Rescuing Images - 122 film

Learned folks,

I'm attempting to develop a long expired Kodak Verichrome Pan 122 film that was in a Kodak 3A Model C I bought last month and I'm assuming the film was exposed to #5 because that was the number showing in the red window. This meant there was one exposure left that I could shoot, cut it off, use it as a test strip to develop before processing the rest of the film. Well, I developed #6 test strip and got an image (below). I guess the film expired in the late Sixties or early Seventies, I can't be sure but the backing paper is yellow and red, if that means anything.

I figured an exposure for #6 of 25ASA f32 @ 1/2sec would be good but after clicking the shutter I saw that the aperture was set at f64, so I clicked the shutter again and a double image resulted because of slight tripod movement. That didn't matter in the least, what mattered was exposing #6 and determining a developer and dev time for this old film.

To develop #6 I used Ilford ID 11 stock at 8mins with normal agitation and I got a black test strip at first glance, but against the light there was a definite image I was able to scan quite easily.

The question I wish to ask is: Will the rest of the film which was exposed, perhaps in the 70's, develop up much the same as this test strip (#6) I exposed yesterday? Should I adjust anything in the process for the much older exposures?

#6 as test strip exposed 25ASA f64 1sec, Ilford ID 11 fresh stock developer, 8mins, agitation first 30sec, 5-8secs every 30secs after that.

 

The question I wish to ask is: Will the rest of the film which was exposed, perhaps in the 70's, develop up much the same as this test strip (#6) I exposed yesterday? Should I adjust anything in the process for the much older exposures?

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1338678[/ATTACH]

There are folks much better educated in such matters than me to answer that one, but the real question that would be driving me nuts, if it were mine, is where was it taken!? Looks like it may have been from a drive past to me, a bit of motion blur perhaps, and a shadow of the dash bottom left?

Will the rest of the film which was exposed, perhaps in the 70's, develop up much the same as this test strip (#6) I exposed yesterday?

In short, no.

There's a thing called 'latent image regession', which slowly eats away at the exposure as development sites on the halide crystals 'heal up'. The lightest exposed parts of the image - shadow detail - disappear first, as if the film was underexposed, or had a lower speed.

Pushing the development doesn't really help, because it'll make the image more contrasty and increase the fog level. Old film is already prone to having a high fog level, and latent image regression tends to increase contrast. So extending the development gives you a double whammy of increasing the contrast of an already contrasty image, and making the fog worse.

ID-11/D-76 wouldn't be my first choice for developing old and stale film, but if you've already got a useable (but un-regressed) image out of it, why not?

I assume that you have no idea what images might be on the film, or who took them? I.e. the pictures aren't precious to you, and that this is purely out of curiosity? If so, what is there to lose?

You might find some historic gems, or more likely, a blurred snap of some gawking stranger standing in front of an unknown location. But you won't know until you try.

Good luck.

122 film was discontinued in Kodak in 1972, with the last film produced expiring in 1974. At that point in time the only film produced in that format was Verichrome Pan. Interestingly, at least to me, 122 film was originally offered in both 10 and 6 exposure rolls in the 1910s and 20s, but by the 1960s and 70s, was only offered in 6 exposure rolls. None of this is really germane to the question you asked, but I figured I would mention it.

Now, since your film is very likely Verichrome Pan (further backed by the fact that it has red and yellow backing paper) you aren't in terrible shape. Verichrome Pan is highly regarded for its latent image keeping properties. As Joe said above, whatever you do in the case of film exposed a long time ago, you will be facing a latent image that is weaker than it would be when new. Best thing to do is to develop normally, or give just a slight increase in developing time (I normally give an additional 10%). HC-110 is usually recommended as being the best for found films since it does not increase fog as much as other developers, but ID-11 should also be suitable since it is similar to D-76.

Here is a photo from a roll of Verichrome Pan 828 exposed some time in the 1960s which I developed last year:

What is your intended plan for developing the rest of the roll? With a format this large you really have two options, tank or tray/bucket development. The latter requires less setup, but is difficult to time and execute since the film is panchromatic and thus must be handled in complete darkness. I develop more 122 than the average individual, since I have a Kodak 3A Autographic Special, so I modified a Paterson reel and spindle so as to make a 90mm reel and use two Paterson tanks, one with developer and one with fixer to develop the film, transferring the reel between tanks with the lights off.

