Getting ready to process some film after long hiatus

I'm going to process some Tri-X (that has been in one of my cameras for ... well... years). The D-76 (also mixed years old) was amber so I threw it out. I had D76 powder (also old as powder) and mixed that carefully and it seems good. I also threw out the indicator stop bath diluted and did new from the concentrated liquid. That's old too (there's a pattern here) but it's the right color so I'm guessing I'm OK. The Fix is Kodak Rapid Fix mixed a long time ago and way past it's sell by date. It looks and smells about what I'd expect and the film I'm processing isn't critical so I'm going to treat it like normal fix and let it go for 10 minutes. I also filtered it through a towel just in case but didn't see any particulates. I'm ordering more fixer, but probably Kodak standard fixer in powder form for longer shelf life in powder form since I don't do this too often. I have mixed hypo clear and photo flow but I'm guessing those are probably OK.

 

The D76 will have to cool (till tomorrow probably so anyone see any flaws in my perfect plan?

 

Note that the film instructions say 68 degrees for 8 minutes with no dilution. However, I am remembering I used to do this 1:1 with water (for easier temperature control) for 10 minutes I think. Am I misremembering this?

 

Anyway, wouldn't mind comments before I try to do the development. Thanks.

This might help:

 

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf

I looked online for D-76 and saw that amber was BAD! :) I also know rapid fix has a shelf life. I’m pushing my luck a little here, mostly with the fixer. I’m just looking for some second opinions.

 

Truth is I tend to use old chemicals because I process so seldom.

Do a quick test on the developer before you commit the film to it.

 

If your film is 35mm, this is easy.

Snip a short piece off the leader and drop it into about an egg-cupful of the developer at 68 F in normal room lighting. The film should go black and almost totally opaque in the given development time.

 

The fixer, likewise, should take the 'milky' appearance from the surface of the film in under 5 minutes.

 

I suspect years-old made up fixer may be near useless, but you can always re-fix the film in fresh fixer if it turns out to be bad. OTOH, you can't redevelop a thin negative and make it more useable.

Well, looks like I'm kind of sunk but in an interesting and comical way. The film was in a camera on my shelf with my VC lightmeter clipped on top so I assumed Tri X. But when I rewound and opened, it indicated tech pan (from my bulk loader). But it said 12 exposure and it was definitely a 36 exposure reel. so given that it was exposed at 400, I doubt there's any way I could develop it to get any kind of image exposed at 400 for a 32 ASA/ISO film! :confused:

 

I'll probably have to try shooting some actual Tri X (or Tech Pan with the right ISO) if I want to do more development. ;)I think it's a dead loss, but I wonder if I should try my D76 for maybe 14 minutes. I have no idea what I'd get, but I don't want to waste my limited supply of technidol on this. The data sheet of course recommends Technidol for pictorial purposes, but does have a time of 6-12 minutes in D76 for a contrast index of .8 to .95 contrast at ISO 64-125. Even that is likely to underdevelop it given its exposure though which is why I'm thinking maybe 14 minutes to get SOME kind of image?

 

I know you're probably thinking of sacrificing some part of the film to test, but I can't even guarantee that the part of the film shot before I put it on my shelf was at the speed shown on the light meter. It's possible the front part of the film IS at 32. Oh well, sad but probably not solveable. Might be interesting as a test to see if the fixer actually works, even if the film comes out blank or weird.

I'm now thinking that if I have any chance with D76 to pull up anything, I'm thinking of trying D76 full strength for 30 minutes. Basically it's so underexposed that the chances are that there is nothing at all on the film. And if I do get an image it's going to be probably unusably high contrast anyway. So I don't know what I will get but it could be anything from clear to black. However, if it totally fails, I haven't lost anything important, and I'll fix the film and see if it is clear or milky afterward. That way I at least test the fixer (I have ordered more kodak powdered standard fixer just in case). In the event that a miracle occurs and I actually get something on the negative, well, it should be interesting. Nothing like a usable image probably, but interesting. I could cut it in half and try the first half that way and then adjust. If it was black I could half the development. If it's clear, then I'm kind of out of luck anyway. What do you think?

