shadows, and gradual decay of the latent image, which would require longer development to get reasonable density in the highlights, but would make the fog worse. <br>

If the images were likely to be really priceless, then it might be worthwhile to develop by inspection, but Tri-X was a bit too fast for that, even with treatment in pinacryptol green as a desensitizer first; in any case, development by inspection (very dim dark green safelight, for a few seconds only, when the film is roughly half developed) shouldn't be attempted until you've learned to judge what you're squinting at on various negatives where you don't care if they're ruined while you're learning. Enroll the help of an expert if you're going to try it. But after only 20 years, you'll probably get some salvageable pictures from conventional techniques, unless the film was stored in hot, damp conditions for much of the time. </p>

<p>BTW, that's Yosemite! (Assuming you didn't just make a slip of the keyboard.)</p>