Documentation I have for Verichrome Pan suggests 7 minutes in stock D-76 or ID-11, so I would suggest sticking with 8 minutes at 68F.

VP has better latent image retention than many films, but yes that is a question.

I had a roll of VP122 not so many years ago that I bought already exposed.

I only had Diafine, and no tank that it would fit, so I tray developed it.

With Diafine, there isn't much to do about development conditions.

It turns out to have been exposed in about 1956, which is just after VP came out.

I know this, as one picture is the partially complete Mackinac bridge!

It is fairly likely underexposed in the first place, but it isn't hard to see what is there.

Most likely your film was not exposed at ASA 25, but closer to the recommended 125.

(Or 80, before ASA changed the scale.) Most people didn't have a light meter to go with

these cameras, so maybe well exposed for sun, but not so well for clouds.

It sounds like your test was overexposed at EI 25, so maybe 8 minutes is about right.

It seems that VP isn't on the list, but other similar films are about 8 minutes:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1829/product/708/

There are folks much better educated in such matters than me to answer that one, but the real question that would be driving me nuts, if it were mine, is where was it taken!? Looks like it may have been from a drive past to me, a bit of motion blur perhaps, and a shadow of the dash bottom left?

Thanks for posting Stuart.

The "motion blur" is actually two exposures, one after the other, because the aperture was set wrong (f64) for the first go, so to expose to my original exposure guesstimate of 1/2sec @ f32 for the sixth shot on this old film, I opened the shutter and counted "one thousand" for a second time while still set at f64. The shutter was set on "B" and I was guessing a half second each time. So the final exposure was roughly 1sec @ f64 25ASA. The film is heavily fogged but at least I got an image which turned out better than I thought it would.

The deep shadow in the bottom left corner is from light leaking in when the seller opened the back to photograph the film for the auction listing. The light totally ruined #5 frame and leaked into #4 and #6. Fortunately the film was still wound tight so most of the damage was limited to just #5.

In short, no.

There's a thing called 'latent image regession', which slowly eats away at the exposure as development sites on the halide crystals 'heal up'. The lightest exposed parts of the image - shadow detail - disappear first, as if the film was underexposed, or had a lower speed.

 

Pushing the development doesn't really help, because it'll make the image more contrasty and increase the fog level. Old film is already prone to having a high fog level, and latent image regression tends to increase contrast. So extending the development gives you a double whammy of increasing the contrast of an already contrasty image, and making the fog worse.

 

ID-11/D-76 wouldn't be my first choice for developing old and stale film, but if you've already got a useable (but un-regressed) image out of it, why not?

 

That's what I wanted to know Joe, thanks

Yes it's out of curiosity plus gaining experience for developing old films. As well as fresh film, I have quite a few films in the freezer that have expired and expiring, so the "know-how" will be handy for the future. I have one other 122 Verichrome Pan expired in 1971 that I bought recently and will be exposing in coming weeks. This one is in pristine condition and it came from a cool climate so it might develop up pretty good. Again, I will cut off #6 and process it as a test, but I don't expect too much trouble with this film since the film will be exposed a day or a week before development.

Now, since your film is very likely Verichrome Pan (further backed by the fact that it has red and yellow backing paper) you aren't in terrible shape. Verichrome Pan is highly regarded for its latent image keeping properties. As Joe said above, whatever you do in the case of film exposed a long time ago, you will be facing a latent image that is weaker than it would be when new. Best thing to do is to develop normally, or give just a slight increase in developing time (I normally give an additional 10%). HC-110 is usually recommended as being the best for found films since it does not increase fog as much as other developers, but ID-11 should also be suitable since it is similar to D-76.

 

Here is a photo from a roll of Verichrome Pan 828 exposed some time in the 1960s which I developed last year:

The film's backing paper has "Verichrome Pan" printed on it so there's no doubt, but I had to wait till it was out of the camera before I noticed, no way of knowing while it was in the camera, I just guessed it might be the old 80ASA (later on, it became 125ASA)

I have no HC-110, but I do have these developers besides the fresh ID 11, they're new concentrates bought two weeks ago

Ilford Ilfotec HC

Ilford Ilfotec DDX

I also have two bottles of Neofin Blue that are a little old but I believe may still work ok

Any of these better for the job on old films ?