 

This reminds me of the time I developed HIE as Tri-X. I ended up with negatives I could kinda sorta scan, but most were unusably light. Well, I guess I should have wound the film out of the camera, but I figure I'm learning my lessons cheaply. Shame to have wasted some Tech Pan though.

You know . . . Back in the 70's, I used to buy old box cameras (Brownies and others) at yard sales and flea markets, and often found film in them. Often the film was 30 years old back then. I pretty much ran D76 for 10 minutes if I didn't know what the film was or have a time for it in my Darkroom Data Guide. Pretty much every roll of film that I processed contained printable images.

 

Why are you risking whatever is on the film with old fixer? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, looks like I'm kind of sunk but in an interesting and comical way. The film was in a camera on my shelf with my VC lightmeter clipped on top so I assumed Tri X. But when I rewound and opened, it indicated tech pan (from my bulk loader). But it said 12 exposure and it was definitely a 36 exposure reel. so given that it was exposed at 400, I doubt there's any way I could develop it to get any kind of image exposed at 400 for a 32 ASA/ISO film! :confused:

 

 

TP is much different from Tri-X. It has a much thinner polyester base, instead of the more usual triacetate base.

 

It should not be hard to figure out which one it is, if you have a sample of each, or even of only one.

For one, polyester is supposed to be stronger, and harder to tear.

 

That is, it is possible (you probably know better than we do) that you mislabeled, or used a previously labeled, cassette.

 

For pictorial use, TP has a low ISO, but for high contrast use it is fairly high, I believe 200.

Pretty much, the ISO 32 uses the top of the curve only.

 

Now, if you don't want those high contrast images, then you don't have to develop them, but I suspect that 400 is close enough.

 

http://wwwru.kodak.com/RU/ru/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf

 

is the data sheet for TP. As you can see, HC-110(B) at ISO up to 250, or Dektol at ISO 200.

You could increase the times a little bit for extra measure.

 

On the other hand, Tri-X in HC-110(B) for 12 minutes will be way overdeveloped.

 

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

 

Do figure out which film you have, but I suspect you will get usable images from the ISO 250 times.

 

As for rapid fixer, if you can test the pH, and it is within range, it should be fine.

Otherwise, usually I trust stock, but not diluted. Usually mine coats the inside of the bottle with

silver when it dies, so it is hard to miss.

 

(snip)

 

I suspect years-old made up fixer may be near useless, but you can always re-fix the film in fresh fixer if it turns out to be bad. OTOH, you can't redevelop a thin negative and make it more useable.

 

It seems to be a lost art, from even before the years that I started, which is about 50 years ago.

 

There are intensifiers, some of which convert the silver back to halide, and then do some type of redevelopment on it.

 

On the other hand, the better ones contain mercury salts, which I would rather not work with.

 

Much better to do it right in the first place, even if it means long development and maximum push.

First to answer Ed. I don't know what is on the first 15 exposures, but it's likely to be just me wandering around. There's nothing important on the roll or I would have developed it long ago. I almost never take part of a roll and stop. The last 20 exposures were just me walking around in the botanical garden after I spent 3 hours with 2 different digital cameras, so there wasn't anything I shot I don't have a similar shot for already. I could toss this in the trash and not feel too bad about it.

 

In a sense, you could think about this as a fixer test! Though even that isn't too meaningful since I have more fixer coming.

 

To Glen, I got a roll of Tech Pan and Tri-X and compared the color of the leader to the one I have and it seems to more closely resemble Tech Pan (it's darker). On the other hand, both my camera and the meter both say 400. If I had to guess, I grabbed the wrong roll, thinking it's Tri-X and didn't take anything important and meant to finish the roll and didn't. Or I thought it was 12 and stopped when I didn't run out of film by about exposure 18'ish. Maybe I thought I had taken the roll and just didn't develop it. But maybe I'm wrong about that because I'm careful with my exposure numbers on my rolls and this one said 12 exposures (and it was 36).

 

To be truthful, I don't frankly know what I have, but I know it's probably not important enough to worry about too much. But I do have D76 freshly mixed and feel like it might be worth an experiment. Experimenting with Technidol doesn't make any sense because I don't think it's energetic enough to pull up an image and I have no other developers (like Rodinal or XTol or HC-110 anything like that). Also technidol is not unobtainable so I want to save it for the actual real rolls I have left.

