Developing old film. Can film fog be deminished during film processing?

I have several hundred sheets of exposed tMax 100 4x5 film that was exposed in

the late 90's. I have recently developed some of them (in D76), and of course

they came out quite fogged. Is there any process or chemistry that can be used

either before developing or after developing that can reduce this?

Hc-110 Dilution B is great for foggy film... Did it seem to lose speed? if so just add a little time.

 

Larry

I might try the following in this order:

 

FX35 formula, or

D76

You could also look into adding bromide to the D76 formula (I think about 1g per litre).

D19 if you can tolerate the increased contrast

 

I would also use a very strong stop bath.

There isn't anything you can do post processing to help. HC-110 might help as a low fog developer as Larry suggests, but I would not expect miracles. You might see a reduction in the fog level over what you'd get with D-76. The difference might be slight and there is a possibility that you will get somewhat less shadow detail. It is a tradeoff that only you can decide. Another possibility is to add a little bit of benzotriazole to the developer to suppress fog. This practice is sometimes successful with old fogged papers. The stuff is used in very small amounts and it isn't something I'd care to do with an irreplaceable piece of film.

 

Before you go off and try an unfamiliar developer, I suggest you try printing the negatives you've already developed. Elevated base fog may not be as much of a problem as you imagine. You can just print through it. You might have to work with the negatives a bit to get it right, but often it can be a successful undertaking. I recently went through a few rolls of very old Tri-X (pre 2002) that came through with lots of base fog. The film had lost a bit of speed and I had to bump up the VC filtration by one grade from my normal 2 to 2 1/2 to get a good looking print, but that was the extent of it.

If you don't believe me about Hc-110 ask Gene... go to found films on Nelson.

 

HC-110 has a Bromide level that may be the key.. adding it to D-76 is an Idea but at the levels to restrain that fog it will reduce the ASA/ISO of already age reduced film...

 

Larry

HC-110 is of course a good solution, but it's probably worth testing some developers. Rather than picking one method, if the film has value, and since there are so many sheets of film, it would be worth experimenting with a sheet or two at a time. My thinking was that if D76 with bromide (BZT too, but I don't know where you get it) might give comparable results to HC-110, but with possibly finer grain. I developed some old Tri-x 4x5 about a year ago with XTOL and bromide and it worked pretty well. I would have used D76 but didn't have it available at the time.

I certainly agree with the recommendaton of HC-110 dilution b. I am shooting some

8x10 Plus-X that I purchased in 1980, and I am getting zero background fog.

 

McCluney Photo

Gene M

 

Thanks for the save....

 

 

Larry

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.

"If you don't believe me about Hc-110 ask Gene... go to found films on Nelson."

 

I do believe you, and I know that HC-110 is pretty good for this sort of thing. But we have no idea of how "fogged" is fogged for the OP. Maybe it is something he can print through. IF it's really bad, HC-110 is not going to make it perfect. The OP might notice the difference or he might not.

 

Argh! Damn this blasted internet crap anyway.

17 minutes in D-76 was the Kodak data sheet time back when the film was new.

 

Old Verichrome (pre-Pan) seems to be a rather unstable emulsion. Verichrome Pan, on the other hand, is exceptionally stable. I shoot rolls from the early 1960's, at EI 25, using stock HC-110 times. Rolls from the late 1960's can be shot at EI 50.

 

I've shot and developed one roll of Verichrome, and the results were also almost black. I didn't notice if it darkened as it dried. I don't remember whether I used D-76, DD-X, or HC-110. Since it didn't come out useful, I don't think I have any record! Perhaps I should try another roll with a short time in HC-110.

 

Most of my hoard of 122 film is Verichrome Pan, but there are some rolls of old Verichrome. I too would love to have a recipe for success with the Verichrome.

<p>I would like to thank everyone that responded to my post. I lost the log on to this site right after I posted to it. But because of a recent email from photo.net I found and remembered the post.<br>

I still haven't developed the film in question. But I will get some hc110 and start experimenting. <br>

Thanks again<br>

Alan</p>

<p>So Gene sent you an Email? He is the King of recovered old film HC-110 is my hero because of him infact it is along with rodinal my every day developer.</p>

 

<p>Film slowly gets fogged thru time and temperature. Super fast films get more fog than slow stuff; it grabs more cosmic rays. Old man temperature slowy slowy fogs film too; film stored at higher temperatures typically has more base fog. A third component is actual chemcials; ie gases that add base fog; ie coal gas; other gases; weird outgassing from junk in your fridge. </p>

<p>Fogging say by cosmic rays means a roll of Royal-x asa 1250 and a roll of Panatomic-X asa 32 both from 1989 will have more base fog; but the Royal-x has about 40 times more exposure; thus more base fog.<br>

***Since the film is *already exposed* already by this exposure to radiation; one cannot magically make it disappear. One might as well do a double exposure and seek some Harry Potter magic to make the first exposure magically vanish.<br>

"Results" with developing old film that is a slow asa/iso tend to be better than developing faster films; ths slow stuff got less background exposure to radiation.</p>

<p>Film slowly gets fogged thru time and temperature. Super fast films get more fog than slow stuff; it grabs more cosmic rays. Old man temperature slowy slowy fogs film too; film stored at higher temperatures typically has more base fog. A third component is actual chemcials; ie gases that add base fog; ie coal gas; other gases; weird outgassing from junk in your fridge. </p>

<p>Fogging say by cosmic rays means a roll of Royal-x asa 1250 and a roll of Panatomic-X asa 32 both from 1989 will have more base fog; but the Royal-x has about 40 times more exposure; thus more base fog.<br>

***Since the film is *already exposed* already by this exposure to radiation; one cannot magically make it disappear. One might as well do a double exposure and seek some Harry Potter magic to make the first exposure magically vanish.<br>

"Results" with developing old film that is a slow asa/iso tend to be better than developing faster films; ths slow stuff got less background exposure to radiation.</p>

<p>Film slowly gets fogged thru time and temperature. Super fast films get more fog than slow stuff; it grabs more cosmic rays. Old man temperature slowy slowy fogs film too; film stored at higher temperatures typically has more base fog. A third component is actual chemcials; ie gases that add base fog; ie coal gas; other gases; weird outgassing from junk in your fridge. </p>

<p>Fogging say by cosmic rays means a roll of Royal-x asa 1250 and a roll of Panatomic-X asa 32 both from 1989 will have more base fog; but the Royal-x has about 40 times more exposure; thus more base fog.<br>

***Since the film is *already exposed* already by this exposure to radiation; one cannot magically make it disappear. One might as well do a double exposure and seek some Harry Potter magic to make the first exposure magically vanish.<br>

"Results" with developing old film that is a slow asa/iso tend to be better than developing faster films; ths slow stuff got less background exposure to radiation.</p>

<p>I recently developed some Panatomic-X that I exposed 40 years ago. (It isn't regular Panatomic-X, I used to mail order it for low prices from Freestyle. There are no markings on the film.) Developed in diafine, it came out just fine. (Maybe a little underexposed, probably my fault. I believe diafine used to claim ISO 250 for it.) </p>

<p>But now I have some old V116 Verichrome (not pan) to try out (as in not previously exposed).</p>