The pic of the dogs is very encouraging, thanks for posting it.

What is your intended plan for developing the rest of the roll? With a format this large you really have two options, tank or tray/bucket development. The latter requires less setup, but is difficult to time and execute since the film is panchromatic and thus must be handled in complete darkness. I develop more 122 than the average individual, since I have a Kodak 3A Autographic Special, so I modified a Paterson reel and spindle so as to make a 90mm reel and use two Paterson tanks, one with developer and one with fixer to develop the film, transferring the reel between tanks with the lights off.

 

Documentation I have for Verichrome Pan suggests 7 minutes in stock D-76 or ID-11, so I would suggest sticking with 8 minutes at 68F.

The plan at this stage is to load the rest of the film onto the modified reel, that's three halves from two reels on the common spindle and develop in a 4 reel tank, just as I did with the test piece, which didn't go in the reel easy because of a few problems. Firstly I had no way of knowing the exact width of the 122 film to set the reel at. Secondly the film is paper thin, only 0.1 of a mm (4 thou), and flexed every which way. Then in the change bag, I had to keep adjusting the reel till the film sat in the spiral grooves correctly.

I now have those problems sorted, I measured the width of the film with digital vernier calipers when the test piece was finished and the width I got is 91.64 mm, so I can now lock the reel at that width for future 122s. Another problem was the two halves of the reel flop around a bit allowing the film to slip out of the groove, so I'll need to fix that before doing further films. Interestingly, 122 film which you read everywhere as being 3 1/4" wide is nowhere near it, it's closer to 3 5/8". The 3 1/4" Shanghai sheet film I have here isa true 3 1/4" (3.245"). I mistakingly used that sheet to set the width of the reel for the 122, but the reel was too narrow and required fiddling around in the change bag to get the 122 to fit in properly.

For me, this reel is only temporary. I will make two reels permanently set for Shanghai sheet film, and 122 (the 122 reel will also accommodate trimmed 4x5 sheet I'll be exposing in the 3A camera). I'll use only two halves instead of three and super glue them together with a piece of plastic tubing in between.

Most likely your film was not exposed at ASA 25, but closer to the recommended 125.

(Or 80, before ASA changed the scale.) Most people didn't have a light meter to go with

these cameras, so maybe well exposed for sun, but not so well for clouds.

 

Good point Glen, something else to consider, thanks

And how they managed to compose straining to see anything in those miniature brilliant viewfinders is something I've always wondered about. It's only potluck if I get it right, so I bought a viewing screen kit with holder at great expense for sheet film. That's the next thing I'll be trying.

Looks as if you are pretty much in the same boat as myself in terms of setup.

As to your developers, Ilfotec HC is basically identical to HC-110, and in fact I use the same developing times when developing Ilford film in HC-110. So, that would be my choice of developers, although that may be personal bias on my part, I standardized on HC-110 long ago and it's my preferred developer.

Assuming that the film was properly exposed to begin with, and hasn't been abused in storage, I think either the ID-11 or Ilfotec HC will give you acceptable results. The HC may give slightly lower fog, but it wouldn't be a magnitude of difference.

If you do use the Ilfotec HC, use a dilution that will give as close a development time to 5 minutes as possible. Shorter than this and you risk uneven development, longer development times build shadow detail but also accentuate the affects of fog on the film.

I have used T-Max developer (which Ilford cites as an equivalent to DD-X) on Verichrome Pan, but it was newly exposed film, not found film, and didn't like the results. These are developers which create a good range of midtones, but since the film is compromised by age, you want as much contrast as possible. I wouldn't suggest it in this situation.

 

(snip)

 

I now have those problems sorted, I measured the width of the film with digital vernier calipers when the test piece was finished and the width I got is 91.64 mm, so I can now lock the reel at that width for future 122s. Another problem was the two halves of the reel flop around a bit allowing the film to slip out of the groove, so I'll need to fix that before doing further films. Interestingly, 122 film which you read everywhere as being 3 1/4" wide is nowhere near it, it's closer to 3 5/8". The 3 1/4" Shanghai sheet film I have here isa true 3 1/4" (3.245"). I mistakingly used that sheet to set the width of the reel for the 122, but the reel was too narrow and required fiddling around in the change bag to get the 122 to fit in properly.