 

I found this Tech Pan at 400 ISO

 

Which seems to indicate 35 minutes with Rodinol diluted a lot. But I don't have Rodinol and I don't typically use it so it doesn't make much sense to buy it.

 

I don't have a ph tester kit of any kind and wouldn't know how to test the fixer other than in use.

 

There are no D76 times at greater than EI 125 and that is 12 minutes. So if I try that it makes no sense to do less than 12 minutes and I'm not sure what the upper boundary is. I was kind of double it on the theory that it would be underexposed anyway. Truth is at this point, it's really just an interesting experiment. Before I do it, I wouldn't mind learning something but I don't want to spend too much more money to buy a developer I'm never going to use after the experiment.

It seems to be a lost art, from even before the years that I started, which is about 50 years ago.

 

There are intensifiers, some of which convert the silver back to halide, and then do some type of redevelopment on it.

 

On the other hand, the better ones contain mercury salts, which I would rather not work with.

 

Much better to do it right in the first place, even if it means long development and maximum push.

 

That brings up an interesting point. I used to take my used fixer and take it down to Wolf Camera in Atlanta for disposal. Now I have a couple bottles in the garage of used fixer (which is the only real toxic chemical for the sewer I think of the standard photo chemicals for B&W) and no place to bring it. I have no idea how to safely get rid of it. My only thought there is a plastic pale with steel wool and pouring it through the steel wool and throwing everything away afterward. I'm not a chemist but the idea would be to leech the silver out of the used fixer, making the liquid safe to dispose of. Of course maybe you have to dry out the steel wool, some of which is now silver in some other way. Darned if I know. It was much easier in the old days.

I can't tell you what is still available but you can recover and sequester the silver from your used fixer and the rest can go down the drain. The truth is that a city sewer system can handle the silver from a non-commercial home darkroom with a problem. Just send plenty of fresh clean water down with it. I wouldn't want to wash it into a septic system.

 

Today, I'm sure you find plans for a silver recovery system online somewhere. Pouring it through steel wool will do nothing.

When I researched this before, the steel wool WAS essentially the only system I could find, that the silver would replace part of the steel wool and leave the rest able to be put down the drain. I even found a system like that no longer sold. If you can find an actual system I can buy for small scale home use, I'm up for it. I'm not a good handy person, I can't really put together anything complicated. And I live in a condo so I want to make sure I do no damage because it would not be only me that is affected. Hence the garage with gallon jugs of spent fixer.

The only one you would worry about damage to pipes is the bleach-fix for color film and prints.

It purpose is to dissolve silver, and it can also dissolve many other metals.

 

I have brought used blix to our nearby household hazardous waste site, and I believe

that they will take all photographic chemicals.

 

Much of sewage processing involves aerobic bacteria to eat up stuff, and so they pump air into the system.

Chemicals that use up oxygen, like photographic developers, make that harder.

 

But mostly that is larger scale, though a small minilab dumping its tanks could be significant.

Already oxidized (dark brown) developer isn't so bad, though.

That is good to know too. I recently saw a video about C41 home processing and I'm glad to know about the risks.

 

Anyway, what's the verdict on my problem roll? Assuming I use D76, should I use 30 minutes exposed at ISO 400? Or should I cut the roll in half and do the first half in 18 minutes say, and then see if it's super light or super dark? It might be interesting to see if I do get any kind of image.

 

Oh I tested the fixer and the developer with a leader test. The developer smells right and causes the snip to go black very fast. Another piece put in the fixer clears quickly, within a few minutes and is not cloudy. I'll still mix the new fixer when it comes, but I think that is OK.

 

Again I appreciate your posts to help me out here. Someday I may do this again, and if I do, maybe my experiment this time will tell me what I need to know to get an image. Hopefully I won't be that dumb though.

Just my opinion, but I reckon if the film has sat in a camera for many years without any thought being given to it, then the pictures can't have been that important.

 

I'd just develop whatever film it actually is in fresh developer for whatever recommended time + about 10%, and see what comes out.