(snip)

It seems to me that films are more often specified in terms of image width instead of film width.

Well, 35mm is an exception, but 6cm is common for 120, when the film is closer to 66mm.

So, be careful when reading about films, which one that they mean.

As to your developers, Ilfotec HC is basically identical to HC-110, and in fact I use the same developing times when developing Ilford film in HC-110. So, that would be my choice of developers, although that may be personal bias on my part, I standardized on HC-110 long ago and it's my preferred developer.

 

Assuming that the film was properly exposed to begin with, and hasn't been abused in storage, I think either the ID-11 or Ilfotec HC will give you acceptable results. The HC may give slightly lower fog, but it wouldn't be a magnitude of difference.

 

If you do use the Ilfotec HC, use a dilution that will give as close a development time to 5 minutes as possible. Shorter than this and you risk uneven development, longer development times build shadow detail but also accentuate the affects of fog on the film.

I'll give the Ilfotec HC a go. I'm just trying to decide on a dilution now. Using FP4 Plus in their data sheet as a guide, Ilford recommends at 125ASA ...

70secs development time at 1:11 dilution

4mins at 1:15

8mins at 1:31

and 12mins at 1:47 dilution

All at 20c/68F

I think 1:15 might be good, I can take it to 5mins perhaps. I'd rather over-develop in case any of the images are under-exposed.

Now to get the remainder of the film in the reel, which will take an 1 1/2 hours I'm estimating, it took 3/4 hour to get the test piece in, but now I know the correct width of the film, loading time should be shortened considerably.

Sounds like you have a plan. Please show us your results once you have developed if you feel it's worthwhile.

I love found films, you never know what you're going to get, so if you get something good its a surprise.

It seems to me that films are more often specified in terms of image width instead of film width.

 

Well, 35mm is an exception, but 6cm is common for 120, when the film is closer to 66mm.

So, be careful when reading about films, which one that they mean.

I know what you mean Glen, it's all too generalized, and searching for exact dimensions of image frames and films is a hopeless exercise.

Sounds like you have a plan. Please show us your results once you have developed if you feel it's worthwhile.

 

I love found films, you never know what you're going to get, so if you get something good its a surprise.

No worries Hunter, I'll post the results, just the film strip so as not to break the rules. I just worked on the reel to make it better and stay locked at the film size. I used the tail end of small size cable ties and jammed them under the two main halves to stop them flopping around, cutting the ties off down near the center spindle. With a bit of luck, I'll get the film developed to-night, if not, then to-morrow.

Thanks for posting Stuart.

 

The "motion blur" is actually two exposures, one after the other, because the aperture was set wrong (f64) for the first go, so to expose to my original exposure guesstimate of 1/2sec @ f32 for the sixth shot on this old film, I opened the shutter and counted "one thousand" for a second time while still set at f64. The shutter was set on "B" and I was guessing a half second each time. So the final exposure was roughly 1sec @ f64 25ASA. The film is heavily fogged but at least I got an image which turned out better than I thought it would.

 

The deep shadow in the bottom left corner is from light leaking in when the seller opened the back to photograph the film for the auction listing. The light totally ruined #5 frame and leaked into #4 and #6. Fortunately the film was still wound tight so most of the damage was limited to just #5.

My mistake, I should have red the post more carefully. I thought this was one of your vintage images, but of course, you've not processed those yet. Duh!

My mistake, I should have red the post more carefully. I thought this was one of your vintage images, but of course, you've not processed those yet. Duh!

Not a problem Stuart.

I now have the film loaded in the reel, it took 3/4 hour, kept getting stuck but I finally got there. Only leaves preparing the developer and doing the process - here goes!

HC-110 still has VP on its data sheet. Not all the other discontinued films, though:

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf

It matters little now Glen for this one, there's nothing to see on the rest of the film I'm afraid.

This is the only bit that had anything like an image, heaven knows what it's supposed to be. It appears someone may have been fooling around with the camera and wasted a good film in the day. There was no frame separation lines that I could see. Just how "5" ended up exactly in the red window I can't guess. Scanning the other parts of the film produced only black scans.

So, better luck next time.

I've no doubt that if the film had had some decent exposures on it, they would have developed and scanned ok.