 

That latent image isn't getting any stronger while you dither about deciding what to do!

Ok, it's all over but the whining. So what did I learn? Well, I cut the film in half and developed the front part first in D76 for 18 minutes. It was indeed Tech Pan not Tri-X. That lead part was exposed at a lower ISO and it came out not great but maybe some are printable (but high contrast of course). The later stuff exposed at 400 could hardly be noticed (though the ones that were were probably accidentally exposed at a slightly lower ISO by my not setting the controls right according to the light meter maybe? Or maybe the averaging meter didn't function accurately in some cases. I feel like had I exposed this at 125 or even 200, I could have gotten some images here.

 

Second half D76 at 32 minutes but of course you can't develop what isn't there so it really wasn't much better. Might have 1 or 2 I will be able to scan. In many cases there just wasn't enough light to record an image.

 

I also actually went out and exposed some real TRI-X in a Contax IIA and developed that normally and it came out fine.

 

Fixer used 3 times and worked all three times. It was rapid fix but I let it sit in there for 10 minutes just in case. Now added to the supply of fixer I need to get rid of. All the chemistry worked.

 

No problems technically except that one of my plastic reels didn't really want to roll film anymore (crazed maybe?). Other two worked fine. One problem I had (and this is common with reusable cartridges) is that the tape holding it to the cartridge failed so it came out of the cartridge. I had to open the IIA in a changing bag to get the film out. Luckily I've done it before with that and other cameras a bunch of times. Need to be a little more careful.

 

Thanks for the help. Didn't turn out great, but Tech Pan really want's it's 32 ISO. Go figure. Maybe in retrospect I should have used Technidol but I have so little left that I think it's better used for the remaining rolls I have.

From the data sheet, TP goes to about EI 125 in D76 (for high contrast).

 

Yes you can expose TP at EI 32, and develop it appropriately for lower contrast, but it seems better to start with a film designed for lower contrast.

 

Though TP in HC-110 (F) isn't so far from Technidol, and is much easier to find.

 

HC-110 is the favorite developer for older film, either exposed a long time ago, or recently exposed old film.

 

As for Tri-X sitting in the camera, I had a roll in a Canon VI that I had borrowed from my dad,

which sat in the camera for 30 years. It was from my last days in the college dorm.

My dad found it in his drawer years later, and sent me the roll.

(I started with a 50 foot roll, finished and developed the rest before the last days.)

 

After developing them in Diafine (the only developer that I had), I scanned them and posted

them for my friends to find:

 

Page House a long time ago | Facebook

 

(the link should work even if you don't have an FB account.)

 

At the time, it would have been in the camera for more than half its life.

(My dad bought it to take my baby pictures.)

Ok, these are my best salvaged images. I had to do a lot of removal of dust and speckles (I think a lot caused by the film just losing detail) and I also took advantage of the high contrast as well as I could. It was an interesting experiment. I'm not sure I ever want to do this again! :confused:

 

 

 

 

As you stated, this was a salvage job - you're in for a nickle - probably worth your while to be in for a dime with a fresh freshly shot roll exposed at the proper ISO. I've been on the verge of mixing chemicals for a couple of years - still sending off the occasional couple of rolls for processing. There really is something about film that is beyond nostalgia.

I like these quite a bit . . . Not a bad success rate for a single roll of film.

 

I'm not sure why you wouldn't do this with another old roll. The biggest trouble that you had was worrying about it . . .

Truth is I tend to use old chemicals because I process so seldom.

 

Ain't it the truth!

Well I AM kind of a worrier.

 

Tech pan with proper processing is a film with amazing detail (even though that probably wasn’t Kodak’s intention, they mainly used it as a high contrast copy film I think). To say these negatives were thin would be an understatement! It’s kind of a pain to expose it with an ISO of 32’ish, I need to use a tripod and I can’t easily carry one, but exposing it properly is a much better idea if you see what I mean.

But if I really want an extra fine grain, normal contrast, ISO 32 film, I choose Panatomic-X.

 

I might try TP in HC-110 (F), though, to see how it does at lower gamma.

 

(I think old FX is easier to find than TP.)